(04-29-2021 05:46 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 04:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  much closer to the Gs than the Ps though, and "that is true."

That's where you're wrong.

The graphs make it clear that that is not true - - it is false.

You're the only person on these message boards who has been repeating that dogma for years after people stopped listening.

You haven't convinced anyone.

"and that is true." :woohoo

Actually, I am very much right about it, and your use of Emojis cannot substitute for facts.

As I explained, the AAC has on average been much closer to the nearest G5 during the CFP era than the nearest P5.

You tried to use a "mid-point" metric to claim otherwise, but I explained above how that is problematic. Here it is again for you:

"I would say "tween" is best defined as the closest P5 and G5, not the mid-point. Because using midpoint, you could have a crazy result such as:

(Lower number is better, CFP seven year averages):

SEC .... 30
B12 .... 32
B1G .... 33
PAC .... 55
ACC .... 60

Midpoint = 42

AAC .... 60

Rest of G4 .... all 75, so midpoint =75

In that case, the midpoint would tell us the AAC is closer to the G group (15 points from G4 midpoint) then the P5 group (18 points away) even though the AAC was in fact as good as the worst P5. That would not make any sense, IMO. The AAC would clearly be a "P" group league.

So best to go with "nearest", and the AAC average during the CFP era is clearly closer to the nearest P5 then the nearest other-G."

So, that's where things stand, no matter how much you huff and puff, LOL.