(07-26-2018 09:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote: (07-26-2018 08:43 AM)leofrog Wrote: So, the AAC is closer to #9 than #5. So is the new narrative P9?
State of Texas totals
Houston 5.5
Baylor 5
Texas 3
TCU 1
Everybody else 0
All hail "Big Game" Gary Fatterson.
The definition can be debated. Just to nit-pick Houston (and yes, the same might result if we nit-picked other teams too):
1) E.g., you get credit for beating a 10-3 Memphis team in 2014. IMO, that's not really a big win, that Memphis team wasn't very good. They racked up a ton of wins vs bad teams, didn't beat a good team all year. You can't tell me that a team that finished in a 3-way tie for the AAC title and scraped by a 8-4 BYU team in triple OT in the Miami Beach Bowl was a big win.
2) If I understand the metric, you get a whopping 1.5 points for that miracle heave-ball-down-field-and watch it magically go through 3 defender's hands on 4th and forever win vs USF last year. By their system, that's actually your biggest win.
That makes little sense. First, beating USF can't be regarded as being better than beating a team that won a P5 conference and the Sugar Bowl in 2016, Oklahoma. Also, by their criteria, you got more points for that win than Auburn got for beating Alabama. I'm sorry, but beating USF in front of 30,000 Tampans and 35,000 empty seats wasn't as hard as beating Alabama, anywhere.
3) You also got credit for beating 11-2 Navy in 2015. Eh, beating Navy is just never a really big win.
By my reckoning, Houston has had three really big wins the past five years - over Oklahoma and Louisville in 2016, and over FSU in the Peach Bowl. Heck, IIRC, you don't even get credit for the UL win, but that was a bigger win than beating USF last year, Navy in 2016, and Memphis in 2014.
Yes, I know, that's 3 more big wins than USF has had during that time. I was just using Houston as an example to expose some kinks in the system.