(04-28-2021 05:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 07:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better - CORRECTION 2.99
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower - CORRECTION 9.45
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower - CORRECTION 35.2
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"

Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.

Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98
SBC 71.97
AAC is 9.45 behind ACC and 2.99 ahead of SBC.
Reconstructing what I did two weeks ago, I was going from a post from late January. An earlier post in that thread ("AAC Still #1 non-contract-bowl conference?") cited Massey Composite with 55 rankings compiled - so just that single additional ranking compiled changed the numbers by 0.13 and 0.05 average ranking spots.

That offers NO explanation for messing up 2014!
Looks like I inserted the ACC MC conference average ranking there, not the difference between that and the AAC...so thanks!
ACC 48.73
mwc 76.73
CUSA 82.28
AAC 83.93
You are spot on: 35.2 behind the #5 and 7.2 behind #6.
I'll be correcting the original post in this thread, plus the January post. And here's an updated graph - still looks pretty similar.

The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

I. The Trendlines:

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved by about 4 rankings "notches" (e.g., a "5 ranks" advantage in 2015 and a "9 ranks" advantage in 2020), relative to the average G4 rankings.

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved much more markedly - -by about 17 rankings notches (e.g., a "~23 ranks" gap in 2015, dropping down to a "~6 ranks" gap in 2020), relative to the average P5 rankings.

--Taken together, the two trendlines suggest that the AAC's rankings may have improved somewhat more relative to the P5 rankings (by narrowing the gap with the P5 teams) than they have relative to the average G4 rankings.

II. The Year-by-Year Data in the Graph:

--A. Year-by-year comparisons with the P5 rankings:

----There appears to be some evidence of a step-wise function:

----Phase 1 (2014): P5 rankings were ~35 ranks ahead of AAC rankings.
----Phase 2 (2015-2018): P5 rankings were only ~15-25 ranks ahead.
----Phase 3 (2019-2020): P5 rankings were only ~5 ranks ahead.

--B. Year-by-year comparisons with the G4 rankings:

----The AAC rankings have oscillated within a slightly narrower range (with an upward trend) relative to the rankings of the G4 rankings.


III. Given how atypical (and "outlier-like") the 2014 AAC rankings were,

--is it possible that the association that we're examining might be "curvilinear," rather than "linear?"

There appears to be some hint of curvilinearity in the 2014-2020 data.

--what would the trendlines be if the graph were to zoom in on the years 2015-2020,

AAC-P5 trendline: The improvement vis a vis P5 rankings remains evident between 2015 and 2020, but it would be less marked in magnitude (closer to a "10 rankings" reduction in the AAC-P5 rankings gap than to a "17-rankings" reduction in the size of the rankings gap between 2014 and 2020).

--Nevertheless, this "10 rankings" reduction in the rankings gap would still be considered very significant.

AAC-G4 trendline: Compared to the 2014-2020 trendline, the 2015-2020 AAC-G4 trendline would flatten out considerably with an average gap of ~ "8 rankings" in favor of the AAC.

--The AAC hasn't moved farther ahead of the G4 from the standpoint of their average rankings since 2015.

.

With reference to the original topic of this thread, the data in the graph seem to suggest that - - the conference may have made somewhat more progress in improving its rankings relative to the P5 conferences than it has made in putting more distance between itself and the G4 conferences.

It would be interesting to know what other readers think about this.

.