Content with ours, or do you prefer something different?



https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...rence-rule

Quote:Two teams: Head-to-head

Three or more teams:

Highest regular season winning percentage based on overall Conference USA play.
If tied, head-to-head between tied teams.

If still tied, highest winning percentage among all common conference opponents.

If still tied, highest winning percentage within division.

If still tied, compare records against divisional opponents in descending order of finish.

If still tied, compare records with common cross-divisional opponents.

If still tied, compare records against cross-divisional opponents in descending order of finish.

If still tied, team with highest (College Football Playoff) ranking.

If still tied, the representative will be the team that has not participated in the championship game most recently.

I'd at least add the one (see bold).

ask the marshall guys. it's a favorite topic of theirs.

Yep.

But it's one of those discussions you have to have before you actually care much about it, right? So, I'd even prefer to hear from those other than my side of the stands, really.

(11-24-2018 05:04 PM)EagleX Wrote:  ask the marshall guys. it's a favorite topic of theirs.

2013 seems like a long time ago, but we still got screwed on hosting that championship game.

All honesty, paid attendance ought to be the third tiebreaker in determining home field for the championship game, after (1) head-to-head, and (2) conference record.

People might contend that schools would falsify their attendance numbers, but now that virtually every conference game is televised, it seems it might be easier to keep a thumb on any blatant dishonesty.

(11-24-2018 10:36 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  All honesty, paid attendance ought to be the third tiebreaker in determining home field for the championship game, after (1) head-to-head, and (2) conference record.

People might contend that schools would falsify their attendance numbers, but now that virtually every conference game is televised, it seems it might be easier to keep a thumb on any blatant dishonesty.

Okay....

if you believe the "paid attendance" Marshall released for the last home game. Or the "paid attendance" Rice listed for every home game. Or the "paid attendance" just about every CUSA team listed for every game...


you are a fool because there are facts...facts reported by each CUSA school that shows schools falsify their attendance numbers vs scanned tickets

Sold tickets are sold tickets. Now I won't defend the way Tulane did it back when they were in CUSA. Their starting figure on attendance was the full count of the student body since they had paid athletic fees that entitled them to attend every game.

With that said, attendance is a not smart way of doing it. Charlotte doesn't have enough seats to compete in that way. You can't do it on percentage either because UAB is at a disadvantage.

Can call me or anyone else a fool or whatever else suits you, and I'll even grant you that if it became the published tiebreaker, you would expect to see the conference office raise the accountability... but fans that better support their teams deserve to be rewarded for that support, no?

And it's not proposed as the first tiebreaker anyhow, at least from where I sit. But it deserves to be in the list.

(11-25-2018 12:07 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Can call me or anyone else a fool or whatever else suits you, and I'll even grant you that if it became the published tiebreaker, you would expect to see the conference office raise the accountability... but fans that better support their teams deserve to be rewarded for that support, no?

And it's not proposed as the first tiebreaker anyhow, at least from where I sit. But it deserves to be in the list.

Again you want "listed paid attendance"


I will repeat this again..."listed paid attendance" and actual attendance are not close to being correct for all schools in CUSA except 1. Most inflate their numbers by 35+%

As for paid...there's games played with that also. Some schools do dollar night, bring a can of soup, get in free, hey here's two free tickets for each season ticket holder...so on so on.

While some schools only discount tickets when they are losing. So who's going to count each dollar or each butt in the seats. If you think Rice is anywhere close to 20k....

you're badly mistaking. Probably closer to 5k

I've already said that there would need to be some elevated accountability.

But I suppose we can send a man to the moon, but we can't expect anyone to figure out how a conference can ensure an accurate fan count.

A school can only count a ticket as sold if it is for at least 50% of the cost of the normally priced ticket. So if your cheapest seat is $20 then only tickets sold for at least $10 can be counted. Therefore the can of soup, give two to a season ticket holder, has no impact on reported tickets sold.

(11-24-2018 09:00 PM)banker Wrote:  2013 seems like a long time ago, but we still got screwed on hosting that championship game.

Scoreboard said the conference got the tiebreaker correct.

Attendance based tiebreakers? I've seen a lot of bad ideas here, that might take the cake.

(11-25-2018 09:48 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 09:00 PM)banker Wrote:  2013 seems like a long time ago, but we still got screwed on hosting that championship game.

Scoreboard said the conference got the tiebreaker correct.

Team didn’t bother to show up after the Jerry Palm screwjob.

Marshall would have beaten Rice in similar fashion had the game been in Huntington.

Not that I’m still bitter about making up the rules as you go to reward a team with zero fan support because they’re closer to the league office.

(11-25-2018 12:45 AM)banker Wrote:  A school can only count a ticket as sold if it is for at least 50% of the cost of the normally priced ticket. So if your cheapest seat is $20 then only tickets sold for at least $10 can be counted. Therefore the can of soup, give two to a season ticket holder, has no impact on reported tickets sold.

The rules might say that but its not the case on the listed attendance you see on espn box scores.

Western only had 5 home games so they put a redeem at box office for the game of your choice ticket for each of my season tickets. They were used on Sr. night and scanned.

Now the dollar amount made off tickets sold wont show those tickets...but the scanned attendance will.

Some school's have $5 tickets (certain games) and $10 tickets as there lowest ticket price. While others (actual only a very few in CUSA) will have $20 as their lowest over the 6 home games

When a school can list 22,362 as average FB attendance for 2017. A total of 134,172 FB fans. Mens basketball averaging 2,100 over 20 home games ...42,000 total BB fans

Take off 20% for student you have 107,337 paid for FB and 33,600 for BB.

money made off tickets sold at $1,157,592 and that includes all sports. something is not adding up to at the very least 50% of a full value ticket

So we are not comparing apples to apples in "paid attendance"

The reason using attendance as a tiebreaker is a massively bad idea isn't nearly as complicated as you're making it.

We have wildly different stadium capacities and student enrollments.

Charlotte, FIU, ODU and WKU all have capacities roughly between 6k and 13k seats smaller than the smallest stadium in the west.

In a scenario in which ODU won the east and sold out every game, UAB or UTEP could win the west and that tiebreaker having only averaged about 33% capacity.

Oooh I want to play! I love this topic!


First off, while I like the //concept// of including attendance in the tiebreaker, I don’t like it stated that way. If you want to reward fan support and encourage a large crowd for the conference title game... handle the football game the same way other sports handle tournament host selection. Put it out for bid.

That way... if you’ve got a rock solid fan base who you know will support your team in the title game, you can bid for one more home game (and keep a % of the gate + concessions). I’m just fine with seeing a 5-3 division champ host a 7-1 champ if the 5-3 team puts in a better $$ bid (especially if they do it based on knowing they’ll draw a solid gate).
I’m also ok with a school putting in a sweet $$$ bid if hosting means that much to them. Also I’m ok with the conference, for the good of the conference, awards a host bid to a team (8-0 and 11-1) with a legit chance at the Access bowl (even if their $ bid or fan support is less than the other division champ). Or if a 7-1,11-1 team who is ranked in the CFP top 25 with a legit shot at the Access bowl faces an 8-0 but 9-3 overall team with no Access bowl chance.

Now to pivot to 2013, I like having BCS or CFP ranking fit into the tiebreaker. But the only reason I like it is in the scenario where one team has a legit Access bowl chance. That was not the case in 2013 as neither Rice nor Marshall had a legit shot at the BCS top twelve (equivalent to today’s Access bowl). But I understand the tiebreaker and I have always believed it was applied fairly.

But if you think the fix was in, then I don’t think you’d want to just hand over the hosting decision to the league office...

Anyway... if we did... bids are due 3 weeks before championship Saturday. They can be conditional or unconditional. I’d like the league to announce the decision at least two weeks before the game so teams still in the running can start selling tickets... 2013 example could be: ECU hosts if they win, next in line Rice if they win, followed by Marshall. Or the league could just decide to give the hosting to the ECU/Marshall winner.

Or we could put it in Frisco
#IndoorFootball

Attendance should only be considered as a percentage of enrollment.

Using attendance would be STUPID.

The guys on the TEAM have worked hard for their opportunity. Fan support should not be a deciding factor.

Yes. Marshall got screwed in 2013.

As for this year, we didn't take care of business and we didn't deserve to win the division.

(11-25-2018 12:00 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Oooh I want to play! I love this topic!


First off, while I like the //concept// of including attendance in the tiebreaker, I don’t like it stated that way. If you want to reward fan support and encourage a large crowd for the conference title game... handle the football game the same way other sports handle tournament host selection. Put it out for bid.

That way... if you’ve got a rock solid fan base who you know will support your team in the title game, you can bid for one more home game (and keep a % of the gate + concessions). I’m just fine with seeing a 5-3 division champ host a 7-1 champ if the 5-3 team puts in a better $$ bid (especially if they do it based on knowing they’ll draw a solid gate).
I’m also ok with a school putting in a sweet $$$ bid if hosting means that much to them. Also I’m ok with the conference, for the good of the conference, awards a host bid to a team (8-0 and 11-1) with a legit chance at the Access bowl (even if their $ bid or fan support is less than the other division champ). Or if a 7-1,11-1 team who is ranked in the CFP top 25 with a legit shot at the Access bowl faces an 8-0 but 9-3 overall team with no Access bowl chance.

Now to pivot to 2013, I like having BCS or CFP ranking fit into the tiebreaker. But the only reason I like it is in the scenario where one team has a legit Access bowl chance. That was not the case in 2013 as neither Rice nor Marshall had a legit shot at the BCS top twelve (equivalent to today’s Access bowl). But I understand the tiebreaker and I have always believed it was applied fairly.

But if you think the fix was in, then I don’t think you’d want to just hand over the hosting decision to the league office...

Anyway... if we did... bids are due 3 weeks before championship Saturday. They can be conditional or unconditional. I’d like the league to announce the decision at least two weeks before the game so teams still in the running can start selling tickets... 2013 example could be: ECU hosts if they win, next in line Rice if they win, followed by Marshall. Or the league could just decide to give the hosting to the ECU/Marshall winner.

Or we could put it in Frisco
#IndoorFootball

Ahhhh. Okay. I like.

Reminds me of the I-AA playoff days.

But even taking off my Marshall cap, football is a business, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise... let profitability reign, and let economics have a say in the process, if there is no clear competitive-based reason (ie, same division record and W/L% vs. common opponents) that would dictate otherwise.