REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
Author Message
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,693
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #1
Exclamation Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2019 03:52 PM by Nerdlinger.)
04-27-2019 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

cubucks Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 633
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 61
I Root For: Buckeyes/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #2
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
Lol, that's the most overwhelming graph I think I've ever seen.
04-27-2019 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,693
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #3
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 03:39 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Lol, that's the most overwhelming graph I think I've ever seen.

It's not so bad once you get familiar with which color represents which conference. You should have seen the version with the FCS conferences in it too!

Edit: I removed the markers for each year. Also cut out the I-A/FBS indies, since they're not really a conference. Hope it's less overwhelming!
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2019 03:52 PM by Nerdlinger.)
04-27-2019 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 633
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 61
I Root For: Buckeyes/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #4
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
So I'm not the smartest guy in the world, obviously. Reading through the link I see Iowa at #10. What is driving that? I'm an Iowa fan so to speak, I like BIG Western teams, but just surprised to see this.
04-27-2019 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,109
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #5
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
So, in a nutshell, what this is telling us is that all P5 conferences are stronger on the field than all G5 conferences. Did we need a graph to tell us that?
04-27-2019 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,921
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 165
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #6
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, in a nutshell, what this is telling us is that all P5 conferences are stronger on the field than all G5 conferences. Did we need a graph to tell us that?

The takeaways are BE vs AAC and MWC pre/post-realignment.
04-27-2019 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,693
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #7
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, in a nutshell, what this is telling us is that all P5 conferences are stronger on the field than all G5 conferences. Did we need a graph to tell us that?

I thought the history of the conferences was the most interesting part.
04-27-2019 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,109
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #8
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 04:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, in a nutshell, what this is telling us is that all P5 conferences are stronger on the field than all G5 conferences. Did we need a graph to tell us that?

The takeaways are BE vs AAC and MWC pre/post-realignment.

Yes. Instead of closing the gap with the P5, they are moving down toward the rest of the G5. A couple of teams are doing well, but collectively the gap appears to be growing.
04-27-2019 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,693
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #9
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
Another thing that's interesting is how the WAC didn't really seem to get hurt much competitively when the MWC formed. In their last season as a FB conference, the WAC even surpassed the MWC!
04-27-2019 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,693
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #10
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 04:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, in a nutshell, what this is telling us is that all P5 conferences are stronger on the field than all G5 conferences. Did we need a graph to tell us that?

The takeaways are BE vs AAC and MWC pre/post-realignment.

Yes. Instead of closing the gap with the P5, they are moving down toward the rest of the G5. A couple of teams are doing well, but collectively the gap appears to be growing.

Also of note is how even the 2004-12 Big East was able to keep up with the other power conferences, and performed far better than the AAC has (unlike what some here might purport).
04-27-2019 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,206
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #11
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 05:06 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, in a nutshell, what this is telling us is that all P5 conferences are stronger on the field than all G5 conferences. Did we need a graph to tell us that?

The takeaways are BE vs AAC and MWC pre/post-realignment.

Yes. Instead of closing the gap with the P5, they are moving down toward the rest of the G5. A couple of teams are doing well, but collectively the gap appears to be growing.

Also of note is how even the 2004-12 Big East was able to keep up with the other power conferences, and performed far better than the AAC has (unlike what some here might purport).

Yes, the Big East falls off a cliff when it becomes the AAC. Dives straight down to G5 level.
04-27-2019 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,109
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #12
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 07:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the Big East falls off a cliff when it becomes the AAC. Dives straight down to G5 level.

That sounds a little misleading. For the most part, the individual teams that make up the AAC are performing at about the same level they were playing at 12 years ago. Their performance (excluding UConn and ECU) is where it always was. It's just that when they were playing at that level they were C-USA, not Big East.

The teams that replaced the old Big East members who moved on to P5 leagues just were never as good as their predecessors. That's why those teams got called up to the bigs in the first place.
04-27-2019 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,558
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 911
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 03:16 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  [Image: 27GT9UL.png]

Data from here: https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sa...2018/team/

nice chart.
04-27-2019 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,419
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #14
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 04:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, in a nutshell, what this is telling us is that all P5 conferences are stronger on the field than all G5 conferences. Did we need a graph to tell us that?

The takeaways are BE vs AAC and MWC pre/post-realignment.

As we can see from the chart there are two years where the BE 1.0 football lineup and BE 2.0 football lineup were as high as #2 in the country in the Sagarins.

The MWC with its 8 team lineup was better than the BE in one season. That goes by what I said that the BE even in its darkest days was as good as the Top 8 of the AAC with the bottom feeders excluded.
04-28-2019 08:28 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 14,283
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 476
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
Biggest difference between BE and AAC is the bottom of the conference. The fact the BE had 8 members and the aAC has 12 is at play. Frankly, there are several schools in the AAC that are better on the field than Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers were from the years being measured. (schools that got “out”).
04-28-2019 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,419
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #16
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-28-2019 08:31 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Biggest difference between BE and AAC is the bottom of the conference. The fact the BE had 8 members and the aAC has 12 is at play. Frankly, there are several schools in the AAC that are better on the field than Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers were from the years being measured. (schools that got “out”).

The BE had a high floor when it came to recruiting. Even the 8th best program was recruiting a Top 60/Top 70 class.

The bottom falls out in AAC recruiting. See UConn's recruiting class.
04-28-2019 08:37 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,671
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #17
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 04:12 PM)cubucks Wrote:  So I'm not the smartest guy in the world, obviously. Reading through the link I see Iowa at #10. What is driving that? I'm an Iowa fan so to speak, I like BIG Western teams, but just surprised to see this.

It just confirms Iowa fans theories that Iowa really underperformed when it counted and that NW way overperformed when it mattered.

Ok seriously it probably just means that Iowa did really well OOC, beating decent teams like Iowa St and Miss St, which helped its overall rating. Just Iowa did not win any big games in the conference. Kind of the opposite of NW, who had some awful ooc losses but won all the important games inside the conference.
04-28-2019 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,206
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #18
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-27-2019 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 07:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the Big East falls off a cliff when it becomes the AAC. Dives straight down to G5 level.

That sounds a little misleading. For the most part, the individual teams that make up the AAC are performing at about the same level they were playing at 12 years ago. Their performance (excluding UConn and ECU) is where it always was. It's just that when they were playing at that level they were C-USA, not Big East.

The teams that replaced the old Big East members who moved on to P5 leagues just were never as good as their predecessors. That's why those teams got called up to the bigs in the first place.

I don't disagree, and I don't think what i said is misleading. 07-coffee3
04-28-2019 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,206
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #19
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-28-2019 08:31 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Biggest difference between BE and AAC is the bottom of the conference. The fact the BE had 8 members and the aAC has 12 is at play. Frankly, there are several schools in the AAC that are better on the field than Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers were from the years being measured. (schools that got “out”).

Some around here are trying to justify the AAC by saying "compare the AAC top 8 to the Big East 8". Can't do that, you might as well say "compare the AAC bottom 8 to the Big East 8.

It's like saying right now "compare the Big 12 to the SEC top 10". Absurd.
04-28-2019 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,109
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #20
RE: Average Saragin Rating for I-A/FBS Conferences 1998-2018
(04-28-2019 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 08:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 07:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the Big East falls off a cliff when it becomes the AAC. Dives straight down to G5 level.

That sounds a little misleading. For the most part, the individual teams that make up the AAC are performing at about the same level they were playing at 12 years ago. Their performance (excluding UConn and ECU) is where it always was. It's just that when they were playing at that level they were C-USA, not Big East.

The teams that replaced the old Big East members who moved on to P5 leagues just were never as good as their predecessors. That's why those teams got called up to the bigs in the first place.

I don't disagree, and I don't think what i said is misleading. 07-coffee3

I could have phrased that better. My apologies. I was just pointing out that those graphs show the ratings for those leagues as they were constituted at the time..
04-28-2019 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.