(04-18-2015 02:24 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  There is no agenda here. this isn't an analysis of how the AAC, or any other conference did as a group. It is an analysis of how the individual schools did over the past six years regardless of what conference they were in at the time. In some cases, the schools weren't even classified as FBs the entire time.

So it doesn't matter that the AAC has only existed for one year. Its members, as they will be configured starting in 2015, all performed somewhere for the last six years. This shows how those teams did over that period. Nothing more, nothing less.

You always have an agenda. Please spare me the platitudes.

And what agenda might that be? I guess you think you know a lot more about me than I know about you. It doesn't matter that you couldn't be more wrong. Apparently, the data struck a nerve with you.

(04-18-2015 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 02:24 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  There is no agenda here. this isn't an analysis of how the AAC, or any other conference did as a group. It is an analysis of how the individual schools did over the past six years regardless of what conference they were in at the time. In some cases, the schools weren't even classified as FBs the entire time.

So it doesn't matter that the AAC has only existed for one year. Its members, as they will be configured starting in 2015, all performed somewhere for the last six years. This shows how those teams did over that period. Nothing more, nothing less.

You always have an agenda. Please spare me the platitudes.

And what agenda might that be? I guess you think you know a lot more about me than I know about you. It doesn't matter that you couldn't be more wrong. Apparently, the data struck a nerve with you.

It didn't strike a nerve. It conflicted with his agenda.

(04-18-2015 02:24 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  There is no agenda here. this isn't an analysis of how the AAC, or any other conference did as a group. It is an analysis of how the individual schools did over the past six years regardless of what conference they were in at the time. In some cases, the schools weren't even classified as FBs the entire time.

So it doesn't matter that the AAC has only existed for one year. Its members, as they will be configured starting in 2015, all performed somewhere for the last six years. This shows how those teams did over that period. Nothing more, nothing less.

You always have an agenda. Please spare me the platitudes.

Out of all the posters on the realignment board the absolute last one I would say has an agenda would be Ken.

(04-17-2015 09:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  Another thing I track on the same spreadsheet is average attendance. Not only is Eastern Michigan the lowest ranked FBS school of those who have played football all six years of the study, they also rank at the very bottom in attendance. In fact, during that entire period, they never once achieved the NCAA mandated minimum to qualify as an FBS school.

Then it turns out there are three other schools who have yet to reach the minimum during all six years. They are Ball State, Akron and Idaho. Three of the four are in the MAC. Has the NCAA just abandoned enforcing this requirement, or does the MAC have some juicy information they are holding over the NCAA's head?

I know this sounds like something from a Michael (spit) Moore documentary or even Boardwalk Empire but the truth is.... there are two sets of numbers.

Set one is the box score number. The box score number can be anything from a turnstile count to the Sports Information Director looking out the press box window and saying, "eh 52,173 looks 'bout right". This is the number available on the NCAA website.

Set two is submitted in February after the season. It must detail the number of tickets sold at each price point, if students pay an activity fee and get free admission, each student admitted, while not countable for NCAA purposes, it also details every free admission. This report is used to determine if a school is in compliance with attendance and must be signed by the AD and the Faculty Athletic Rep for the school. The NCAA absolutely will not release the contents of that report.

True story.
A school I will not name but it is a former Sun Belt school currently in CUSA received a warning letter on attendance (first time is warning, second in 10 years is reclassification). The reason they received the warning was because they made an accounting "mistake". The "mistake" was that the practice of the school was to treat any unrestricted gift to athletics as a purchase of tickets with the tickets then "donated" to the booster club who would "sell" the donated tickets to the athletic department to move the cash to the club. Donors had no idea at all they were buying tickets. If you gave $250 dollars you received a receipt from the booster club for $250 despite the crazy transaction going on.

The booster club had a new person who just assumed if the club received $250 you give the person a receipt and deposit it in the club account rather than using the money to buy tickets, sell the tickets back to athletics and then deposit the money (how could you NOT know that's what you are supposed to do? )

The school didn't discover the "mistake" until after the season and had two choices, 1. Report what was on the books or 2. Monkey with the books after the fact. They wisely selected choice 1 because while the NCAA will let them do the monkey business, it has to be done contemporaneously, doing it after the fact is violation so they took their attendance warning letter and crossed their fingers and hoped better "training" would prevent any further slip-up in the next ten years.

(04-18-2015 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 02:24 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  There is no agenda here. this isn't an analysis of how the AAC, or any other conference did as a group. It is an analysis of how the individual schools did over the past six years regardless of what conference they were in at the time. In some cases, the schools weren't even classified as FBs the entire time.

So it doesn't matter that the AAC has only existed for one year. Its members, as they will be configured starting in 2015, all performed somewhere for the last six years. This shows how those teams did over that period. Nothing more, nothing less.

You always have an agenda. Please spare me the platitudes.

And what agenda might that be? I guess you think you know a lot more about me than I know about you. It doesn't matter that you couldn't be more wrong. Apparently, the data struck a nerve with you.

It didn't strike a nerve. It conflicted with his agenda.

Well, perhaps I should have worded one of my earlier posts to read "There were only two schools whose power ranking declined in each of the past five years. One of them was UConn, and the other one was not."

(04-19-2015 07:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 02:24 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  There is no agenda here. this isn't an analysis of how the AAC, or any other conference did as a group. It is an analysis of how the individual schools did over the past six years regardless of what conference they were in at the time. In some cases, the schools weren't even classified as FBs the entire time.

So it doesn't matter that the AAC has only existed for one year. Its members, as they will be configured starting in 2015, all performed somewhere for the last six years. This shows how those teams did over that period. Nothing more, nothing less.

You always have an agenda. Please spare me the platitudes.

And what agenda might that be? I guess you think you know a lot more about me than I know about you. It doesn't matter that you couldn't be more wrong. Apparently, the data struck a nerve with you.

It didn't strike a nerve. It conflicted with his agenda.

Well, perhaps I should have worded one of my earlier posts to read "There were only two schools whose power ranking declined in each of the past five years. One of them was UConn, and the other one was not."

Perhaps you should use comparative data verses a sliding scale. You compare the average rankings of schools from where they finish but forget to mention that the Cartel 5 schools consistently begin the year ranked higher then the common schools. This has a direct effect on where they will be ranked at the end of the year regardless of overall performance. You just chose not to mention that factor because it doesn't enhance or further your agenda.

You also failed to factor in the effects of the collapse of the Big East on the schools who've remained in the American and how they have taken a severe drop in rankings over the past couple years do to the perception of them moving from BCS conference to a Minor conference. They are the same teams but, get none of the credit for their history as do the Cartel 5.

Look, it's not ken's fault that USF has pretty much gone in the tank since before the Big East's death was certain. And it's not his fault, or anyone else's, that the Bulls are currently stuck in the AAC, whether they like it or not, dwelling in that conference's basement. It's only natural that a bit of apathy set in. But USF better quit moaning about what might have been, pull their collective head out of their butt, and get to work building in a positive direction again. At the rate things are going, instead of being mentioned in the same vein as Miami, FSU, or Florida, the Bulls will be in the conversation with FAU and FIU for Florida's worst FBS program. Right now it's the Bulls in a landslide.

Any analysis that includes data on USF within the last decade or 2 is going to illustrate a meteoric rise up the mountain of success, subsequently followed by a leap off the cliff into the abyss of futility, and ultimately the destruction of Big East football. It's rebirth as the diminished AAC has the Big East leftovers wistful, longing for a newer, better home. But the Bulls will never get there unless they do something about it themselves. It beats the heck out of trying to rearrange the world in your head to make it fit your imaginations.

(04-19-2015 12:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Look, it's not ken's fault that USF has pretty much gone in the tank since before the Big East's death was certain. And it's not his fault, or anyone else's, that the Bulls are currently stuck in the AAC, whether they like it or not, dwelling in that conference's basement. It's only natural that a bit of apathy set in. But USF better quit moaning about what might have been, pull their collective head out of their butt, and get to work building in a positive direction again. At the rate things are going, instead of being mentioned in the same vein as Miami, FSU, or Florida, the Bulls will be in the conversation with FAU and FIU for Florida's worst FBS program. Right now it's the Bulls in a landslide.

Any analysis that includes data on USF within the last decade or 2 is going to illustrate a meteoric rise up the mountain of success, subsequently followed by a leap off the cliff into the abyss of futility, and ultimately the destruction of Big East football. It's rebirth as the diminished AAC has the Big East leftovers wistful, longing for a newer, better home. But the Bulls will never get there unless they do something about it themselves. It beats the heck out of trying to rearrange the world in your head to make it fit your imaginations.

Bit you're so off center you're just another Cartel 5 apologist now. My comments have nothing to do with South Florida. It has to do with the use of a period in which many of the teams used were in a downward turn per media alone and that has little to do with on field performance. Many of the teams suffer from being ranked lower in the start of the season then they had in the first 1 or 2 years of this study and then dropped do to Conference affiliation/Media Contract. So get ahold of your petty bias and rethink the purpose of this thread. I did and found it biased and utterly lacking true perspective.

Ken, what would the conference power rankings look like if you:

1) added Boise St. and BYU to the AAC?
2) added Boise St., BYU, Air Force, Colorado St., Fresno St., and San Diego St. to the AAC (and removed them from the MWC)?
3) added the above plus N. Illinois and Army to the AAC?

I'm interested to see if the AAC could close the gap to the ACC and B1G and separate itself from the MWC and C-USA if it were to expand as noted above.

(04-20-2015 06:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  Ken, what would the conference power rankings look like if you:

1) added Boise St. and BYU to the AAC?
2) added Boise St., BYU, Air Force, Colorado St., Fresno St., and San Diego St. to the AAC (and removed them from the MWC)?
3) added the above plus N. Illinois and Army to the AAC?

I'm interested to see if the AAC could close the gap to the ACC and B1G and separate itself from the MWC and C-USA if it were to expand as noted above.

The AAC starts with a rating of 64.2 while the MWC starts at 63.5.

1) This produces the biggest improvement in the AAC rating, to 66.0 and reduces the MWC's to 62.3. That makes the gap between them 3 PPG larger than before the move. They are still more than 8 PPG below the lowest P5.

2) This makes the AAC's most recent 3 year average a bit lower than just adding BYU and Boise, but as you might expect drops the MWC's numbers significantly. That makes the gap 3.8 PPG.

3) This would drop the AAC average a little more, to 65.3 since Army would have the lowest rating of the 20 teams in this version of the AAC.

It's worth noting that none of these moves would have changed the overall league trend between 2012 and 2014. Of the 8 schools added, only 2 improved their 3 year trailing average - Colorado State (by 8 PPG) and Fresno State. The biggest decline among the other 6 teams was Boise State (9.9 PPG).

While the technique of using a trailing average helps identify trends, it also tends to smooth and moderate them. Thus, any one year of exceptionally good or bad performance doesn't get to tell a misleading story about the strength of programs as opposed to the strength of seasons. 2014 was a real stinker for the AAC, which led CUSA fans to tout that theirs was the stronger conference. And it was, slightly, for that year in isolation. Only time will tell if that is a trend or a fluke.

(04-20-2015 03:24 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 12:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Look, it's not ken's fault that USF has pretty much gone in the tank since before the Big East's death was certain. And it's not his fault, or anyone else's, that the Bulls are currently stuck in the AAC, whether they like it or not, dwelling in that conference's basement. It's only natural that a bit of apathy set in. But USF better quit moaning about what might have been, pull their collective head out of their butt, and get to work building in a positive direction again. At the rate things are going, instead of being mentioned in the same vein as Miami, FSU, or Florida, the Bulls will be in the conversation with FAU and FIU for Florida's worst FBS program. Right now it's the Bulls in a landslide.

Any analysis that includes data on USF within the last decade or 2 is going to illustrate a meteoric rise up the mountain of success, subsequently followed by a leap off the cliff into the abyss of futility, and ultimately the destruction of Big East football. It's rebirth as the diminished AAC has the Big East leftovers wistful, longing for a newer, better home. But the Bulls will never get there unless they do something about it themselves. It beats the heck out of trying to rearrange the world in your head to make it fit your imaginations.

Bit you're so off center you're just another Cartel 5 apologist now. My comments have nothing to do with South Florida. It has to do with the use of a period in which many of the teams used were in a downward turn per media alone and that has little to do with on field performance. Many of the teams suffer from being ranked lower in the start of the season then they had in the first 1 or 2 years of this study and then dropped do to Conference affiliation/Media Contract. So get ahold of your petty bias and rethink the purpose of this thread. I did and found it biased and utterly lacking true perspective.

When you are already in a deep hole, it's usually wise to stop digging. The media have absolutely zero to do with these scores. Neither does conference affiliation. Only on field performance is measured. They are not ordinal rankings, like the AP or Coaches' polls. And there is only one meaningful number for each season - the final one. The numbers aren't even published early in the season because they are understood to be meaningless and misleading until about the 7th or 8th week.

There is a reason I chose this particular period - the most recent 6 years. That is because those are the only years for which I had access to the data. Maybe the numbers exist somewhere prior to the 2009 season, but I couldn't find them.

If you have better numbers, you are certainly free to crunch them and share your findings. I'd bet the ranch that any numbers you come up with will also show that several AAC teams stunk last year.

ken, every school has their entire statistical history posted online. I gave you the website for WVU's stats. You'll have to dig for the rest. But they're out there - if you're interested in doing a comprehensive analysis.

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  ken, every school has their entire statistical history posted online. I gave you the website for WVU's stats. You'll have to dig for the rest. But they're out there - if you're interested in doing a comprehensive analysis.

He doesn't because any other group of years wouldn't suit his purpose.

(04-17-2015 09:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  Another thing I track on the same spreadsheet is average attendance. Not only is Eastern Michigan the lowest ranked FBS school of those who have played football all six years of the study, they also rank at the very bottom in attendance. In fact, during that entire period, they never once achieved the NCAA mandated minimum to qualify as an FBS school.

Then it turns out there are three other schools who have yet to reach the minimum during all six years. They are Ball State, Akron and Idaho. Three of the four are in the MAC. Has the NCAA just abandoned enforcing this requirement, or does the MAC have some juicy information they are holding over the NCAA's head?

It is not even funny that a couple of D2 schools got more fans in the stands than Eastern Michigan. I do see some D2 schools moving up to FCS soon. Some are already ready like North Alabama.

I continue to gape at everyone's concern with how many fans EMU has in their stands each game. Everyone, everyone, knows that they struggle to put butts in the seat. Everyone, everyone, knows why that is.

EMU hurts no one in their continued investment in FBS football. EMU is committed (and rather successful in non-revenue sports) to Division One athletics.

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  ken, every school has their entire statistical history posted online. I gave you the website for WVU's stats. You'll have to dig for the rest. But they're out there - if you're interested in doing a comprehensive analysis.

Schools tend to inflate their numbers to look bigger like Miami, Florida and just last year, Eastern Michigan. I saw that they claimed they had 14,000 average for last year.

(04-21-2015 12:40 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  ken, every school has their entire statistical history posted online. I gave you the website for WVU's stats. You'll have to dig for the rest. But they're out there - if you're interested in doing a comprehensive analysis.

He doesn't because any other group of years wouldn't suit his purpose.

You never did say what you think my "purpose" is. What years should I add in your opinion? Do you think if I went back a few more years that it would make USF's decline look better or worse? Or would you prefer that we just pretend that the past few years never happened?

The further back I might go, the less relevant or meaningful the numbers will become. But I can't go back too far for USF, since their program is so new. So what would be the point? Unless I had some kind of agenda more numbers wouldn't tell me anything.

(04-21-2015 01:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:40 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  ken, every school has their entire statistical history posted online. I gave you the website for WVU's stats. You'll have to dig for the rest. But they're out there - if you're interested in doing a comprehensive analysis.

He doesn't because any other group of years wouldn't suit his purpose.

You never did say what you think my "purpose" is. What years should I add in your opinion? Do you think if I went back a few more years that it would make USF's decline look better or worse? Or would you prefer that we just pretend that the past few years never happened?

The further back I might go, the less relevant or meaningful the numbers will become. But I can't go back too far for USF, since their program is so new. So what would be the point? Unless I had some kind of agenda more numbers wouldn't tell me anything.

You keep insisting this is about USF, it isn't. Your purpose is to attempt to show that the teams in the Cartel 5 are more worthy then those who aren't. You chose teams that would support your narrative. The fact remains that the last several years should not be used do to the turmoil caused by realignment as a whole.

What I'm stating is that your numbers and your agenda would falter, if you used earlier years since the grouping would be more favorable to all. As far as the media, my assertion is that the media states a school or conference is becoming less then it was and thus influences recruiting, fan support, donations and much more. The media contracts and exposure those contracts bring can greatly enhance an individual school or conference or be very detrimental. Further more, what is said by the media during a team or conferences coverage can be even more enhancing or detrimental. I say this as ESPN never misses the opportunity to degrade the American or the former Big East. Even though ESPN owns the property, it continually minimalized and talked down those schools at every opportunity. Now there are a few instances where those schools were doing well and guess what, the ESPN announcers decided to talk about other conferences and their games rather then point out how well a Big East or American team was performing.

Again, your entire thread is simply more propaganda fodder so some lesser Cartel Schools fans can clap themselves on the back.

I love that UCONN is the hottest name on this board. Just about every thread brings up the Huskies at one point or another. (And almost always not by a UCONN fan.)

P5 Presidents and Commissioners...please take note of this nationwide UCONN obsession!!!!!

(04-21-2015 03:17 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 01:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:40 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  ken, every school has their entire statistical history posted online. I gave you the website for WVU's stats. You'll have to dig for the rest. But they're out there - if you're interested in doing a comprehensive analysis.

He doesn't because any other group of years wouldn't suit his purpose.

You never did say what you think my "purpose" is. What years should I add in your opinion? Do you think if I went back a few more years that it would make USF's decline look better or worse? Or would you prefer that we just pretend that the past few years never happened?

The further back I might go, the less relevant or meaningful the numbers will become. But I can't go back too far for USF, since their program is so new. So what would be the point? Unless I had some kind of agenda more numbers wouldn't tell me anything.

You keep insisting this is about USF, it isn't. Your purpose is to attempt to show that the teams in the Cartel 5 are more worthy then those who aren't. You chose teams that would support your narrative. The fact remains that the last several years should not be used do to the turmoil caused by realignment as a whole.

Seriously? I had no purpose other than a curiosity about what the data might reveal. Why would I have a purpose to show that P5 conferences are stronger than G5 conferences? Even an idiot would know that without having to crunch hundreds of numbers.

Then you say I "chose teams". I made no choices. I included every team in the FBS. I excluded nobody. And then I reported my results. I didn't edit them, or alter them. I just reported them.

And while you say "the fact remains", there is nothing factual about what follows except that it is a fact that it is your opinion. Turmoil caused by realignment would be the most compelling reason to examine this period, not to ignore it.

What I'm stating is that your numbers and your agenda would falter, if you used earlier years since the grouping would be more favorable to all.

Are you suggesting I should have searched to find some period of time whose data would be more favorable to your agenda?


As far as the media, my assertion is that the media states a school or conference is becoming less then it was and thus influences recruiting, fan support, donations and much more. The media contracts and exposure those contracts bring can greatly enhance an individual school or conference or be very detrimental. Further more, what is said by the media during a team or conferences coverage can be even more enhancing or detrimental. I say this as ESPN never misses the opportunity to degrade the American or the former Big East. Even though ESPN owns the property, it continually minimalized and talked down those schools at every opportunity. Now there are a few instances where those schools were doing well and guess what, the ESPN announcers decided to talk about other conferences and their games rather then point out how well a Big East or American team was performing.

Again, your entire thread is simply more propaganda fodder so some lesser Cartel Schools fans can clap themselves on the back.

Then I suggest you go to some thread more to your liking.