Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Author Message
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #61
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
You lost me. Happy to respond, but I have no idea what I said that prompted you to talk about Detroit and Cleveland (?).
06-17-2013 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #62
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Somewhere in your analysis you were talking about having a tournament in Cleveland. Good luck getting anybody in CUSA to go for that. And our bowl in Detroit basically got cancelled because nobody other than the MAC wanted to play there against us.
06-17-2013 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #63
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 02:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Somewhere in your analysis you were talking about having a tournament in Cleveland. Good luck getting anybody in CUSA to go for that. And our bowl in Detroit basically got cancelled because nobody other than the MAC wanted to play there against us.

(Yeah... ummm... with all due respect, it's truly okay if you don't care to read it all... I know it's a lot... but for the sake of response and no offense intended... the reply isn't coherent with the post... there's nothing about CUSA going to Cleveland... and nothing at all about Detroit about anything... if you want to try again, that's great, but if you don't, that's okay, too.)
06-17-2013 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #64
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 02:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 01:54 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 01:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not going to happen. End O' Subject.

Thanks for the brilliant contribution, but already addressed that.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=632...pid9344985

This isn't really for the kind of poster who wades into the shallow end of the pool and feels the need to announce to the world that he's turning back. That's fine, of course... your decision... but it's just a bit self-important to think anyone actually cares. If you want to engage the substance of the topic in the deeper end, then great, let's have that discussion... even if you disagree with the idea, I'm more than happy to listen to your "whys." But if you don't want to engage it, at least be a grown-up, and resist playing policeman. Such objections are shallow and whiny.

We couldn't get anybody to play us in Detroit. What makes you think they'd want to play us in Cleveland?

You're assuming Strut is based in any kind of sense, reason, or logic. I'm not sure what color the sky is in his world but it's probably pretty far off of blue.

All the nitwit can do is insult people who try to throw him a life line from the good ship reality. He post something silly, you call it silly, and he snipes at you...

Best to just let it die, except if nobody does reply he will write a new dossier on how freezing 12 members of the MAC/CUSA out in a given season is a good idea and can happen. He will then run back find the posts that contained his insipid ramblings and bring it back to the top by replying to himself..
06-17-2013 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #65
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 02:13 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 02:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Somewhere in your analysis you were talking about having a tournament in Cleveland. Good luck getting anybody in CUSA to go for that. And our bowl in Detroit basically got cancelled because nobody other than the MAC wanted to play there against us.

(Yeah... ummm... with all due respect, it's truly okay if you don't care to read it all... I know it's a lot... but for the sake of response and no offense intended... the reply isn't coherent with the post... there's nothing about CUSA going to Cleveland... and nothing at all about Detroit about anything... if you want to try again, that's great, but if you don't, that's okay, too.)

Sorry, I misread it. Must have been my eyes glazing over after the first 5 paragraphs. I never said you mentioned Detroit though.
06-17-2013 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #66
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Yeah... I'm the sniper...

Exile, you're so full of it.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2013 02:28 PM by _sturt_.)
06-17-2013 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #67
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 02:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 02:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 01:54 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 01:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not going to happen. End O' Subject.

Thanks for the brilliant contribution, but already addressed that.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=632...pid9344985

This isn't really for the kind of poster who wades into the shallow end of the pool and feels the need to announce to the world that he's turning back. That's fine, of course... your decision... but it's just a bit self-important to think anyone actually cares. If you want to engage the substance of the topic in the deeper end, then great, let's have that discussion... even if you disagree with the idea, I'm more than happy to listen to your "whys." But if you don't want to engage it, at least be a grown-up, and resist playing policeman. Such objections are shallow and whiny.

We couldn't get anybody to play us in Detroit. What makes you think they'd want to play us in Cleveland?

You're assuming Strut is based in any kind of sense, reason, or logic. I'm not sure what color the sky is in his world but it's probably pretty far off of blue.

All the nitwit can do is insult people who try to throw him a life line from the good ship reality. He post something silly, you call it silly, and he snipes at you...

Best to just let it die, except if nobody does reply he will write a new dossier on how freezing 12 members of the MAC/CUSA out in a given season is a good idea and can happen. He will then run back find the posts that contained his insipid ramblings and bring it back to the top by replying to himself..

Good point.
06-17-2013 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #68
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 02:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 02:13 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 02:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Somewhere in your analysis you were talking about having a tournament in Cleveland. Good luck getting anybody in CUSA to go for that. And our bowl in Detroit basically got cancelled because nobody other than the MAC wanted to play there against us.

(Yeah... ummm... with all due respect, it's truly okay if you don't care to read it all... I know it's a lot... but for the sake of response and no offense intended... the reply isn't coherent with the post... there's nothing about CUSA going to Cleveland... and nothing at all about Detroit about anything... if you want to try again, that's great, but if you don't, that's okay, too.)

Sorry, I misread it. Must have been my eyes glazing over after the first 5 paragraphs. I never said you mentioned Detroit though.

All good. Like I said, I know it's long. And if you weren't already familiar with the core idea, this new stuff doesn't do much to help you get familiar.
06-17-2013 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #69
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
If it requires a tutorial it won't work. Heck, the guys at E$PN couldn't count to 20 if they had 4 feet.
06-17-2013 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #70
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 12:10 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The point, for now, is that we in CUSA have a problem... we are in the second tier of the second tier of NCAA D1 FBS football...

And we're not alone... the MAC is in the same position.

If we cooperate together, I've demonstrated we can resolve the problem, and do so in both an innovative and an NCAA-compliant way.

If we refuse that and are content to operate in silos, it doesn't bode well for our future, likely ensuring AAC and MWC's advancement and our own regression.

Based on the numbers I have looked at I will disagree.

The 6th, 7th and 8th best conferences historically post above average SOS for G5 leagues. The AAC will annually be up in the 6-8 range but the other 4 conferences will float in and out depending if they are the one that has an undefeated or 1 loss team.

#6 (75.90-71.03)-Median (73.47)
#7 (73.0-66.22)-Median (69.61)
#8 (71.85-61.72)-Median (66.79)

Any conference with an undefeated will be placed in an Access Bowl. Going 13-0 out of a G5 conference during the regular season has never happened before. Further with a Top 25 win that team will be placed in the 4 team playoff.

The CFP is going to be full of 1 loss and 2 loss P5 teams...undefeated G5's are safe and likely 1 loss G5's because at the end of the day it will be about record that counts since polls and computers are now meaningless.

Thus the MAC-CUSA scheduling alliance isn't necessary.
06-17-2013 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #71
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 02:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 12:10 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The point, for now, is that we in CUSA have a problem... we are in the second tier of the second tier of NCAA D1 FBS football...

And we're not alone... the MAC is in the same position.

If we cooperate together, I've demonstrated we can resolve the problem, and do so in both an innovative and an NCAA-compliant way.

If we refuse that and are content to operate in silos, it doesn't bode well for our future, likely ensuring AAC and MWC's advancement and our own regression.

Based on the numbers I have looked at I will disagree.

(a) The 6th, 7th and 8th best conferences historically post above average SOS for G5 leagues. The AAC will annually be up in the 6-8 range but the other 4 conferences will float in and out depending if they are the one that has an undefeated or 1 loss team.

#6 (75.90-71.03)-Median (73.47)
#7 (73.0-66.22)-Median (69.61)
#8 (71.85-61.72)-Median (66.79)

(b) Any conference with an undefeated will be placed in an Access Bowl. Going 13-0 out of a G5 conference during the regular season has never happened before. Further with a Top 25 win that team will be placed in the 4 team playoff.

The CFP is going to be full of 1 loss and 2 loss P5 teams...undefeated G5's are safe and likely 1 loss G5's because at the end of the day it will be about record that counts since © polls and computers are now meaningless.

Thus the MAC-CUSA scheduling alliance isn't necessary.



(a) Pardon my confusion, but first, please explain what you're talking about with regard to the SOS numbers you cite. Maybe it's just me... I've read what you stated in that part about 4 times now, but I don't understand the logic or conclusion that I'm supposed to get from it.

(b) Then, on the one hand, you state that

Any conference with an undefeated will be placed in an Access Bowl.

...and go on to say...

Going 13-0 out of a G5 conference during the regular season has never happened before.

...which, rationally, should bring us to the conclusion "No G5 conference is going to earn a major bowl based on its going undefeated."

© And the final point where we disagree is the assumption that polls and computers are now meaningless. To the contrary, there's been no such overhaul of the ratings system reportedly considered. There is every reason to believe that the BCS formula, or something like it, will continue to be used to flesh out which G5 school gets the major bowl slot.

I know CUSA and MAC fans alike are mostly in denial about it all, but I'm a CUSA fan myself, and the cold hard truth is... Dr. Phil-ism alert... that history is the best predictor of future behavior... and historically, the teams that make up AAC and MWC have markedly better performance than the next tier, ie, MAC and CUSA 3.0.
06-17-2013 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #72
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 02:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If it requires a tutorial it won't work. Heck, the guys at E$PN couldn't count to 20 if they had 4 feet.

If you're interested to explore, the core concept fits on one sheet of paper, I promise...

=====

- CUSA adds 2 schools... perhaps Georgia State (East) and Texas State (West)

- MAC adds 3 schools... perhaps Army, Delaware and James Madison (all East)

- Top two football schools from the MAC East, MAC West, CUSA East and CUSA West--8 total--are promoted into a conference for the elites of CUSA and MAC... hereafter called the Great 8.

- Regular season play for Great 8:
  • 3 conference games versus the other teams originating from their parent conference,
  • 3 non-conference games versus three teams from their parent conference,
  • 3 non-conference games with contracted opponents, and
  • the 3 conference games that constitute the three-round in-season playoff that leads to a conference champion's emergence.

- Regular Season play for CUSA and MAC:
  • 5 intra-division games,
  • 1 inter-division game,
  • 3 non-conference games versus the teams formerly associated with the division that succeeded to the new conference
  • 3 non-conference games with contracted opponents

- Both CUSA and MAC crown their champions from among their 12 teams in the traditional way, via conference championship game

- In each succeeding season, either the CUSA or MAC champ automatically is promoted and replaces the Great 8 school associated with their division that is least successful (W/L %) in comparison to the champ; that school is relegated back to its normal division.

- How would TV work? Not much different than it already does. Great 8 revenues are funneled back to the two leagues. But the addition to the agenda, obviously, is the new conference's tournament games, which could spark additional interest over ordinary regular season games
[Image: 8742045072_0e53808cc8_n.jpg]

I'm trying to look at this with as little subjectivity as a Marshall fan can bring to the topic... the Excel spreadsheet (cited earlier) was constructed using what seemed to be rational third-party criteria (Sagrins) without attempting to prescribe any particular end-game. And what we find is this:

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
87.3 = Great 8 schools' (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
19.5 = Great 8 (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools

So, the numbers... not me... suggest that the G8 would be right there with AAC and MWC in any given year.

What's more, compare the G8 with what otherwise would be the case if status quo remains...

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
113.3 = MAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (25% below MWC)
118.7 = CUSA schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (31% below MWC)

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
35.3 = MAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (40% below MWC)
38.2 = CUSA average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (52% below MWC)

So, status quo says that sometimes but probably not often, CUSA and MAC can expect to compete with AAC and MWC for the major bowl slot.

But set up a Great 8 paradigm, and the numbers support that it would be an annual expectation that either a CUSA or MAC school would be in the mix.
06-17-2013 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #73
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
For those criticizing a member for offering a suggestion, just remember that he is entitled to present his idea—which he has done in great detail. I challenge anybody on this board to enlighten us with your words of wisdom as to why you think his idea is flawed instead of criticizing him. Moreover, put yourselves in his position and think about how you would feel if other members attacked you for presenting an idea. Therefore, I think his idea is worth considering when looking at how the Cartel Five currently control college football by monopolizing many of the bowls. In fact, the AAC and MWC need to seriously consider merging, which is an idea that may seem just as ridiculous to some on this board. However the idea was received with maturity and open-mindedness on the AAC board instead of attacking the member that made the suggestion:

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=636685&page=5

Consequently, if members can explain themselves like “adults” why his idea won’t work instead of attacking him, then this thread is no longer useful and a moderator should be the one to determine its fate....
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2013 08:59 PM by Underdog.)
06-17-2013 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #74
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 03:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 02:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 12:10 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The point, for now, is that we in CUSA have a problem... we are in the second tier of the second tier of NCAA D1 FBS football...

And we're not alone... the MAC is in the same position.

If we cooperate together, I've demonstrated we can resolve the problem, and do so in both an innovative and an NCAA-compliant way.

If we refuse that and are content to operate in silos, it doesn't bode well for our future, likely ensuring AAC and MWC's advancement and our own regression.

Based on the numbers I have looked at I will disagree.

(a) The 6th, 7th and 8th best conferences historically post above average SOS for G5 leagues. The AAC will annually be up in the 6-8 range but the other 4 conferences will float in and out depending if they are the one that has an undefeated or 1 loss team.

#6 (75.90-71.03)-Median (73.47)
#7 (73.0-66.22)-Median (69.61)
#8 (71.85-61.72)-Median (66.79)

(b) Any conference with an undefeated will be placed in an Access Bowl. Going 13-0 out of a G5 conference during the regular season has never happened before. Further with a Top 25 win that team will be placed in the 4 team playoff.

The CFP is going to be full of 1 loss and 2 loss P5 teams...undefeated G5's are safe and likely 1 loss G5's because at the end of the day it will be about record that counts since © polls and computers are now meaningless.

Thus the MAC-CUSA scheduling alliance isn't necessary.



(a) Pardon my confusion, but first, please explain what you're talking about with regard to the SOS numbers you cite. Maybe it's just me... I've read what you stated in that part about 4 times now, but I don't understand the logic or conclusion that I'm supposed to get from it.

(b) Then, on the one hand, you state that

Any conference with an undefeated will be placed in an Access Bowl.

...and go on to say...

Going 13-0 out of a G5 conference during the regular season has never happened before.

...which, rationally, should bring us to the conclusion "No G5 conference is going to earn a major bowl based on its going undefeated."

© And the final point where we disagree is the assumption that polls and computers are now meaningless. To the contrary, there's been no such overhaul of the ratings system reportedly considered. There is every reason to believe that the BCS formula, or something like it, will continue to be used to flesh out which G5 school gets the major bowl slot.

I know CUSA and MAC fans alike are mostly in denial about it all, but I'm a CUSA fan myself, and the cold hard truth is... Dr. Phil-ism alert... that history is the best predictor of future behavior... and historically, the teams that make up AAC and MWC have markedly better performance than the next tier, ie, MAC and CUSA 3.0.


I. I'm talking about the Sagarin ratings. Sorry for the confusion. Below are the simple average for the G5 in 2012 and overall conference rank.

5) Big East (71.87)
8) Sun Belt (62.95)
9) Conference USA (62.64)
10) Mid American (62.37)
11) Mountain West (61.82)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sag...onference/

Looking at the numbers the MWC is down there with CUSA, MAC and SBC with only the Big East (AAC) having an edge top to bottom. The WAC was the #7 conference so someone is going to have to fill the void.

II. As to an undefeated G5 guaranteed an access bowl there are many ways to prove this is certain.

1. A 13-0 would be the highest rated G5 by virtue of the only undefeated team (95% likely).

2. There will never be more than 12 teams with less than 2 losses. The CFP committee isn't going to leave out a 13-0 G5 for a 10-2 team in the very rare situation of 2 undefeated G5's.

3. A 12-1 team would be the highest rated G5 by virtue of being the only 1 loss G5 team (75%).

4. There will never be more than 12 teams with less than 2 losses. The CFP committee is unlikely to leave out a 12-1 G5 for a 10-2 team in the very rare situation of 2 G5's with 1 or less losses.

After that all bets are off if the top G5 team has 2 losses. If you've got the record though you don't have anything to worry about. It doesn't matter if you're playing in the SBC or AAC. What is more important is your non-conference schedule and any big wins you might have.

III.
Quote:The committee will release some sort of regular rankings. Expect this to be televised, perhaps replacing the current Sunday night BCS standings reveal.

The Playoff has an official description of the committee's duty -- "A selection committee will choose the four teams for the playoff based on their performance during the regular season, including, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, championships won, and other factors" -- and the committee will also rank teams for the other four non-Playoff BCS 2.0 bowls, according to a previous announcement. That means ranking at least 12 teams (since members will surely lobby for bubble teams), not just four.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-committee

I'll have to concede that you are right on a continued ranking system factoring in SOS but championships won are going to be also a factor.

There will be 10 conferences so that will produce 10 conference champions. Five automatics plus 1 from the G5. A second undefeated or 1 loss conference champion from the G5 will have two factors going for it over a 10-2 P5 team.

1) A conference championship. Note I'm assuming the 10-2 team did not make the conference title game.

2) At 12-1 the G5 conference champ would have 2 more wins over the 10-2 team plus a conference championship.

All bets are off for an 11-2 G5 team unless that's the best team of the year. If the AAC champ goes 11-2 and SBC champ 11-2 its going to come down to Top 25 wins first over a marginal difference in conference schedule strength.
06-17-2013 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #75
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
The Sagarin numbers for the last 4 years are listed below. One thing I will note is a downward trend for the MWC schools but the AAC should be solidly #6-#8 each year.

Sagarins: A12 76.08 (67.47)
Cincinnati: 36, 30, 67, 8 (35)
Tulsa: 47, 35, 35, 96 (53)
South Florida: 86, 59, 44, 39 (57)
Central Florida: 45, 77, 42, 71 (59)
Connecticut: 89, 76, 56, 28 (62)
SMU: 57, 51, 83, 65 (64)
Houston: 108, 15, 82, 53 (65)
Navy: 82, 74, 73, 38 (67)
Temple: 100, 46, 66, 72 (71)
East Carolina: 84, 93, 85, 51 (78)
Tulane: 155, 171, 135, 141 (150)
Memphis: 123, 182, 173, 130 (152)

Sagarins: Mountain West 90.41 (64.28)
Boise State: 41, 9, 6, 5 (15)
Nevada: 80, 60, 16, 70 (56)
SDSU: 66, 70, 34, 103 (68)
Air Force: 130, 72, 37, 35 (68)
Fresno State: 58, 105, 78, 59 (75)
Utah State: 19, 80, 114, 100 (78)
Wyoming: 121, 84, 108, 82 (99)
Hawaii: 161, 97, 47, 105 (102)
SJSU: 29, 96, 161, 138 (106)
Colorado State: 134, 142, 130, 106 (128)
UNLV: 157, 155, 131, 93 (134)
New Mexico: 145, 175, 170, 136 (156)

Sagarins: Mid American 114.54 (60.31)
Northern Illinois: 39, 47, 46, 95 (57)
Toledo: 69, 40, 92, 122 (81)
Ohio: 75, 68, 104, 88 (84)
Kent State: 60, 116, 120, 119 (104)
Western Michigan: 116, 78, 99, 125 (104)
Central Michigan: 111, 137, 134, 42 (106)
Bowling Green: 74, 99, 163, 92 (107)
Miami Ohio: 125, 98, 77, 156 (114)
Ball State: 67, 100, 160, 151 (119)
Massachusetts: 178, 150, 107, 121 (139)
Buffalo: 131, 135, 185, 107 (139)
Eastern Michigan: 146, 119, 183, 184 (158)
Akron: 169, 198, 206, 137 (177)

Sagarins: Conference USA 119.69 (58.93)
Louisiana Tech: 51, 48, 91, 89 (70)
Southern Miss: 167, 24, 69, 77 (84)
Marshall: 107, 79, 113, 79 (94)
Rice: 83, 89, 127, 144 (111)
Florida International: 127, 94, 88, 134 (111)
Middle Tennessee: 85, 169, 138, 63 (114)
UTEP: 138, 92, 121, 113 (116)
UAB: 142, 152, 116, 99 (127)
Western Kentucky: 91, 101, 165, 187 (136)
North Texas: 118, 121, 150, 160 (137)
Florida Atlantic: 137, 190, 155, 114 (149)
Old Dominion: 117, 123, 168, 194 (152)
UTSA: 110, 220, N/A, N/A (155)
Charlotte: N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A (N/A)

Sagarins: Sun Belt 128.09 (57.88)
Arkansas State: 50, 67, 117, 129 (91)
Georgia Southern: 72, 81, 72, 150 (94)
Appalachian State: 115, 131, 75, 76 (99)
Troy: 103, 147, 80, 69 (100)
Louisiana Lafayette: 62, 82, 162, 123 (107)
Louisiana Monroe: 77, 124, 140, 109 (112)
Idaho: 165, 141, 89, 85 (120)
South Alabama: 164, 181, 122, N/A (156)
New Mexico State: 174, 133, 172, 153 (158)
Texas State: 124, 178, 195, 154 (163)
Georgia State: 224, 208, 194, N/A (209)
06-17-2013 04:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #76
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 03:54 PM)Underdog Wrote:  For those criticizing a member for offering a suggestion, just remember that he is entitled to present his idea—which he has done in great detail. I challenge anybody on this board to enlighten us with your words of wisdom as to why you think his idea is flawed instead of criticizing him. Moreover, put yourselves in his position and think about how you would feel if other members attacked you for presenting an idea. Therefore, I think his idea is worth considering when looking at how the Cartel Five currently control college football by monopolizing many of the bowls. In fact, the AAC and MWC need to seriously consider merging, which is an idea that may seem just a ridiculous to some on this board. However the idea was received with maturity and open-mindedness on the AAC board instead of attacking the member that made the suggestion:

Merging leagues is not going to happen without an AQ involved.

The Big East was told they wouldn't be an AQ in the new system so Boise and SDSU exited stage left. Now in 2020 under the next CFP contract could there be an 8 bowl system with the AAC added as an automatic conference do to great performance over the previous cycle? If that is the case then its time to revisit the coast-to-coast model and also MWC/AAC TV contracts expire in 2020.
06-17-2013 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #77
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 04:08 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I. I'm talking about the Sagarin ratings. Sorry for the confusion. Below are the simple average for the G5 in 2012 and overall conference rank.

5) Big East (71.87)
8) Sun Belt (62.95)
9) Conference USA (62.64)
10) Mid American (62.37)
11) Mountain West (61.82)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sag...onference/

Looking at the numbers the MWC is down there with CUSA, MAC and SBC with only the Big East (AAC) having an edge top to bottom. The WAC was the #7 conference so someone is going to have to fill the void.

Ahhh... ok.

Consider that a single season doesn't tell us much about how to put a conference in a position to be a year-in-year-out contender over the course of a decade. We need to go back some number of years to get a more definitive picture of who is generally strong and who is generally middling and who is generally weak.

Consider for example, is Kent a decidedly stronger program overall than Southern Miss?

Well, if we only look at 2012, there's no question.

But that's probably not going to yield a particularly valid answer. Southern Miss had their first losing season in, what, 18?... and boy was it a doozie... last year. Just the prior season, they won CUSA by beating Houston in the championship. And Kent's history has been anything but successful.

Five-year Sagarin averages--of rankings, not ratings, since we're looking at it from an ordinal instead of a integral perspective--would seem to be enough to indicate trends, though weeding out some outlier years... so that's what I went with.

(06-17-2013 04:08 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  II. As to an undefeated G5 guaranteed an access bowl there are many ways to prove this is certain.

1. A 13-0 would be the highest rated G5 by virtue of the only undefeated team (95% likely).

2. There will never be more than 12 teams with less than 2 losses. The CFP committee isn't going to leave out a 13-0 G5 for a 10-2 team in the very rare situation of 2 undefeated G5's.

3. A 12-1 team would be the highest rated G5 by virtue of being the only 1 loss G5 team (75%).

4. There will never be more than 12 teams with less than 2 losses. The CFP committee is unlikely to leave out a 12-1 G5 for a 10-2 team in the very rare situation of 2 G5's with 1 or less losses.

After that all bets are off if the top G5 team has 2 losses. If you've got the record though you don't have anything to worry about. It doesn't matter if you're playing in the SBC or AAC. What is more important is your non-conference schedule and any big wins you might have.

#1 and #2 are practically meaningless to the discussion of long-term, sustained, year-in-year-out success. Going undefeated happens so rarely... Pennington's Herd did it in 1999, fwiw... that it's automatically an outlier.

But more to what I perceive to be your point...

Based on our experience with BCS ratings and rankings over the years, I believe the evidence points strongly to a AAC or MWC team definitely gaining the major bowl slot if everyone has an equal number of losses... retains a solid advantage with one more loss, and is neck-and-neck with even two more losses.

NIU, for example, barely made the Orange Bowl even having one less loss than Boise... and moreover, would still not have exceeded Boise, Utah State and San Jose State had they not had the booster shot that was the MAC Championship that put them over the top.

(06-17-2013 04:08 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  III.
Quote:The committee will release some sort of regular rankings. Expect this to be televised, perhaps replacing the current Sunday night BCS standings reveal.

The Playoff has an official description of the committee's duty -- "A selection committee will choose the four teams for the playoff based on their performance during the regular season, including, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, championships won, and other factors" -- and the committee will also rank teams for the other four non-Playoff BCS 2.0 bowls, according to a previous announcement. That means ranking at least 12 teams (since members will surely lobby for bubble teams), not just four.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-committee

I'll have to concede that you are right on a continued ranking system factoring in SOS but championships won are going to be also a factor.

There will be 10 conferences so that will produce 10 conference champions. Five automatics plus 1 from the G5. A second undefeated or 1 loss conference champion from the G5 will have two factors going for it over a 10-2 P5 team.

1) A conference championship. Note I'm assuming the 10-2 team did not make the conference title game.

2) At 12-1 the G5 conference champ would have 2 more wins over the 10-2 team plus a conference championship.

All bets are off for an 11-2 G5 team unless that's the best team of the year. If the AAC champ goes 11-2 and SBC champ 11-2 its going to come down to Top 25 wins first over a marginal difference in conference schedule strength.

Hold up.

The G5 teams are not in competition with the P5 teams for a major bowl. You get that, right?

They are, on the other hand, in competition with P5 teams for a playoff slot, though largely that likelihood is discounted... and I, too, discount it. It would take something almost incredible to put a G5 team into that kind of contention.

So, my focus... and, I contend, the appropriate focus... is on how the G5 conferences stack up against each other in the pursuit of that lone guaranteed major bowl opening.

I think there's ample evidence to suggest that AAC and MWC can expect to have at least one legitimate candidate... sometimes more... for the major bowl slot going into the final weekend of the season in 9-10 seasons over the decade... essentially, until the next major TV bowl contract negotiation.

I think there's ample evidence to suggest that MAC can expect to individually have one legitimate candidate going into the final weekend of the season in 3-5 seasons over the decade... same for CUSA, of course.

And SB... once if they're lucky.

And note that I'm not saying "will win the slot," but only saying they'll have a legitimate candidate going into the final weekend.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2013 04:51 PM by _sturt_.)
06-17-2013 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #78
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 04:20 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The Sagarin numbers for the last 4 years are listed below. One thing I will note is a downward trend for the MWC schools but the AAC should be solidly #6-#8 each year.

What's confounding for AAC is that they are top-heavy with regard to a normal distribution... it is predictable that they'll come back to something closer to MWC numbers overall, as a result. That is, probably 2-4 teams are likely going to see their numbers tail off and their programs become more middling.
06-17-2013 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #79
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-17-2013 04:40 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(06-17-2013 03:54 PM)Underdog Wrote:  For those criticizing a member for offering a suggestion, just remember that he is entitled to present his idea—which he has done in great detail. I challenge anybody on this board to enlighten us with your words of wisdom as to why you think his idea is flawed instead of criticizing him. Moreover, put yourselves in his position and think about how you would feel if other members attacked you for presenting an idea. Therefore, I think his idea is worth considering when looking at how the Cartel Five currently control college football by monopolizing many of the bowls. In fact, the AAC and MWC need to seriously consider merging, which is an idea that may seem just a ridiculous to some on this board. However the idea was received with maturity and open-mindedness on the AAC board instead of attacking the member that made the suggestion:

Merging leagues is not going to happen without an AQ involved.

The Big East was told they wouldn't be an AQ in the new system so Boise and SDSU exited stage left. Now in 2020 under the next CFP contract could there be an 8 bowl system with the AAC added as an automatic conference do to great performance over the previous cycle? If that is the case then its time to revisit the coast-to-coast model and also MWC/AAC TV contracts expire in 2020.

Fwiw... I believe we can track back in the news reports and see that Boise and SD knew that the AQ thing was being eliminated... it wasn't until the Big East negotiations with NBC proved to not yield the big numbers that ex-commish Marinatto advertised they would be that Boise decided to back out.

Also, fwiw... I don't see any advantage to MWC and AAC to merge. They're both normally going to yield at least one contender for the major bowl slot, so there's no discernible incentive to do that. But I'm intrigued to visit the link U-dog supplied to see how that discussion developed.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2013 05:02 PM by _sturt_.)
06-17-2013 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poliicious Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 7
I Root For: WildcatsHuskies
Location:
Post: #80
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
No just no, the MAC wants as little to do with CUSA as possible
06-17-2013 05:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.