(11-14-2022 11:21 PM)TealNation Wrote:  You've just proved my entire point. What correlation does that have with the AAC being higher on the totem poll? To me it just looks like the AAC teams ahead of Coastal had an overall better resume than Coastal up to this point. I don't see much biasness if any based on those numbers.

The AAC had some ranked teams in the same way the SBC has the same potential to have as well. The league was down this season, but I don't expect Marshall, App, JMU (ineligible) to hover in those ranges routinely. I personally don't see any of the preferential treatment that the OP is leading to.

You do know that this is NOT a down season for the Sun Belt? Don't you?

You fell victim to one of the classic FunBelter blunders. No, nothing to do with land war in Asia, nor with Sicilians and death.
The first classic FunBelter blunder is to overlook the eight legacy AAC teams and equate the 2023 AAC14 to the six new additions only.
The second classic FunBelter blunder -- when presented with the facts that the AAC's CUSA additions hold the last five football championships, and the AAC6 have better average performance than the SBC3 -- is to then equate the entire 2023 AAC14 to Charlotte.

But my favorite FunBelter blunder is to look at 2020 and call that statistical outlier year a trajectory.

In the CFP era Sun Belt Massey Composite, finals 2014-'21 and thru 12 Nov 2022 for 2022
2014 98.72
2015 93.71
2016 87.04
2017 98.53
2018 84.10
2019 82.72
2020 72.01
2021 83.44
2014-2021 Average: 87.53
2022 79.49

If anything, this is a GOOD year for the Sun Belt -- a couple points better than last year, and overall second best to that statistical outlier.
It's fun to look at top-4, middle-4, and bottom-4 of conferences when discussing top-to-bottom strength, and actually the Belt is better than last year because the bottom of the conference isn't its usual absolute ass, and the middle is...not good, but solid or consistent with the middle four clumped #75-#86, the middle six going #66-#93.

One can also say that the Sun Belt has great improvement from starting the CFP era at the bottom of the totem pole. That is true. And this year is right on that trendline, not a bad year at all.
Here's a discussion a year and a half ago, including attachment which graphs out the Massey Composites for each conference 2013-2020 -- it shows what a dramatic outlier 2020 was for the Belt.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-920605-post-17...id17403230
I need to update that for '21 and even premature '22...but this year's Sun Belt performance is spot on that trendline.

Anyway...
Back to the main point.
You seem to be conceding that the AAC teams (plural, not just one) are better ranked by the CFP, because they have better resumes, because they have better wins (and even better losses).
They have better wins and resumes because the AAC schedules they are playing are better top to bottom than a Sun Belt schedule. That will still be true for the AAC14 in 2023 -- UCF's resume is stronger because it includes wins over Tulane and SMU and Memphis, and even the loss to ECU...all better than the top of Coastal's Sun Belt schedule, and all sticking around next year. Whichever of Tulane, SMU, Memphis, or ECU is on top next year, they'll have all those same Ws, and maybe a UTSA (currently #40) or UAB (currently #77, right next to Coastal's second best SunBelt/overall win).

AAC teams are higher ranked by the Committee because the Committee is accustomed to counting AAC wins as quality wins, and AAC resumes as better, and not just because the three quitters have been around. If that isn't about being higher on the totem pole, I don't know what is.