Now which conference sent a school to the Orange Bowl last year?

Fair is fair...

GMG!

(06-17-2013 03:11 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 03:05 PM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  If alliances worked then the CUSA/MWC alliance would have already happened. And who wants to align with the MAC. puke:

LoL So, are you puking ON the poo? Or are you puking so much BECAUSE of the poo?

Both

(06-17-2013 09:34 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:26 PM)monarx Wrote:  Seems to me the Go5 may as well be one conference anyway. Yeah there's a little more history of success in the MWC, and a few AAC teams, but nobody outside of Go5 fans is going to know there's much difference between Western Kentucky, Central Michigan, East Carolina, Southern Miss and South Alabama. At least CUSA and the Belt and half of the AAC are in prime football territory. They should just take all the Go5 teams and re distribute them according to geography and rivals. Everyone would be better off for it. We are all in the same boat, so why piss on the SB or AAC? It's us against the cartel of the auto conferences. Root for each other to beat those guys rather than brag about being the biggest midget.

You guys can keep perpetuating this myth.

The original poster is commenting on the degree to which Joe Fan will be informed about Go5 schools and conferences.

What will matter to Joe Fan where Go5 is concerned will be limited to one topic... who will be the Go5 representative in a major bowl.

That's why AAC and MWC will continue to matter.

It's why MAC and CUSA are scrambling... or ought to be... for some way to continue to be part of that conversation, not just once, not just every now and then... but to year-in-year-out be part of that conversation.

(06-17-2013 12:55 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I've learned that there are some in this forum who feel like it's okay to have a conversation about whether the league should or should not expand to 16 teams... ostensibly, talking about realignment... but who believe that topic is suited just fine to being batted around here... and on the other hand, some of those same posters evidently think when you talk about an alliance relationship between CUSA and another conference, that's somehow different.

Sure, it's irrational... but I chalk it up to how it's somewhat natural for sports fans in general to want to feel high and mighty... the essence of caring about winning over someone else.

So I said all that to say this...

I pre-emptively am not posting content relevant to the subject header here, but instead am posting a link to the content on the realignment board... and doing so exclusively for those who are intrigued by the idea and rationale... and notably, not for anyone who isn't... please just pass it by and don't let it slow down your day.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=632...pid9416873

Obviously any correlation with another conference would be with the MWC like they discussed previously. Why in the hell would anybody want to do something with the Mac? Have you lost your marbles? Or do you have any to start with?

Ain't he one of ya'lls?

(06-18-2013 11:52 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Ain't he one of ya'lls?

He's not one of us that I am aware of. In the "I root for" section he lists nobody. Comes across to me as a Mac school fan troll. That would be my guess.

:Edit:...He has to be a Mac fan troll. No way would anyone come up with some crazy idea like that unless he was a Mac troll.

Guys, really... this isn't 8th grade.

If you have something intelligent to add, say it.

If you don't, is it really THAT much of a boost of your ego to post juvenile attempts at insult?

76, on the chance you were actually attempting at the bottom to say something intelligent... I would just say the obvious--MWC was interested in working with CUSA 2.0. This is not that same conference. More than half the members have never played at a level above MAC football before. To suggest MWC would be interested in working with CUSA 3.0, you'd have to offer some rationale for how that benefits them.

And if you don't understand why MAC and CUSA would... correlate??? (... maybe you meant "collaborate?")... that's not my problem. It's all posted, and you can choose to read, or not. I'm guessing, given the seriousness of this recent reply, "not."

(06-18-2013 12:17 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:52 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Ain't he one of ya'lls?

He's not one of us that I am aware of. In the "I root for" section he lists nobody. Comes across to me as a Mac school fan troll. That would be my guess.

:Edit:...He has to be a Mac fan troll. No way would anyone come up with some crazy idea like that unless he was a Mac troll.

*rolls eyes*

(06-18-2013 12:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Guys, really... this isn't 8th grade.

If you have something intelligent to add, say it.

If you don't, is it really THAT much of a boost of your ego to post juvenile attempts at insult?

76, on the chance you were actually attempting at the bottom to say something intelligent... I would just say the obvious--MWC was interested in working with CUSA 2.0. This is not that same conference. More than half the members have never played at a level above MAC football before. To suggest MWC would be interested in working with CUSA 3.0, you'd have to offer some rationale for how that benefits them.

And if you don't understand why MAC and CUSA would... correlate??? (... maybe you meant "collaborate?")... that's not my problem. It's all posted, and you can choose to read, or not. I'm guessing, given the seriousness of this recent reply, "not."

No I meant exactly what I said....."correlate"....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlate

(06-18-2013 12:24 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:17 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:52 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Ain't he one of ya'lls?

He's not one of us that I am aware of. In the "I root for" section he lists nobody. Comes across to me as a Mac school fan troll. That would be my guess.

:Edit:...He has to be a Mac fan troll. No way would anyone come up with some crazy idea like that unless he was a Mac troll.

*rolls eyes*

Well then tell us who you root for. Why hide it?

(06-18-2013 12:34 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:24 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:17 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:52 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Ain't he one of ya'lls?

He's not one of us that I am aware of. In the "I root for" section he lists nobody. Comes across to me as a Mac school fan troll. That would be my guess.

:Edit:...He has to be a Mac fan troll. No way would anyone come up with some crazy idea like that unless he was a Mac troll.

*rolls eyes*

Well then tell us who you root for. Why hide it?

He was claiming to be a Marshall fan over on the MAC board.

Also, the idea still sucks.

(06-17-2013 09:26 PM)monarx Wrote:  Seems to me the Go5 may as well be one conference anyway. Yeah there's a little more history of success in the MWC, and a few AAC teams, but nobody outside of Go5 fans is going to know there's much difference between Western Kentucky, Central Michigan, East Carolina, Southern Miss and South Alabama. At least CUSA and the Belt and half of the AAC are in prime football territory. They should just take all the Go5 teams and re distribute them according to geography and rivals. Everyone would be better off for it. We are all in the same boat, so why piss on the SB or AAC? It's us against the cartel of the auto conferences. Root for each other to beat those guys rather than brag about being the biggest midget.

No offense but if it was "us against the cartel" ODU would've never been added to CUSA in the first place. CUSA could've just done the sensible thing from the 1st round of defections and merged with SBC but that's not how things work in the real world. Different factors like athletic budgets, exposure, mission of school, academics, geography, etc all play into a weird mix of differnt types of snobbery even among the G5 schools. It's the reason CUSA and SBC had to rob from FCS in the first place. CUSA took everybody from the SBC that aligns with the profile of CUSA and when they were done with them, they took 2 from FCS that matched the CUSA profile.

It is what it is, there's a clear pecking order but the order has a little less difference from top to bottom in G5.

(06-18-2013 12:43 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  No offense but if it was "us against the cartel" ODU would've never been added to CUSA in the first place. CUSA could've just done the sensible thing from the 1st round of defections and merged with SBC but that's not how things work in the real world. Different factors like athletic budgets, exposure, mission of school, academics, geography, etc all play into a weird mix of differnt types of snobbery even among the G5 schools. It's the reason CUSA and SBC had to rob from FCS in the first place. CUSA took everybody from the SBC that aligns with the profile of CUSA and when they were done with them, they took 2 from FCS that matched the CUSA profile.

It is what it is, there's a clear pecking order but the order has a little less difference from top to bottom in G5.

Actually... I had reason to look into this for the purposes of another conversation, and worked up an Excel sheet on it... these are the 5 year conference-wide simple-averaged Sagarins; one row shows conference ranking, but the more useful numbers are directly below those, showing the ratings...



Do the math, and you'll find that the difference between the top (SEC) and what was the bottom (Big East) is only about 6.64.

The conservative estimate (necessary to estimate since it is composed of about 30% former Big East and about 70% former CUSA) for the difference between the AAC (top) and Sun Belt (bottom) is 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.

When you add to that the numbers I charted showing 5-year ranking averages for the actual schools composing the realigned conferences, you see

AAC = ~75 (likely to regress slightly over time to the normal curve)
MWC = ~90
MAC = ~115
CUSA = ~118 (likely to increase slightly over time to the normal curve)
SBC = ~125

Translating those numbers into a grid and matching that against the P5 conferences for some context, here's the bottom line...

- AAC is essentially the SEC of the Go5

- MWC is essentially the Big XII of the Go5

- MAC and CUSA essentially are something somewhere between the ACC and old Big East of the Go5

- SBC essentially is something somewhere between the old Big East and MWC

Lets just agree with Sturt and acknowledge that CUSA, SBC and MAC are weaker than the AAC and MWC. Then we can just wait for him to figure out that history has shown, and he's all about history, that its far easier to make a BCS bowl out of a weak conference instead of a stronger conference if you don't have a conference auto bid.

That's your biggest miss Sturt. The reason no CUSA team has gone undefeated and made a BcS bowl is because there have been too many quality teams. Houston and Southern Miss in 2011 were both as good as the Boise teams that made BCS bowls, better than the Hawaii team that made it and better than the NIU team from last year.

There's a reason the WAC made 4 BCS bowls, it's called significant imbalance. Going forward its why CUSA and the MAC will have a much better shot than the AAC. Why would you throw away that advantage by having the top teams in the MAC and CUSA play each other? The key to making a BCS bowl is not SOS, its winning all your games or at least losing less than every other Go5 school.

Granted, if UCF goes 12-0 and Marshall goes 13-0 then UCF will get the nod. However, Marshall, USM, etc. has a much better chance of going undefeated than UCF or some other AAC team as does NIU or Toledo. So why have NIU play USM in what is essentially an elimination game during the regular season? It just makes no sense.

Wow... a substantive response from banker... pardon the observation, but what a pleasant change... even so, these are not new assertions... misnomers and premature conclusions abound... and after returning from have an appointment, I'll be happy to respond with something equally substantive...

(06-19-2013 01:59 PM)banker Wrote:  Lets just agree with Sturt and acknowledge that CUSA, SBC and MAC are weaker than the AAC and MWC. Then we can just wait for him to figure out that history has shown, and he's all about history, that its far easier to make a BCS bowl out of a weak conference instead of a stronger conference if you don't have a conference auto bid.

That's your biggest miss Sturt. The reason no CUSA team has gone undefeated and made a BcS bowl is because there have been too many quality teams. Houston and Southern Miss in 2011 were both as good as the Boise teams that made BCS bowls, better than the Hawaii team that made it and better than the NIU team from last year.

There's a reason the WAC made 4 BCS bowls, it's called significant imbalance. Going forward its why CUSA and the MAC will have a much better shot than the AAC. Why would you throw away that advantage by having the top teams in the MAC and CUSA play each other? The key to making a BCS bowl is not SOS, its winning all your games or at least losing less than every other Go5 school.

Granted, if UCF goes 12-0 and Marshall goes 13-0 then UCF will get the nod. However, Marshall, USM, etc. has a much better chance of going undefeated than UCF or some other AAC team as does NIU or Toledo. So why have NIU play USM in what is essentially an elimination game during the regular season? It just makes no sense.

Thank you.

Took a couple of hours at the end of my day to construct this... perhaps it's available elsewhere, but I'm not aware of it. I believe it's good info for anyone wanting to build a case pro or con... it's just the facts.

One important caveat of note: The bar charts reflect the Sagarin conference rating averages for all teams except the top team... and the reason for that is, this helps us evaluate the theory put forth by some that playing in a weak conference is advantageous to the cause of being the top school in the BCS ratings, whereas playing in a strong conference makes it more difficult to do so.

I'll save comment, because sheesh, it's 7:30 CDT and I need to get home and feed the dog... then feed me... then feed the wife when she gets home from her nursing shift.

Hope this is helpful.

The only way I see any alliance with the MAC being any good for CUSA is it'd give Marshall/WKU some close teams to play.

Sturt, what that chart shows just reinforces my point, an undefeated Go5 team, regardless of conference strength, will be the team that goes to the BCS. You missed that both Boise and TCU went one year when they were both undefeated. SOS actually will rarely come in to play because you will rarely have more than one undefeated Go5. NIU made it only because there was not an undefeated team.

If an AAC goes undefeated, they'll most likely get the bid over an undefeated from another conference regardless if the best MAC teams play the best CUSA teams anyway, so why risk it?

(06-19-2013 08:19 PM)banker Wrote:  Sturt, what that chart shows just reinforces my point, an undefeated Go5 team, regardless of conference strength, will be the team that goes to the BCS. You missed that both Boise and TCU went one year when they were both undefeated. SOS actually will rarely come in to play because you will rarely have more than one undefeated Go5. NIU made it only because there was not an undefeated team.

If an AAC goes undefeated, they'll most likely get the bid over an undefeated from another conference regardless if the best MAC teams play the best CUSA teams anyway, so why risk it?

I think that Utah also went to the BCS game from the MWC. They may have went twice (Pitt and Alabama), but I am not sure about that. TCU went , but I don't think that BYU did.