(12-30-2018 10:46 PM)Tintin Wrote:  I’ll take Charlotte’s situation going forward over a whole lot of programs based purely on Lambert and Rose not being there.

Tintin, I know it seems like I give Charlotte hell at times, but it’s with good intentions. Not hate or anything.

I hope Charlotte can rise up. I just hope that when that time comes, and Charlotte starts winning, your fans don’t become UCF 2.0

(12-30-2018 10:48 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

I disagree. In a 5 year average the WKU program would look like a juggernaut. WKU is currently facing back to back losing seasons. A 5 year rolling average would misrepresent their program's actual strength.

It is a fine line between too few seasons and too many seasons. I feel three seasons helps keep the data relevant and more accurate.

As a impartial party, I see Fine gone and UNT doesn’t scare me the way it did in 18. Same with Stocksdale.

You do realize Mason Fine and all of his starting receivers will be seniors in 2019. We also have both of our starting running backs returning as juniors.

(12-30-2018 10:50 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:43 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:39 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Here are the results of top teams in the last 5 years (40 wins or more).

Boise State 52-15
Appalachian State 48-16
Toledo 46-19
Memphis 46-20
Houston 45-20
San Diego State 46-21
Marshall 43-22
La Tech 42-25
UCF 40-23*
South Florida 40-23
Western Michigan 40-23
Temple 41-25
Ohio 40-25
WKU 40-26
NIU 40-27

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

Agreed.

Joe, it makes a lot more sense now that you explained it. Change the name of the title and to something that describes the idea better. I agree, its a great way to see how programs are trending but I also agree that the 5 year is better to describe "program strength."

How about G5 Top 25 Trending Program Strength?

Either way, I get where you are coming from Joe. Thanks for the effort! Even if you don’t change a thing, your points are taken.

This thread is a great example of how people can disagree, but come together and ultimately work together. I would like to see more of that in general, not just on our humble message board, but in life.

Done.

(12-30-2018 11:05 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:48 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

I disagree. In a 5 year average the WKU program would look like a juggernaut. WKU is currently facing back to back losing seasons. A 5 year rolling average would misrepresent their program's actual strength.

It is a fine line between too few seasons and too many seasons. I feel three seasons helps keep the data relevant and more accurate.

As a impartial party, I see Fine gone and UNT doesn’t scare me the way it did in 18. Same with Stocksdale.

You do realize Mason Fine and all of his starting receivers will be seniors in 2019. We also have both of our starting running backs returning as juniors.

Yeah, IDK why people thought Fine was a Senior. Should be a banner year in Denton. The west could be much stronger than the east overall.

On the east, it’s a tossup. Marshall, FAU or FIU would be my early take. We lose a lot on D, but return a lot on O. Western could rise up under a new regime. ODU, Charlotte and MTSU will probably be rebuilding.

Weird looking at CUSA championships since realignment. Half the conference has not won a championship in either MBB or football since.

Football champs:

WKU 2, Marshall 1, Rice 1, FAU 1, UAB 1

MBB regular season champs:

MTSU 3 (1 shared), LT 2 (1 shared), UAB 1

MBB Tournament champs (same for NCAA tourney wins):

MTSU 2, UAB 1, Marshall 1




Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

(12-30-2018 08:36 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  That's with one of our worst seasons since moving up to FBS when we went 3-9 in 2016.

And the 3-9 season was because of a handful of people on the team that took the whole ship down. That team was talented enough to win 8-10 games. But was sabotaged from within. It showed in 2017 and 2018 when all of those players are gone from the roster, Marshall wins 8 and 9 games respectively and 2 bowl games.

clt says this list is invalid, Charlotte would have more wins playing in the lowly sunbelt,

(12-31-2018 07:47 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says this list is invalid, Charlotte would have more wins playing in the lowly sunbelt,

herdfan129 says Charlotte football is invalid and should be playing FCS at best. CUSA should have invited App State over your market that doesn't give two craps about you.

(12-31-2018 09:45 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 07:47 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says this list is invalid, Charlotte would have more wins playing in the lowly sunbelt,

herdfan129 says Charlotte football is invalid and should be playing FCS at best. CUSA should have invited App State over your market that doesn't give two craps about you.

clt will admit that appy and marshall are similar. declining programs in small towns.

(12-31-2018 09:52 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 09:45 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 07:47 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says this list is invalid, Charlotte would have more wins playing in the lowly sunbelt,

herdfan129 says Charlotte football is invalid and should be playing FCS at best. CUSA should have invited App State over your market that doesn't give two craps about you.

clt will admit that appy and marshall are similar. declining programs in small towns.

You are very ignorant, and incapable of having any kind of discussion outside of your Charlotte bubble.

(12-30-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

im guessing most of those wins are against fellow conference teams. im more interested in the OCC win percentage for 3 or 4 year cycles. now, that would be data commissioner Judy could promote if its good enough.

(12-31-2018 12:12 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

im guessing most of those wins are against fellow conference teams. im more interested in the OCC win percentage for 3 or 4 year cycles. now, that would be data commissioner Judy could promote if its good enough.

That would be guessing, and I have not looked that closely at just the OOC winning percentages. The problem with just looking at the OOC data on a rolling 3 or 4 year cycle is that our OOC schedules are all over the place. Some programs really rely on body-bag games and can play as many as 2 per season. Some will play a guaranteed FCS home win every year. While others avoid those easy wins. Just examining the OOC data would be completely misleading. At least assessing all of the games, gives us a more complete picture.

Also, I don't believe it is possible for C-USA to have 71% of our programs with winning records, based on just beating each other up. I believe we have to win at least a few more OOC/bowl games then we lose to reach that percentage.

(12-31-2018 02:24 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 12:12 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

im guessing most of those wins are against fellow conference teams. im more interested in the OCC win percentage for 3 or 4 year cycles. now, that would be data commissioner Judy could promote if its good enough.

That would be guessing, and I have not looked that closely at just the OOC winning percentages. The problem with just looking at the OOC data on a rolling 3 or 4 year cycle is that our OOC schedules are all over the place. Some programs really rely on body-bag games and can play as many as 2 per season. Some will play a guaranteed FCS home win every year. While others avoid those easy wins. Just examining the OOC data would be completely misleading. At least assessing all of the games, gives us a more complete picture.

Also, I don't believe it is possible for C-USA to have 71% of our programs with winning records, based on just beating each other up. I believe we have to win at least a few more OOC/bowl games then we lose to reach that percentage.

I'm just defending your commissioner, that's all. you did a good job with all the data.
However, I will just say that the data can produce several different results that dont seem initially possible once you start breaking it down.

Based on the data for every program, here are my conference rankings. I wish C-USA were ranked higher, but the numbers just don't lie.


1st AAC- By the numbers the AAC is strongest G5 conference, with 5 programs winning over 60% of their games in the three year cycle, and THE #1 "heavy hitter" UCF posting an incredible 81% winning percentage. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 5 AAC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

2nd MWC- Features #3 "Heavy hitter" Boise State and 7th ranked San Diego State. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 6 MWC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

3rd C-USA- Here is where it gets difficult. C-USA features no "Heavy Hitters", but is tied with the MWC for the most ranked programs with 6 in the Top 25. UAB is their highest rated program at #8. C-USA does have a G5 best 71% of their conference playing .500 or better.

4th Sun Belt- The only conference with 2 Top 5 programs in #2 Troy and #4 App State, the Sun Belt only features one other winning program, #15 Arkansas State. Outside of those three, the rest of the Sun Belt, 70% of the conference, has losing records over the three year cycle. The Sun Belt landed the fewest programs in the Top 25, with 3.

5th MAC- The MAC also has no "Heavy Hitters". Toledo is their top rated program at #10. 58% of the conference has losing records over the cycle. The MAC landed 4 programs in the Top 25.

Army is by far the top independent programs and ranks 5th in the poll.

Enjoy. Debate. Complain. I'm open to other opinions.

(12-31-2018 05:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Based on the data for every program, here are my conference rankings. I wish C-USA were ranked higher, but the numbers just don't lie.


1st AAC- By the numbers the AAC is strongest G5 conference, with 5 programs winning over 60% of their games in the three year cycle, and THE #1 "heavy hitter" UCF posting an incredible 81% winning percentage. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 5 AAC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

2nd MWC- Features #3 "Heavy hitter" Boise State and 7th ranked San Diego State. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 6 MWC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

3rd C-USA- Here is where it gets difficult. C-USA features no "Heavy Hitters", but is tied with the MWC for the most ranked programs with 6 in the Top 25. UAB is their highest rated program at #8. C-USA does have a G5 best 71% of their conference playing .500 or better.

4th Sun Belt- The only conference with 2 Top 5 programs in #2 Troy and #4 App State, the Sun Belt only features one other winning program, #15 Arkansas State. Outside of those three, the rest of the Sun Belt, 70% of the conference, has losing records over the three year cycle. The Sun Belt landed the fewest programs in the Top 25, with 3.

5th MAC- The MAC also has no "Heavy Hitters". Toledo is their top rated program at #10. 58% of the conference has losing records over the cycle. The MAC landed 4 programs in the Top 25.

Army is by far the top independent programs and ranks 5th in the poll.

Enjoy. Debate. Complain. I'm open to other opinions.

This is exactly what I expected. This year I've perceived the following:

CUSA - Has no hot or dominant teams right now, but has 4 or 5 "good" teams (UAB, FIU, Marshall, LA Tech & UNT). It also has several solid teams around .500, and 4 in the cellar. It's the cellar dwellers that we need to fix.
Sunbelt - Has 2 or 3 hot teams, but everyone else is below the water mark. Makes the conference weak overall.
MWC - Boise St, Utah St & Fresno St. are hot right now, and carrying the MWC. It's all about them.
AAC - Has UCF, Memphis, Temple & Cincinnati. Everybody else makes it easy on those 4.
MAC - When the best team in your conference (Buffalo) loses 3 of their last 4 games, including their bowl game to the Sunbelt, there's just not much to celebrate. This is a conference that needs some star power.

(12-31-2018 05:50 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 05:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Based on the data for every program, here are my conference rankings. I wish C-USA were ranked higher, but the numbers just don't lie.


1st AAC- By the numbers the AAC is strongest G5 conference, with 5 programs winning over 60% of their games in the three year cycle, and THE #1 "heavy hitter" UCF posting an incredible 81% winning percentage. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 5 AAC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

2nd MWC- Features #3 "Heavy hitter" Boise State and 7th ranked San Diego State. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 6 MWC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

3rd C-USA- Here is where it gets difficult. C-USA features no "Heavy Hitters", but is tied with the MWC for the most ranked programs with 6 in the Top 25. UAB is their highest rated program at #8. C-USA does have a G5 best 71% of their conference playing .500 or better.

4th Sun Belt- The only conference with 2 Top 5 programs in #2 Troy and #4 App State, the Sun Belt only features one other winning program, #15 Arkansas State. Outside of those three, the rest of the Sun Belt, 70% of the conference, has losing records over the three year cycle. The Sun Belt landed the fewest programs in the Top 25, with 3.

5th MAC- The MAC also has no "Heavy Hitters". Toledo is their top rated program at #10. 58% of the conference has losing records over the cycle. The MAC landed 4 programs in the Top 25.

Army is by far the top independent programs and ranks 5th in the poll.

Enjoy. Debate. Complain. I'm open to other opinions.

This is exactly what I expected. This year I've perceived the following:

CUSA - Has no hot or dominant teams right now, but has 4 or 5 "good" teams (UAB, FIU, Marshall, LA Tech & UNT). It also has several solid teams around .500, and 4 in the cellar. It's the cellar dwellers that we need to fix.
Sunbelt - Has 2 or 3 hot teams, but everyone else is below the water mark. Makes the conference weak overall.
MWC - Boise St, Utah St & Fresno St. are hot right now, and carrying the MWC. It's all about them.
AAC - Has UCF, Memphis, Temple & Cincinnati. Everybody else makes it easy on those 4.
MAC - When the best team in your conference (Buffalo) loses 3 of their last 4 games, including their bowl game to the Sunbelt, there's just not much to celebrate. This is a conference that needs some star power.

Yesterday, you were arguing for a model that included every season since 2013, now you like the results of the data? At least we appear to agree on the basic results of the data. Although I would argue that C-USA also needs a couple of dominate teams too. It would be great to have a program or two that wins over 75% of their games. That is how we land a BCS bowl and earn rankings at the end of the season. I'd also argue that the MWC is stronger then you are giving them credit for, and Houston should also be included in the dominate group within the AAC. They are winning 63% of their games.

(12-31-2018 06:13 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 05:50 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 05:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Based on the data for every program, here are my conference rankings. I wish C-USA were ranked higher, but the numbers just don't lie.


1st AAC- By the numbers the AAC is strongest G5 conference, with 5 programs winning over 60% of their games in the three year cycle, and THE #1 "heavy hitter" UCF posting an incredible 81% winning percentage. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 5 AAC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

2nd MWC- Features #3 "Heavy hitter" Boise State and 7th ranked San Diego State. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 6 MWC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

3rd C-USA- Here is where it gets difficult. C-USA features no "Heavy Hitters", but is tied with the MWC for the most ranked programs with 6 in the Top 25. UAB is their highest rated program at #8. C-USA does have a G5 best 71% of their conference playing .500 or better.

4th Sun Belt- The only conference with 2 Top 5 programs in #2 Troy and #4 App State, the Sun Belt only features one other winning program, #15 Arkansas State. Outside of those three, the rest of the Sun Belt, 70% of the conference, has losing records over the three year cycle. The Sun Belt landed the fewest programs in the Top 25, with 3.

5th MAC- The MAC also has no "Heavy Hitters". Toledo is their top rated program at #10. 58% of the conference has losing records over the cycle. The MAC landed 4 programs in the Top 25.

Army is by far the top independent programs and ranks 5th in the poll.

Enjoy. Debate. Complain. I'm open to other opinions.

This is exactly what I expected. This year I've perceived the following:

CUSA - Has no hot or dominant teams right now, but has 4 or 5 "good" teams (UAB, FIU, Marshall, LA Tech & UNT). It also has several solid teams around .500, and 4 in the cellar. It's the cellar dwellers that we need to fix.
Sunbelt - Has 2 or 3 hot teams, but everyone else is below the water mark. Makes the conference weak overall.
MWC - Boise St, Utah St & Fresno St. are hot right now, and carrying the MWC. It's all about them.
AAC - Has UCF, Memphis, Temple & Cincinnati. Everybody else makes it easy on those 4.
MAC - When the best team in your conference (Buffalo) loses 3 of their last 4 games, including their bowl game to the Sunbelt, there's just not much to celebrate. This is a conference that needs some star power.

Yesterday, you were arguing for a model that included every season since 2013, now you like the results of the data? At least we appear to agree on the basic results of the data. Although I would argue that C-USA also needs a couple of dominate teams too. It would be great to have a program or two that wins over 75% of their games. That is how we land a BCS bowl and earn rankings at the end of the season. I'd also argue that the MWC is stronger then you are giving them credit for, and Houston should also be included in the dominate group within the AAC. They are winning 63% of their games.

Please put your Crack pipe down. That wasn't me "arguing for a model that included every season since 2013". You're obviously confused again.

I have no problem with any of the data you have posted in this thread. I don't care if you (or we) use 3 ys, 5 yrs or all 6 years since 2013....LA Tech probably still ranks in the Top 2 in CUSA. And except for your very first sentence in your last post, I agree with pretty much everything in that post too. Just quit confusing me with other people. Pay attention!!

(12-30-2018 10:55 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:46 PM)Tintin Wrote:  I’ll take Charlotte’s situation going forward over a whole lot of programs based purely on Lambert and Rose not being there.

Tintin, I know it seems like I give Charlotte hell at times, but it’s with good intentions. Not hate or anything.

I hope Charlotte can rise up. I just hope that when that time comes, and Charlotte starts winning, your fans don’t become UCF 2.0

Or Marshall most of the time.

(12-30-2018 11:05 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:48 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

I disagree. In a 5 year average the WKU program would look like a juggernaut. WKU is currently facing back to back losing seasons. A 5 year rolling average would misrepresent their program's actual strength.

It is a fine line between too few seasons and too many seasons. I feel three seasons helps keep the data relevant and more accurate.

As a impartial party, I see Fine gone and UNT doesn’t scare me the way it did in 18. Same with Stocksdale.

You do realize Mason Fine and all of his starting receivers will be seniors in 2019. We also have both of our starting running backs returning as juniors.

My error. I thought Fine had graduated. UNT is back to being terrifying.

(12-31-2018 06:48 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 06:13 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 05:50 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 05:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Based on the data for every program, here are my conference rankings. I wish C-USA were ranked higher, but the numbers just don't lie.


1st AAC- By the numbers the AAC is strongest G5 conference, with 5 programs winning over 60% of their games in the three year cycle, and THE #1 "heavy hitter" UCF posting an incredible 81% winning percentage. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 5 AAC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

2nd MWC- Features #3 "Heavy hitter" Boise State and 7th ranked San Diego State. Plus half of the conference posted winning records during the cycle. 6 MWC programs are ranked in the Top 25.

3rd C-USA- Here is where it gets difficult. C-USA features no "Heavy Hitters", but is tied with the MWC for the most ranked programs with 6 in the Top 25. UAB is their highest rated program at #8. C-USA does have a G5 best 71% of their conference playing .500 or better.

4th Sun Belt- The only conference with 2 Top 5 programs in #2 Troy and #4 App State, the Sun Belt only features one other winning program, #15 Arkansas State. Outside of those three, the rest of the Sun Belt, 70% of the conference, has losing records over the three year cycle. The Sun Belt landed the fewest programs in the Top 25, with 3.

5th MAC- The MAC also has no "Heavy Hitters". Toledo is their top rated program at #10. 58% of the conference has losing records over the cycle. The MAC landed 4 programs in the Top 25.

Army is by far the top independent programs and ranks 5th in the poll.

Enjoy. Debate. Complain. I'm open to other opinions.

This is exactly what I expected. This year I've perceived the following:

CUSA - Has no hot or dominant teams right now, but has 4 or 5 "good" teams (UAB, FIU, Marshall, LA Tech & UNT). It also has several solid teams around .500, and 4 in the cellar. It's the cellar dwellers that we need to fix.
Sunbelt - Has 2 or 3 hot teams, but everyone else is below the water mark. Makes the conference weak overall.
MWC - Boise St, Utah St & Fresno St. are hot right now, and carrying the MWC. It's all about them.
AAC - Has UCF, Memphis, Temple & Cincinnati. Everybody else makes it easy on those 4.
MAC - When the best team in your conference (Buffalo) loses 3 of their last 4 games, including their bowl game to the Sunbelt, there's just not much to celebrate. This is a conference that needs some star power.

Yesterday, you were arguing for a model that included every season since 2013, now you like the results of the data? At least we appear to agree on the basic results of the data. Although I would argue that C-USA also needs a couple of dominate teams too. It would be great to have a program or two that wins over 75% of their games. That is how we land a BCS bowl and earn rankings at the end of the season. I'd also argue that the MWC is stronger then you are giving them credit for, and Houston should also be included in the dominate group within the AAC. They are winning 63% of their games.

Please put your Crack pipe down. That wasn't me "arguing for a model that included every season since 2013". You're obviously confused again.

I have no problem with any of the data you have posted in this thread. I don't care if you (or we) use 3 ys, 5 yrs or all 6 years since 2013....LA Tech probably still ranks in the Top 2 in CUSA. And except for your very first sentence in your last post, I agree with pretty much everything in that post too. Just quit confusing me with other people. Pay attention!!

My apologies. I don't know why I always confuse you and Dawgxas. I did not intend to insult you. I do agree, LA Tech would remain within the top two or three in C-USA even if the data was extended even further.