=>2005 OOC MAC FB: 12-23
DI-A: 8-23
BCS: 2-19 (OU over Pitt, Miami over sUCks)
Non-BCS: 6-4 (WMU, Toledo, BUGS over Temple, CMU over Army, EMU over LALA, Akron over MTSU)
DI-AA: 4-0

That is 8 DI-A wins so far this season.

2004: MAC won 3 regular season DI-A games--all 3 vs. the BCS (BUGS and Toledo beat last place Temple of the Big East, Ohio U. beat last place UK of the SEC). The MAC failed to win a regular season game over a non-BCS DI-A school. MAC went 2-3 in bowl games with wins over two non-BCS schools (BUGS over Memphis, NIU over Troy).

This is 5 DI-A wins in 2004.

2005: MAC won 11 regular season DI-A games-8 vs. the BCS and 3 vs. non-BCS. MAC went 2-0 in bowl games for a total of 13 DI-A wins. In 2005, each team played 4 OOC games.

MAC is just 3 wins shy of the 11 regular season victories in the 2005 season everyone hyped up. Miami plays Temple in the last scheduled OOC game before the bowls. Difference is in 2005, the MAC had some high profile wins.

In any case, MAC has improved from 3 regular season DI-A wins last year to 8 this year with a likely 9th with a Miami win at Temple Saturday. And they have done it without ***gasp*** the Herdiban. If you throw out Temple from the past two seasons, then it is 1 win in 2004 and 5 in 2005.

I hate to say that the MAC is the second-worst conference in D1A behind the Sunbelt. Sadly we use to be much better than them and now it is getting closer.

The addition of a crap Temple team won't help any.

mollautt Wrote:=>2005 OOC MAC FB: 12-23
DI-A: 8-23
BCS: 2-19 (OU over Pitt, Miami over sUCks)
Non-BCS: 6-4 (WMU, Toledo, BUGS over Temple, CMU over Army, EMU over LALA, Akron over MTSU)
DI-AA: 4-0

That is 8 DI-A wins so far this season.

2004: MAC won 3 regular season DI-A games--all 3 vs. the BCS (BUGS and Toledo beat last place Temple of the Big East, Ohio U. beat last place UK of the SEC). The MAC failed to win a regular season game over a non-BCS DI-A school. MAC went 2-3 in bowl games with wins over two non-BCS schools (BUGS over Memphis, NIU over Troy).

This is 5 DI-A wins in 2004.

2005: MAC won 11 regular season DI-A games-8 vs. the BCS and 3 vs. non-BCS. MAC went 2-0 in bowl games for a total of 13 DI-A wins. In 2005, each team played 4 OOC games.

MAC is just 3 wins shy of the 11 regular season victories in the 2005 season everyone hyped up. Miami plays Temple in the last scheduled OOC game before the bowls. Difference is in 2005, the MAC had some high profile wins.

In any case, MAC has improved from 3 regular season DI-A wins last year to 8 this year with a likely 9th with a Miami win at Temple Saturday. And they have done it without ***gasp*** the Herdiban. If you throw out Temple from the past two seasons, then it is 1 win in 2004 and 5 in 2005.

You take out the Temple wins and it shows really nothing. Next year this conference needs some major OOC wins or the respect for the MAC will continually decline.

I for one can tell you about NIU

2003: veteran/very good Offense & Defense at full strength
2004: veteran/good Offense , veteran/ok defense at full strength
2005: veteran/good offense , young/ok defense full strenght

2003 was our peak year as was evidenced by the BCS conf. wins. Injuries plagued us later that year though. hopefully our young defense blossums into a good veteran defense as the year(s) progress. perhaps next year our offense will get a little more young at WR.

The MAC has had some OOC games slip by this year, but overall we were more competitive than last year - what is sad is that we had only two OOC home games this year (IU at CMU & Pitt @ Ohio) which certainly effects your record

here is how I rate the leagues

1 SEC
2 Big Ten
3 ACC
4 PAC 10
5 Big 12
6 Mt West
7 Big East
8 MAC
9 WAC
10 CrapUSA
11 Sun Belt

Home field is everything in football. Ohio showed what a home game can do for the MAC. I think Michigan and NW would have trouble if those games were in Dekalb against NIU. Unless a MAC team is strong on defense, you won't see a road upset very often.

Western has FSU, Iowa and Virginia if they win an OOC game it will be big.

Interesting stats, Moll.

One thing which is equally important is the growing parity this year WITHIN the conference.

We don't have a top 25 or maybe even top 40 team but some of our bad teams (e.g., CMU, EMU, etc.) are getting better.

Need to check the Sagarins but throw out Temple. Temple should count as an INDEPENDENT this year and next - not as a MAC member in their rankings.

Vandelay Wrote:The MAC has had some OOC games slip by this year, but overall we were more competitive than last year - what is sad is that we had only two OOC home games this year (IU at CMU & Pitt @ Ohio) which certainly effects your record

here is how I rate the leagues

1 SEC
2 Big Ten
3 ACC
4 PAC 10
5 Big 12
6 Mt West
7 Big East
8 MAC
9 WAC
10 CrapUSA
11 Sun Belt

One has to question your rationale putting C-USA down that far. Are you biased? Probably, but so am I.

So I'll leave opinions out of this and simply add this question:

If C-USA is worse than the MAC...especially to the extent that you seem to think - and we continously get better tv deals and more bowl games...why is that?

Wasn't the only IA team above .500 to not go bowling last year a MAC team?
Wasn't one of the teams to get "snubbed" by the NCAA basketball selection committee a MAC team?

No wonder you guys are jealous.

It's kind of like how C-USA fans are jealous of the Big East. We're as good but not getting equal rewards.

st932253 Wrote:

Vandelay Wrote:The MAC has had some OOC games slip by this year, but overall we were more competitive than last year - what is sad is that we had only two OOC home games this year (IU at CMU & Pitt @ Ohio) which certainly effects your record

here is how I rate the leagues

1 SEC
2 Big Ten
3 ACC
4 PAC 10
5 Big 12
6 Mt West
7 Big East
8 MAC
9 WAC
10 CrapUSA
11 Sun Belt

One has to question your rationale putting C-USA down that far. Are you biased? Probably, but so am I.

So I'll leave opinions out of this and simply add this question:

If C-USA is worse than the MAC...especially to the extent that you seem to think - and we continously get better tv deals and more bowl games...why is that?

Wasn't the only IA team above .500 to not go bowling last year a MAC team?
Wasn't one of the teams to get "snubbed" by the NCAA basketball selection committee a MAC team?

No wonder you guys are jealous.

It's kind of like how C-USA fans are jealous of the Big East. We're as good but not getting equal rewards.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Mich and especially NW had trouble with NIU on their home fields!

best way to determine how strong the MAC is to use the Sagarin conference ratings over several years.

I looked at the central mean value for '05, '04, '03 and '02:

# of teams ranked < 100 3rd column
'05 62.84 7
'04 55.69 4
'03 63.60 7
'02 63.80 8

Our rating would probably be 63+ if they had not included Temple (and really Temple is an INDEPENDENT this year and next).

My best analysis is:

"The MAC isn't as strong at the top as in previous years but the middle seems somewhat stronger then in the past. This may not help the MAC much in bowl season but is now helping keeping races alive with more teams 'in the hunt'. Who would have thought that UT/CMU on Oct 29 would be a huge game or that anyone would be intersted in WMU/EMU in November?

I hope one year, soon, that our races will be as close as the Big Ten race this year where 8 of the 11 teams are in the hunt for bowl bids and one team, PSU, is a total surprise and highly ranked."

P.S. when was the last time EMU and CMU fans were excited about football after the first frost hit?

I have a lot of respect for Nick but his rankings appear biased. According to Sagarin, the MAC is ranked next to the last among 1a conferences with an overall score of 62.84. Conference USA which is admittedly having a pathetic year is ranked one place higher. More importantly, cusa's score was 67.54. Therefore, the actual difference between CUSA and the BE is about the same as the numeric difference between the MAC and CUSA.

It seems to me that, if attendance is at all important, the MAC only has two marquee teams viable in the long run (Toledo and Northern Illinois). The Flagship also has the potential of generating decent crowds if Solich can get things rolling. One has to wonder how Miami and Bowling Green will fare from this point forward given the absolutely abysmal crowds they have generated these past two years.

I might note if Temple is factored out, our Sagarin is probably 64+.

64 would be an eye lash better then our best in the years I check ('02-'04).

So we are NOT weaker, but our strength is better distributed through the middle teams but we still have the bottom teams (e.g., UB).

Actually, the improved middle of the MAC is mostly CMU, EMU and WMU.

The competitiveness of the MI schools is to me perhaps the biggest story to date of this season.

EMU is very young and just might compete for the West next year. I'm sure CMU and WMU feel the same way about their programs.

you have ignored that your mac wins in the last two years vs this year were accomplished with two addional teams (that means 6 additonal ooc games last year, 8 additional ooc games two years ago).

sagarin's are the biggest piece of garbage out there - i'm shocked anyone prints that garbage anymore

ncusa has 2 bcs wins:
ecu over a pathetic duke squad
houston over a very weak miss state team

the mac has 2 bcs wins:
ohio over a very bad pitt team
miami-ohio over a weak cincinnati team

result: no difference really - but a slightly better "group" of wins for the mac since at least cincinnati and pitt have bcs wins (although no great ones). miss state has beaten just murray state (i-aa) and tulane (who is homeless), duke's lone win is over vmi (i-aa). pitt has beaten y-state (i-aa), cincinnati, usf and syracuse. cincinnati has beaten western carolina (i-aa), emu and connecticut.

ooc against non-bcs:
nc-usa is undefeated in these games but has almost no games against good non-bcs teams:
mac has won about the same number of these games but has lost three - two by lopsided scores to two of the best non-bcs teams on the road. the other by one of the mac's middle of the road teams to a bad army squad.

result: slight advantage to nc-usa with a notation on the fact that they've avoided traditionally good non-bcs opponents (which isn't always on purpose nor avoidable).

vs i-aa:
well nobody's lost one anyway - but nc-usa has too many of these scheduled - but this might be a result of re-shuffling schedules from the re-alignment - so let it go..

that's it - and it doesn't show a large or clear advantage for one conference over the other.

move on.

the non-bcs conferences:
1. mwc - anybody who questions this is a homer for another conference who refuses to pay attention
.
..
...
....
2. boise and fresno are head and shoulders above anyone in the mac or nc-usa. anyone who argues with that is delusional
.
..
...
3. nc-usa the edge due to the non-bcs losses by the mac (and the size of those losses)
.
4. mac - nothing special this year
..
...
....
.....
......
5.sun belt - have a single ooc i-a win this year (middle tennessee over an always lousy vandy team) - there is a huge difference between the rest of the non-bcs and this conference this year.

EMUHuron Wrote:sagarin's are the biggest piece of garbage out there - i'm shocked anyone prints that garbage anymore

E'Huron, I'm going to beg to differ with you.

I can't tell you if team ranked #76 is better then #80, but if you look at the rankings (say national top 10 or 25) or the rankings within the conferences the rankings look really good.

Do you think the following Sagarin for the MAC is not valid? If so, how?

To me, if says 1). The MAC doesn't have an outstanding team. 2). There is a lot of parity. 3). There are still some really bad teams (e.g., Temple, UB, and KSU), 4). CMU, EMU and WMU are much improved over last year. and so on and so on...

10 MID-AMERICAN (A) = 62.84 62.35 ( 10) TEAMS= 13
College Football 2005 thru Saturday, October 22, 2005 the BCS uses the ELO-CHESS from here
HOME ADVANTAGE= 2.65 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO-CHESS | PREDICTOR
55 Toledo A = 72.78 6 1 57.21( 133) 0 0 | 0 1 | 73.38 54 | 71.47 62
64 Northern Illinois A = 71.07 4 3 64.41( 102) 0 0 | 0 2 | 66.23 79 | 75.96 40
65 Miami-Ohio A = 71.06 4 3 67.73( 84) 0 1 | 0 1 | 66.92 74 | 74.98 45
69 Central Michigan A = 69.32 4 3 69.50( 70) 0 1 | 0 1 | 69.10 68 | 68.78 73
77 Bowling Green A = 67.50 4 3 63.20( 107) 0 0 | 0 1 | 66.98 73 | 67.27 79
89 Eastern Michigan A = 64.29 3 5 68.79( 75) 0 0 | 0 1 | 62.20 99 | 65.66 87
96 Ohio U. A = 63.58 3 4 71.84( 43) 0 1 | 0 2 | 67.19 71 | 59.48 115
107 Western Michigan A = 61.40 4 3 61.24( 117) 0 0 | 0 0 | 64.40 90 | 57.79 124
116 Akron A = 59.24 3 4 64.35( 103) 0 0 | 0 0 | 59.16 114 | 58.56 120
122 Ball State A = 57.22 1 6 73.69( 31) 0 0 | 0 2 | 61.34 103 | 52.36 151
144 Kent State A = 54.07 1 6 65.22( 97) 0 0 | 0 1 | 48.47 167 | 58.72 119
159 Temple A = 50.96 0 8 76.40( 14) 0 1 | 0 3 | 53.57 142 | 47.44 170
172 Buffalo A = 48.01 0 7 66.20( 93) 0 0 | 0 0 | 43.87 181 | 51.11 156
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

steve: I comletely disagree with you

Canned computer programs all suffer from the same gross inadequacies:

1) They require weights to be pre-determined for close wins vs blow-out wins vs close losses vs blow-out losses. If you, as the programmer, decide that the weights should be different from Sagarin's - you get a different Top10, Top25, Top119.... Just because your program says Central Mich is 8 sports better than BGSU doesn't make it so. Central Mich is currently 20 spots above Eastern Mich according to Sagarin - and lost to them on their home field. Even with large gaps between teams – Sagarin’s are basically meaningless.

2) Part of the system uses Strength of Schedule considerations (again - with weights arbitrarally chosen for them in the formula). Skipping over the problem with that arbitrary weight in the formula since it is covered in 1) - it uses last year's team records as part of the formula. That is less of a problem in professional sports where the starting line-up slowly changes - but in college - about a 1/4 of the team is no longer eligible to play each new season (I don't want to assume they graduate) - and that 1/4 is generally the larger part of the starting line-up.

3) The program can not take in subjective information: For example – UMich is 5-3 and is better than their ranking because 2 of those losses came with their starting RB on the bench with an injury. MichState has the same number of losses (played fewer games) – but is in far worse shape this week – because they are a scattered, disorganized mess. You can not build into a computer program all the things that might come up to 119 different teams – and even if you could, you would have to ascribe to all those factors a weight. How much should Michigan’s RB be weighted? Is that the same as MichState’s RB? How about Reggie Bush’s weight?

4) The entire premise that somehow by taking the “subjective

[quote]Only “subjectively

It is all but impossible for any non bcs conf to stay strong.... It will run in cycles.. the facts are non bcs dont have the $$$$ to stay strong all the time...