(06-17-2013 05:13 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  No just no, the MAC wants as little to do with CUSA as possible

And vice versa it seems.

(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:

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....

He's been on the MAC board with the idea too, and people have discussed reasons it won't work but it keeps coming back. I have not read it in detail so I don't know but CUSA seems to still look down on the MAC and don't even want to play us in bowl games. They aren't merging with us, that's for sure. Also, NIU got into a BCS despite losing 1 game, a game that they were very close to winning. It's not that absurd to think a MAC team could go undefeated, with the right OOC schedule, and get ranked fairly high. They aren't getting to #8 no matter what they do though, unless they beat a team ranked about that high.

(06-17-2013 04:57 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(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.

I disagree.

The new AAC teams bring a nice solid decade of performance behind them (UCF, Tulsa, Houston and ECU) in CUSA with strong local recruiting bases necessary to sustain it. Throwing them in with a group that includes UC, UConn and USF is a solid move.

Over the past decade in the MWC it has been BYU, Utah and TCU while everyone else struggled. You've added to the new MWC Boise State which is a plus and solid Fresno/Nevada but SJSU and Utah State are historically 2 more big pieces of deadwood. Basically what you have is the WAC #8 conference in the past adding the deadwood from the MWC like New Mexico and UNLV under the MWC banner.

I'm looking at things from two approaches here while you're looking at it from just approach #1.

1) How the G5 conference stack up together. What I did is took a look at historically what the Sagarin ratings were for the 6 through 8 conferences (which would be 3 G5 leagues not 2) against the performance of G5 teams (1 loss and undefeated) to show that almost always was the G5 (1 loss or undefeated) in the #8 or above rated conference.

8th Conference Position:

2012 WAC (64.82)
2011 CUSA (65.79)-Houston (12-1)
2010 MWC (70.24)-TCU (12-0)
2009 WAC (66.03)-Boise State (13-0)
2008 CUSA (65.75)
2007 WAC (61.72)-Hawaii (12-0)
2006 WAC (64.63)-Boise State (12-0)
2005 MWC (69.58)-TCU (10-1)
2004 Big East (71.56)
2003 MAC (64.68)-Miami Oh (12-1)
2002 CUSA (64.63)
2001 CUSA (63.60)
2000 CUSA (67.30)-TCU (10-1)
1999 CUSA (71.85)
1998 CUSA (67.69)-Tulane (11-0)

The evidence say that if you have a 12-1 or 13-0 team that it will be at least out of the #8 conference. You'll have to figure in a given year that 2 of the conferences will have relatively poor seasons so by default the conference that has the 12-1 or 13-0 teams is going to be in either the #6, #7 or #8 conference.

The WAC is no longer around and CUSA is definitely down from what it was so naturally the MAC will step into the void.

2) It is important to note that there 12 slots in the CFP and that on an average season there is only 4 or 5 teams with 1 or less loss.

Number of P5 1 loss or undefeated teams

2012 (5)
2011 (4)
2010 (6)
2009 (4)
2008 (7)
2007 (2)
2006 (5)

So IF you are a G5 conference champion (5 teams) and you have a record with 1 or less losses I can't see that team being left out either by default as the best G5 champion which would normally be the case or at-large over a 10-2 (maybe a 9-3) team of the P5 that didn't win its division.

Number of P5 teams with 2 or less losses

2012 (13)
2011 (11)
2010 (12)
2009 (9)
2008 (9)
2007 (10)
2006 (14)

About 1/2 the time a 12-1 G5 team is going to have to beat out a 3 losss P5 for an access bowl should they not be the highest rated champion. That sounds pretty easy to do.

The question then to ask is will there be more advantage for placing a 13-0 or 12-1 MAC/CUSA team in an access bowl as independent conferences or in a mini-playoff? I don't see it making a difference.

As to whether the highest rated champion is in the AAC, CUSA or MAC with 2 losses or more (something that will only happen 33 percent of the time) having an avantage in a particular conference I say its going to come down to the OOC scheduling more so than the conference. A strong OOC not only helps your computer ratings it gives you a quality win.

An AAC team is not going to be able to rob the MAC or CUSA in a situation where all 3 champions have 2 losses based solely on conference SOS. It may happen because of more Top 25 wins which is going to be in part due to a stronger SOS but you won't have a situation where a CUSA 2 loss team has 2 Top 25 wins and a AAC has none but beats out CUSA because of a marginally stronger conference top to bottom.

It's not happening. The top to bottom SOS gap between the AAC and MAC/CUSA is not worth worrying about. Make sure to beef up the schedule and win your conference and it will all play out.

(06-17-2013 05:42 PM)NIU007 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:

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....

He's been on the MAC board with the idea too, and people have discussed reasons it won't work but it keeps coming back. I have not read it in detail so I don't know but CUSA seems to still look down on the MAC and don't even want to play us in bowl games. They aren't merging with us, that's for sure. Also, NIU got into a BCS despite losing 1 game, a game that they were very close to winning. It's not that absurd to think a MAC team could go undefeated, with the right OOC schedule, and get ranked fairly high. They aren't getting to #8 no matter what they do though, unless they beat a team ranked about that high.

People discussed reasons it wouldn't work. Absolutely. So, like any other Thomas Edison, I tinkered with it and came back with something better. No apologies for that. When people criticize, the best thing you can do is listen to their criticism, take what parts of it are useful, discard the rest, and make things better.

Undefeated?

I hear this from CUSA fans, too.

Guys... don't you get it?

When AAC and MWC fans talk about winning a major bowl slot, they don't have to talk about going undefeated.

Moreover, you're talking about a single year of success.

I'm talking about a decade of being perennially competitive for that major bowl slot.

We shouldn't have to go undefeated... and under this structure, we wouldn't have to.

The Great 8 champ would be even-up with AAC and MWC.

Where sturt thinks the difference between the AAC and SBC is going to be appreciable I see it more like the the old MWC and WAC.

For example, Boise State playing in the WAC didn't find much trouble earning the AQ spot and even picked up an at-large BCS bowl one year. If Appalachian State goes on a decade tear in FBS it will be the same situation for them as Boise, IMO. Things are more team oriented than conference oriented in the G5. One strong team can make an entire conference look decent.

The AAC does though have the most potential to build into a power league on the field....

(06-17-2013 06:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 04:57 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(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.

I disagree.

My friend, there's nothing to disagree with.

The normal distribution is the normal distribution. And the distribution of AAC members is not the normal distribution.

Is it possible for AAC to not regress back to the normal distribution?

In one year, sure. In two years, maybe. But as the years advance, the very fact that you have teams play each other, with one winning and one losing, game after game after game... eventually, looking at teams' wins and losses statistically, they naturally begin to look like the bell curve.

Hard to say which teams will succeed, which teams will be middling, and which teams will be perennial losers... but it's almost lock-certain that we'll see those tiers develop.

(06-17-2013 06:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It is important to note that there 12 slots in the CFP... About 1/2 the time a 12-1 G5 team is going to have to beat out a 3 losss P5 for an access bowl should they not be the highest rated champion.

There are four playoff slots. There are eight other bowl slots. A G5 team only needs to be the best G5 team to make an "access" bowl. It's guaranteed, and there is no condition on that.

(06-17-2013 06:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I say its going to come down to the OOC scheduling more so than the conference.

I agree that OOC scheduling is an important element.

But... but... please hear me...

First, there are only so many OOC schools who are going to benefit your school... second, there are only so many of those who you can predict will continue to be good 3-5 years out--ie, from the time the typical game/series gets scheduled... and third, there are only so many of those schools with only so many schedule openings.

As a conference, too, you cannot control/manage the scheduling... that's an individual school thing.

The point is, yes, do that... schedule viable OOC games. But don't limit yourself to that strategy alone. It won't be consistently successful, you can't mandate it on all of your schools, and you have to make it one point of a bigger strategy.

(06-17-2013 06:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The top to bottom SOS gap between the AAC and MAC/CUSA is not worth worrying about.

First, slight correction... "SOS" and Sagarin rating are not interchangeable terms...

Second, the gap between AAC and MAC is not significant in any one year... 2012 proved that.

But long-term? The gap becomes huge.

The likelihood of AAC claiming the major bowl slot and the millions that come with that in any given year over the likelihood of a MAC team is undeniably significant.

We want to be considered an equal with AAC and MWC... not the runt who every now and then gets a little attention. Don't forget that polls are a numerical expression of subjective opinion... and that polls were part of the BCS formula and are likely to continue to be part of the new formula.... and, translated, that means that reputation will still be part of the equation.

(06-17-2013 12:10 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Had some additional discretionary time over the weekend, and gave some thought to a legitimate objection that hasn't yet been raised...



...which is this: these schools would not only be part of the same football conference, but would be required to function as a conference for other sports as well.

It works for football. But does it work for basketball? And what about non-revenue sports?

The regulations say that you've got to have at least six members that remain static in any two-year period.

That would be satisfied under this arrangement, since there would only be two of the eight schools being relegated and replaced in any two year period.

But the bigger question is does Rice want to be having to play Northern Illinois in all of these basketball and non-revenue contests?

Surely not.

Well, they wouldn't.

Instead, for non-revenue team sports, the 8-team conference would have 4-team subdivisions aligned according to whether their parent conference is CUSA or MAC. And unless I missed something (the manual is 416 pages, but it's not difficult to search a PDF, of course), those 4 schools are only required to play each other home and away, and then for the 8 to have a post-season tournament.

For non-revenue individual sports, there is latitude to determine the conference champion through whatever means a conference desires to do so... ostensibly, that could be a single conference meet.

For basketball, the requirement is to either play double round-robin with all schools or a minimum of 14 contests. The latter is more ideal than the former in order to limit travel costs, so this is where a little more creativity gets employed.

So after football season, the Great Eight of football morphs into the Great Twelve of basketball.



Here's why.

By instituting automatic additions--ostensibly, the MAC West, MAC East, CUSA West and CUSA East champs from the previous year--to the new conference, scheduling becomes a piece of cake for all involved... teams continue to play conference mates with whom they're more geographically and/or historically tied:

Great Twelve regular season format
- 10 (5h/5a) former-MAC vs. former MAC, and 10 (5h/5a) former CUSA vs. former CUSA
- 4 (2h/2a) former-MACs vs. former CUSAs

MAC and CUSA regular season formats
- 8 (4h/4a) intradivision
- 6 interdivision: 1 h&a + 2h + 2a

Someone might say, "Yeah, that might work for CUSA where the relationships aren't developed to the degree that you're putting into jeopardy some rivalries, but in the MAC, some schools do have that: Ohio/Miami for instance. If Ohio is in the Great Eight/Twelve, and Miami in the MAC, that's a problem."

But wait. On the other hand, you have 14 conference games, whereas as things are currently constituted, I believe they are committed to 16.

So... you schedule Ohio/Miami home and away, and it nets out to be 16 games overall either way you do it. And so... it ends up... the problem isn't actually a problem.

And that leads to another advantage to this structure...

That is, every conference has a few games for which there's no particularly palpable interest... and so another thing that's great about this arrangement is that, assuming one is in the G12 and the other in the MAC, Akron doesn't absolutely have to play NIU in basketball.

Closer to home and more importantly to all of us Herd fans... Marshall doesn't absolutely have to play, for instance, UTSA in basketball. Rice doesn't absolutely have to play Old Dominion. Florida Atlantic doesn't absolutely have to play Louisiana Tech. They might. But they don't have to. There's more room for building a schedule that you want.

(Of course, that's a bigger deal to us in the widespread CUSA than it would be to the MAC side.)

Advantage, new alliance.

But here's another objection:

What about the tournament?.. you just aren't going to be able to find a good mid-point location for a tournament that is potentially attempting to attract fans from Buffalo to El Paso.

True.

Simple and easy resolution to that...

The Great Twelve Tournament, except for the championship (which I address below), would take place in two locations... the six former-MAC schools would be seeded 1 through 6 and would play their games in Cleveland (MAC tourney location)... same for the former-CUSA schools, playing their games in whatever city the tournament ends up being in (for now, El Paso). On the calendar, those would precede the MAC and CUSA tournaments.

From those two, then, a former-MAC team and a former-CUSA team would emerge to play in a championship game. Both the MAC and CUSA tournaments currently conclude on Saturdays. The G12 championship would take place on Sunday, in the tournament city of the higher-seeded team (based first on conference record, then on tie-breakers)--e.g., if Southern Miss emerges from the CUSA side, and Akron emerges from the MAC side, the championship would be played in Cleveland if Akron has the higher seeding, and in El Paso or whatever new site is chosen, if Southern Miss has it.

So, the G12 Championship ends up just being an additional one-game nominal money maker pitting a former CUSA school versus a former MAC school.

Which highlights again the important advantage to this structure that is embedded in the subject header...

Currently, the MAC has 13 schools, CUSA 14 schools. Between them, those two conferences yield TWO champions. (Of course.)

Adding 3 schools to MAC and 2 schools to CUSA provides sufficient membership to carve out and establish this third "co-op" conference of their most elite. And besides satisfying its primary purpose in making it substantially more likely to put one of their schools in a major bowl year-in-year-out, adding just five schools between them makes it possible to award a THIRD school a championship... and... in doing so, also makes the MAC and CUSA championship more reachable from top-to-bottom in the regular conferences.

I know it's a lot to think about, and seemingly is too out-of-the-box to comprehend actually occurring. Some, no doubt, have skipped all the way to the bottom and this very paragraph, muttering to themselves, "I can't believe he thought all this out, and then wrote all of this." (Yep. I did, and I did... again... more discretionary time right now than normal.)

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.

lolz. Not happening

(06-17-2013 06:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Where sturt thinks the difference between the AAC and SBC is going to be appreciable I see it more like the the old MWC and WAC.

For example, Boise State playing in the WAC didn't find much trouble earning the AQ spot and even picked up an at-large BCS bowl one year. If Appalachian State goes on a decade tear in FBS it will be the same situation for them as Boise, IMO. Things are more team oriented than conference oriented in the G5. One strong team can make an entire conference look decent.

The AAC does though have the most potential to build into a power league on the field....

Everything will be decided on the field. The champions with the best recrord will be representing the G5.

There will be no "stealing" of access bowls by the AAC from the MAC or CUSA. If the AAC gets it with the same record it will be because they beat more Top 25 teams. If its statistically close between the AAC and MAC and the AAC got the bid the last time there was a tie they'll give it to the MAC.

Sagarin is an SOS ranking system and one that is easily recognized. Whether it is used by the committee we don't know but quite frankly it doesn't matter.

In the G5 its going to be record first, then quality wins. What a conference did on the season on average isn't going to be directly important so long as it gives you an opportunity at quality wins.

One upside of a MAC/CUSA mini playoff is that the champion would represent 32 teams and would only have to compete against the AAC, MWC and SBC champion for placement. You eliminate a conference of competition that way.

The downside is that you couldn't have both an undefeated MAC and CUSA school in an access bowl. I know that only the highest rated champion of the G5 is guaranteed an access bowl but with 12 total slots to fill in the CFP its going to be impossible to justify leaving out any undefeated teams.

Instead of a 25% chance of a MAC/CUSA team making it out of for conferences if they compete independently there is a 40% chance (2 out of 5) that either the MAC or CUSA will end up in a CFP bowl and a very slight chance (5%) of both.

Quote:Where sturt thinks the difference between the AAC and SBC is going to be appreciable I see it more like the the old MWC and WAC.

Okay. We have some numbers with which we can test that, right?

Let's take the Sagarin ratings for each conference and do a simple average on them for the 2008-2012 period.

We can estimate the current AAC to be something between the former Big East and CUSA 2.0, right? And in round numbers the CUSA part makes up about 70% and the old Big East part makes up about 30%... erring on the side of conservatism so as to not give the BE part more weight.

And we can actually look at the pre-Boise (2008-2010) MWC (... I assume that's what you mean by the "old MWC") and the post-Boise (2011 + 2012) WAC.

The difference?

The delta from the current AAC to the SB is 7.44.

The delta between the old MWC and WAC is 3.21. Nowhere close.

It's plausible that I misinterpreted, and you meant the difference between the old MWC and the old WAC... that seems more plausible... but even that delta is 5.18... still only about 65% of the gulf between the AAC and SB.

What's a better fit?

I did the chart... take a look.



Do the math and you'll find that the difference between the SEC and the Big East is only about 6.64. And we're looking for a difference between conferences at 7.44.

So, the gap between the top of G5 and the bottom is even somewhat wider than the gap between SEC and Big East.

For the heckuvit, also put the average ratings into a bar graph...

Quote:The downside is that you couldn't have both an undefeated MAC and CUSA school in an access bowl

Huh?

You say many curious things... too many actually for me to keep up with, to be honest. I was just getting ready to explain the difference between strength of schedule calculations and equations intended to predict margin of victory... Sagarin is the latter, not the former, btw... when I caught this one, and I had to take this one first.

The very POINT of having an in-season playoff is so that you can ensure that ONE team emerges with three victories versus good-to-very-good competition at the end of the season... and implicit with that is that that team could potentially enter the mini-playoff undefeated, and run the table.

At the very least, though, you get a bounce similar to the Kent/NIU effect... without the MAC Championship, neither of those teams beats Boise, and arguably not even Utah State, in the final BCS rankings.

Wow...this has heated up!

I can at least say I understand what sturt's idea is about...I don't think it will occur, but I understand the rationale and its intent...it actually could work...

Gotta disagree with ol Kitton...I can't see 2 teams from the G5 involved in the 6 bowls...that's why they fought for guaranteed inclusion, because if left to their own devices, the P5 would shut em out every time. So, using the previously discussed concept of a team going undefeated, under the rare occurrence that that are more than 1 team, it's a safe bet that only ONE will be in the major bowl picture, regardless of win-loss records of P5...they will reach to a 4 loss Notre Dame if necessary to guarantee butts in the seats!

Of course, they did allow Boise and TCU in at the same time...so it could happen, I guess...

But the way they have explained this whole structure, only the 4 team playoff is based on a selection committee, the other bowls have already decided on conference A vs. conference B...there is no at-large selections, like before...I also don't think there is a limit on how many a conference can have (2 per conference under the old BCS)...so if they wanted to choose 3 SEC teams for the playoff, they could...at least that's the way I interpret the rules...and they could still have SEC team probably in one of the other bowls that is contracted to the SEC...

Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong?

Also, fwiw, I think an undefeated Univ of Cincinnati, trumps every undefeated team in G5...even a 1-loss cincin might trump most depending on who they play and beat...

Quote:...the CFP its going to be impossible to justify leaving out any undefeated teams...

And again... you're talking about a circumstance that rarely ever happens as-if it's suddenly going to become the norm.

Let's deal with what we know. There's a guaranteed slot. Let's make sure that, between us, there's a team well-positioned to beat-out the AAC and MWC candidates.

(06-17-2013 09:42 PM)wleakr Wrote:  Wow...this has heated up!

I can at least say I understand what sturt's idea is about...I don't think it will occur, but I understand the rationale and its intent...it actually could work...

Gotta disagree with ol Kitton...I can't see 2 teams from the G5 involved in the 6 bowls...that's why they fought for guaranteed inclusion, because if left to their own devices, the P5 would shut em out every time. So, using the previously discussed concept of a team going undefeated, under the rare occurrence that that are more than 1 team, it's a safe bet that only ONE will be in the major bowl picture, regardless of win-loss records of P5...they will reach to a 4 loss Notre Dame if necessary to guarantee butts in the seats!

Of course, they did allow Boise and TCU in at the same time...so it could happen, I guess...

But the way they have explained this whole structure, only the 4 team playoff is based on a selection committee, the other bowls have already decided on conference A vs. conference B...there is no at-large selections, like before...I also don't think there is a limit on how many a conference can have (2 per conference under the old BCS)...so if they wanted to choose 3 SEC teams for the playoff, they could...at least that's the way I interpret the rules...and they could still have SEC team probably in one of the other bowls that is contracted to the SEC...

Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong?

According to the reference I have they plan to rank all 12 teams.

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

They are going to rank teams 1 through 12. You may have a contract bowl participant outside of that top 12 (ACC sometimes) or you may have the top G5 champ rated below 12 which would make the CFP games available to the Top 10 or 11 in reality.

Could the Top 3 teams all end up being SEC? Sure there is no prohibitions on that but they have to be ranked high enough to qualify.

(06-17-2013 09:52 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

Quote:...the CFP its going to be impossible to justify leaving out any undefeated teams...

And again... you're talking about a circumstance that rarely ever happens as-if it's suddenly going to become the norm.

Let's deal with what we know. There's a guaranteed slot. Let's make sure that, between us, there's a team well-positioned to beat-out the AAC and MWC candidates.

-I definitely see you eye to eye on the number difference between the AAC and SBC. I don't disagree with you on numbers as I've been well aware of them for many years. I've been gathering numbers on this for several months to answer the exact question about SOS.

-What I disagree with you on and have spent a lot of time thinking about since the the new CFP system has been in place is will the overall SOS make a difference between the AAC or another G5 league getting a team placed in the G5.

My conclusion is that somebody has to be the 6th, 7th and 8th best conference which historically has had decent to good overall strength numbers. The AAC should be 6 to 8 regularly, with the other 2 conferences being the ones that contain the 1 loss or zero loss team, while 2 G5 conferences underperform on the season. The SBC thus would place 6th, 7th or 8th as a conference with an undefeated team.

-I believe it has (Boise State WAC example) and will continue to come down to teams at the G5 level with league SOS not a factor. The SBC with an 8th place finish may still be 4-5 points behind the AAC at #6 but that won't matter if Appalachian State played a great OOC schedule and knocked 2 SEC teams on their tail.

-If SOS isn't going to matter too much in the end analysis then the MAC and CUSA don't have anything to gain by merging schedules together.

This is again a big point on where we disagree, you think the greater SOS of the AAC will be a big factor while I simply don't. Again see Boise State starting a season ranked in the Top 5 out of the now dormant Western Athletic FB conference.

(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.

Read the following to understand why it would be better for the AAC and MWC to merge. The last quote by a well respected member on our AAC board who suggested the idea explains why it's not only practically, but would likely increase the success percentage of both conferences going forward as one into a bias college playoff era:

(06-15-2013 09:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 09:32 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 08:43 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 06:19 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly, at this point---I think our best bet may end up being a quasi merger with the Mountain West. Create one huge nationwide high profile 16-20 team mid-major conference that would be make the most sense to be included in a P-5 breakaway. Im not sure theres any other way to try an keep up.


NorthEast
UMass Army
UConn
Navy
Temple
ECU

SouthEast
UCF
USF
S Miss
Cinci
Memphis
VCU* We don't need Oly Sports members in a conference like this

South
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
Tulane
Air Force

West
Boise
SDSU
Fresno
UNLV
BYU* All sports or they can rot.


Im thinking the winner of the conference championship game gets the non-AQ BCS slot 90% of the time. Theres probably 8-10 NCAA bids in that basketball conferece. Theres one crossover game in football (9 game scheduel). Play everyone in the conference once for a 19 game basketball schedule. Divisional play only for non-revenue sports with championship games where needed. I honestly think thats the only way we can completely seperate ourselves from the G-5. This also has the added advantage of allowing us to capitalize on the geographical issues that the Pac-12 has so that we can create a few power conference bowls---further seperating ourselves from the other G-5 members. Thats my long term answer for those that dont get a golden ticket to a power confernece.

This is the best option—period. However, there too many schools on the list, but I won’t suggest which ones should be removed because this thread would turn into a….

I added my options. That would be a fun conference. Hell make a 4 pod, 5 team rotary with a playoff of it's own.

Not bad, but at the risk of repeating myself, it doesn't mean much if the champion has nowhere to go with it. P5 would have create the access for this to be worth the reconfiguration of the AAC and MWC.

Maybe someone should re-explain the G5 playoff access scenario, as of 2014? I might just need to be educated on this.

The highest rated non-AQ school gets an auto-bid to a BCS game. If a non-AQ school is ranked in the top 4 in the country the school earns one of the 4 semi-final slots (just like the P5). The way I see it, the winner of the combined AAC/MW would be the highest ranked non-AQ about 90% of the time. So I feel like the combined MW/ACC would be in a BCS game so often, they would end up being a quasi-AQ conference. They might even get a school in the playoff every so often.

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

The reason sturt’s proposal interest me is because I commented above that too many schools are included in the aforementioned AAC/MWC merger. However, with sturt’s proposal, the weaker schools in each conference could still be affiliated with the merged conference, while the stronger schools actually represent the conference. G5 fans need to accept the reality that we have been basically relegated to playing in meaningless bowls with the bowl monopolization by the Cartel Club. Consequently, another member suggested the following in the same thread:

(06-14-2013 06:01 AM)Pirate1 Wrote:  Sporting News

I like this idea. Would create great excitement and not leave our fate to a committee.

Some AAC members are against the idea because it would mean playing only other mid-major schools in a bowl playoff format. Nevertheless, nobody on the AAC board ever attacked the member for his post or for actually starting a thread about a G5 playoff:

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

My point (to whom it is applicable) is that the G5 schools are being left with very few options. Therefore, when someone suggests an idea that could improve our options, members should be open minded about the idea. Constructive criticism is a better way of addressing an idea than attacking the member that posted the idea.

Moreover, in order to better our chances for survival and success, our conference leaders need to consider other alternatives like those presented in this thread and post. CUSA and the MAC are stronger together than separate. Likewise the AAC and MWC could be perceived almost as a power conference combined than separate. Furthermore, Sturt’s idea at least attempts to allow such mergers/alliances possible without disassociation from the weaker schools in each conference.

The P5 still won't consider them a power conference no matter what they do. Having good football teams isn't enough, apparently.

(06-18-2013 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The P5 still won't consider them a power conference no matter what they do. Having good football teams isn't enough, apparently.

I understand your point, which is why I used the word "almost." We would be preceived as being much better than the other G5 and "almost" or just as good as the weakest P5 when it comes to performance on the field.

(06-18-2013 10:11 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The P5 still won't consider them a power conference no matter what they do. Having good football teams isn't enough, apparently.

I understand your point, which is why I used the word "almost." We would be preceived as being much better than the other G5 and "almost" or just as good as the weakest P5 when it comes to performance on the field.

Probably. I just wonder if that would help any.