Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
Author Message
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #41
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 12:01 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:25 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-14-2019 12:19 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  An undefeated App State would have wins over North Carolina AND South Carolina.

Can any AAC team top that?

IF App St beats SC and wins out they would have the best wins of any G5. They probably wouldn't jump Boise (maybe should though) but should be ahead of SMU and certainly any one loss AAC team.

This is a ludicrous statement.
South Carolina currently #38 (and would drop with a loss to App) and UNC #44 (all rankings in this post Massey Composite)

SMU's better wins would be:
#16 Cincinnati (conference championship game)
#29 Memphis
#32 Tulane
#33 Navy
#40 TCU
#48 Temple

One-loss Cincy could have:
#20 SMU (conference championship game)
#28 UCF
#29 Memphis
#48 Temple

One-loss Memphis would have:
#16 Cincinnati
#20 SMU
#32 Tulane
#33 Navy

And maybe a re-match with #48 Temple or add #28 UCF in ccg

One-loss Navy would have:
#16 Cincy (ccg) or UCF or Temple
#20 SMU
#32 Tulane
#42 Air Force....
oh, and #11 Notre Dame

In fact, IF App beats South Carolina and wins out...there is almost no way that the AAC champ WON'T have better wins than App's wins.


Pretty much all of those wins being in conference just tells me the conference is overrated.
10-15-2019 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
toddjnsn Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,553
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation: 154
I Root For: WMU, MAC
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Post: #42
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
Quote:An undefeated Boise will absolutely get it over any 1 loss AAC champ, and I think an undefeated App State would get it over any 2 loss AAC champ (which is what I'm expecting at this point).

Absolutely. An undefeated Boise will get in no matter what. IF they're undefeated. The MW has some good OOC wins this year, so yeah, they'd beat out any conf champ with 1L.

Undefeated App State could be horned out by a 1L AAC Champ -- but I think it could be tough for them, depending on what unfolds. If SMU gets 1L but beats Cinci/Temple for the AACC, it'd be tough for them to say "Yeah, this other Conf Champ who's Undefeated and beat 2 P5s .... you're going to the Bahamas instead! Good, right? Right??" But if Cinci wins it 1L only to Ohio State that'd be much easier -- and only undefeated Boise could take them out.
10-15-2019 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,059
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1018
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 03:52 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  
Quote:An undefeated Boise will absolutely get it over any 1 loss AAC champ, and I think an undefeated App State would get it over any 2 loss AAC champ (which is what I'm expecting at this point).

Absolutely. An undefeated Boise will get in no matter what. IF they're undefeated. The MW has some good OOC wins this year, so yeah, they'd beat out any conf champ with 1L.

Undefeated App State could be horned out by a 1L AAC Champ -- but I think it could be tough for them, depending on what unfolds. If SMU gets 1L but beats Cinci/Temple for the AACC, it'd be tough for them to say "Yeah, this other Conf Champ who's Undefeated and beat 2 P5s .... you're going to the Bahamas instead! Good, right? Right??" But if Cinci wins it 1L only to Ohio State that'd be much easier -- and only undefeated Boise could take them out.

In your SMU scenario it's not gonna be easy to send either team to whatever crappy bowl. If SMU goes 12-1 and wins the AAC there's a good chance they will have beaten 3-4 ranked opponents depending on how things shake out. Not gonna be real fun to say to them "nice season enjoy Birmingham." Just kinda the way this crap is unfortunately for every G5 member it's either the access bowl or an absolute trash game no one cares about there's no in between.
10-15-2019 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Saint3333 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,413
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 854
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 12:01 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:25 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-14-2019 12:19 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  An undefeated App State would have wins over North Carolina AND South Carolina.

Can any AAC team top that?

IF App St beats SC and wins out they would have the best wins of any G5. They probably wouldn't jump Boise (maybe should though) but should be ahead of SMU and certainly any one loss AAC team.

This is a ludicrous statement.
South Carolina currently #38 (and would drop with a loss to App) and UNC #44 (all rankings in this post Massey Composite)

SMU's better wins would be:
#16 Cincinnati (conference championship game)
#29 Memphis
#32 Tulane
#33 Navy
#40 TCU
#48 Temple

One-loss Cincy could have:
#20 SMU (conference championship game)
#28 UCF
#29 Memphis
#48 Temple

One-loss Memphis would have:
#16 Cincinnati
#20 SMU
#32 Tulane
#33 Navy

And maybe a re-match with #48 Temple or add #28 UCF in ccg

One-loss Navy would have:
#16 Cincy (ccg) or UCF or Temple
#20 SMU
#32 Tulane
#42 Air Force....
oh, and #11 Notre Dame

In fact, IF App beats South Carolina and wins out...there is almost no way that the AAC champ WON'T have better wins than App's wins.

You have accounted for SC dropping with a loss, but don't assume all those AAC schools drop upon losing multiple conference games.

Long season ahead, too early to guess at this stage. I'd take the field over the top three because, well it's college football.
10-15-2019 04:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #45
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 04:03 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 03:52 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  
Quote:An undefeated Boise will absolutely get it over any 1 loss AAC champ, and I think an undefeated App State would get it over any 2 loss AAC champ (which is what I'm expecting at this point).

Absolutely. An undefeated Boise will get in no matter what. IF they're undefeated. The MW has some good OOC wins this year, so yeah, they'd beat out any conf champ with 1L.

Undefeated App State could be horned out by a 1L AAC Champ -- but I think it could be tough for them, depending on what unfolds. If SMU gets 1L but beats Cinci/Temple for the AACC, it'd be tough for them to say "Yeah, this other Conf Champ who's Undefeated and beat 2 P5s .... you're going to the Bahamas instead! Good, right? Right??" But if Cinci wins it 1L only to Ohio State that'd be much easier -- and only undefeated Boise could take them out.

In your SMU scenario it's not gonna be easy to send either team to whatever crappy bowl. If SMU goes 12-1 and wins the AAC there's a good chance they will have beaten 3-4 ranked opponents depending on how things shake out. Not gonna be real fun to say to them "nice season enjoy Birmingham." Just kinda the way this crap is unfortunately for every G5 member it's either the access bowl or an absolute trash game no one cares about there's no in between.

Yes, and I think Aresco has to own some of that. The last 5 years or so, in addition to talking about the import of signing a better TV deal, I think Aresco also emphasized the need to sign a better roster of bowl partnerships for the 2020 - 2025 cycle. IMO, that effort basically did not bear fruit.
10-15-2019 07:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 09:41 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The question is going to be does the committee actually value the AAC as strongly as a lot of the computer systems and polls do? I suspect because of their inherent bias they probably don't. Right now in the coaches poll you have SMU, Cincy, and Temple ranked and in the AP you have SMU and Cincy ranked and Tulane the next team out. If the committee poll came out today I'd be stunned if anyone but SMU from the AAC was ranked in it. I fully suspect they never rank more than 1 AAC team at a time in their poll, which allows them to keep up the narrative that the reason they don't consider any non-P5 school is that they don't have to go thru the week in week out "grind" in conference.

Wait, what?
Just last year, Cincy was ranked along with UCF before their matchup.
In 2017, UCF and Memphis were both ranked all year.
In 2016, no matchups of CFP committee ranked AAC teams but two AAC teams ranked pre- and post- championship game.
In 2015, the six weeks of the CFP rankings had 3 AAC teams, 4 AAC teams, 3 AAC teams, 2 AAC teams, 3 AAC teams, and 3 AAC teams.
10-16-2019 07:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #47
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 12:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:52 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:56 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  
(10-13-2019 11:37 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Impressed with APP St. ad the following schedule not a murderer's row. The AAC is going to be a long shot, if the team has one loss.

(10-15-2019 09:41 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The question is going to be does the committee actually value the AAC as strongly as a lot of the computer systems and polls do? I suspect because of their inherent bias they probably don't. Right now in the coaches poll you have SMU, Cincy, and Temple ranked and in the AP you have SMU and Cincy ranked and Tulane the next team out. If the committee poll came out today I'd be stunned if anyone but SMU from the AAC was ranked in it. I fully suspect they never rank more than 1 AAC team at a time in their poll, which allows them to keep up the narrative that the reason they don't consider any non-P5 school is that they don't have to go thru the week in week out "grind" in conference.

AAC has finally reached the level the MWC was at for about 5 years straight before the big conference realignment.

Boise State of the WAC was a thorn in the MW’s non-AQ side. So get used to it, AAC fans. It’s all what being the tallest midget gets you.

Achieved five years ago?

Sorry, but as a Fresno fan you have to acknowledge the BS of this statement lol. The MWC never really achieved anything because it never had the consistency the AAC has.

Not so fast my friend. IIRC, I looked at the Sagarin and MC conference rankings from a decade ago, and the MW (and maybe the WAC) were stronger than the AAC has been the last five years.

Remember, in the five years of the CFP, the AAC has been the #1 G5 conference 3 times, #2 once, and #3 once. The MW has been #1 twice and #2 three times.

That's not much separation.

07-coffee3

At this point in 2019, the AAC is closer to the #2 conference than they are to #7 mwc.

That's half-way through this one season, not exactly a long-run trend. I was referring to the entirety of the CFP era, five years, as that fit what the other poster said.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2019 09:00 AM by quo vadis.)
10-16-2019 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #48
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-14-2019 07:27 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(10-14-2019 04:43 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(10-14-2019 04:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(10-14-2019 04:25 PM)Chappy Wrote:  
(10-14-2019 04:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  The Citadel beat Ga Tech. Maryland is a semi-ok win. But Temple lost to Buffalo. Buffalo is 2-4. Nope, not above an undefeated App State
Memphis would have one P5 win that is not nearly as good as either USC or UNC. Nope, not above undefeated App State
SMU - if undefeated, would be likely above App State on conference rep alone. TCU is rated about the same as either UNC or USC, but a one loss SMU would be below ASU
Cincy's "Big Win" is over a team barely in the top 100
Tulane's big win is what? Missouri State? FIU?

Going off Massey Composite rankings, Cincinnati (16), SMU (20), UCF (28), Memphis (29), Tulane (31), and Navy (33) are all ranked higher than South Carolina (38) and North Carolina (43) and Temple (50) is not far behind.

Whomever wins the American could have several wins better than South Carolina and North Carolina in conference play, depending how all these teams finish the season.

I'm guessing he's putting zero stock in AAC wins meaning anything, but yeah anyone who gets thru the AAC with even 1 loss is going to have to beat probably 3 teams in conference rated higher than those 2, and maybe more.

Conference wins are a closed feedback loop - the same loop that always benefits the SEC (well, we beat each other up, so we are all good).

As stated above, undefeated SMU will get in ahead of undefeated App State, in part because of an overall tougher schedule.

It will be hard to deny App though, if they are the only undefeated G5 team, especially since they would have wins over two P5 teams, including the team that just took out one of the MNC contenders.

2016 proved that the CFP committee is willing to give AAC teams credit for quality wins in-conference.
Undefeated WMU had wins over Northwestern and Illinois. Illinois was low-ranked (in the 80s or 90s) but Northwestern was right where UNC is now. Leading into the conference championship games, Kirby Hocutt talked about TWO loss Navy being able to overtake WMU on the basis of the CFP committee valuing quality wins over Houston, Tulsa, and Memphis. Navy had beaten a down Notre Dame, but that wasn't even mentioned by the CFP committee chair - just quality wins over AAC teams.
App State has some recognition advantage over that flash-in-the-pan WMU team, and Boise would definitely have cachet on their side. But that was a TWO loss AAC team, possibly jumping an undefeated team, much less a ONE loss AAC team with quality wins in conference better than any wins an undefeated App or Boise has.

Yes, this notion that the CFP has some kind of anti-AAC double standard, that e.g. it will use SOS to keep an unbeaten UCF out of the playoffs, but then will NOT use SOS the same way when judging AAC teams vs other G5 teams for the NY6 spot has no basis in any reality.

Based on their prior behavior, I bet if the AAC champ has a loss, and has played a significantly tougher overall schedule, OOC and in-conference, then say an unbeaten App State, then the AAC champ is likely to get the bid.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2019 09:03 AM by quo vadis.)
10-16-2019 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,263
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 189
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #49
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:10 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 09:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Are you guys incapable of just waiting three weeks. This is nothing more than "mine is bigger than urs".

Florida State was overrated. Marshall was overrated. Boise State has not played or beaten anyone of significance yet. There is no reason that they deserve to be ranked where they are. SMU has two good wins but has no clue what defense means. If they ever play a team who has really good defensive backs and plays 3/4 they are going to get owned. Cincinnati got demolished and has no business in the top 25.

I'm all for the belief that teams get better as the season goes on and that's why this is pointless. All of these teams need to play 8-9 games before we know how truly good any of them are.

Right now no one knows how good any of these teams are.

I realize that you believe I (as a Cincinnati alum) am not being objective, but this OSU team would beat 97% of the teams in CFB by multiple TDs. They've already smoked several B10 teams. I don't root for OSU at all and I'll say this- they'll be playing in the CFP alongside your Crimson Tide this year.

Ohio State is a great team. IMO they are a top 4 team.

But that does not excuse losing 42-0. Texas A&M is 3-3 and scored 28 on Alabama. Ole Miss is 3-4 and scored 31 on Alabama. FAU put up 21 on Ohio State.

Very good points - heck both Indiana and FAU lost by fewer points to Ohio State than did Cincy and nobody is touting them for the top 25.

And three of Cincy's four wins are against teams ranked 77, 93, and 99 in the computer composite.

It is often discussed that SOS bias hurts the G5 schools, but this could well be a case where it is helping. Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules.

I've heard TAMU mentioned a lot as the "most disappointing team in the country". But, they've lost to Alabama, Clemson, and Auburn. Did anyone seriously think they were going to beat Alabama or Clemson? I guess many thought they would beat Auburn, so that's the one game they should have won that they lost. But seriously, losing to *Auburn* makes you the most disappointing team in America?

The only way TAMU is disappointing AT ALL is if you thought they were a top 10 team. I sure didn't.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't really have a basis in any comparative analysis we have.

SOS ratings for Cincinnati:

Sagarin - 34
ESPN - 27
ESPN SOR - 13
Massey - 11
Team Rankings - 15

I put more stock in the top 2 than the others, but I don't think that can be considered a soft schedule.

Indiana lost by 41, while FAU was down 28 points 10 minutes into the game. I don't think touting those performances as better is a real strong argument. If you want to point at the zero on the scoreboard, that's fine, but I don't think there is a single performance against OSU this year that I would call competitive at all. They are #1 in most of the metrics one can find.

I get the perception that the OSU game has and it will be a factor in the NY6 race, but there is no objective basis that UC has just loaded up on soft opponents this year. Their SOS at the end of the year will likely be in the top 2 or 3 of the G5, and it won't just be because of the OSU game.

Also, TAMU has played a pretty brutal schedule, but also wasn't that competitive in their 3 losses. All 3 involved scoring points at the end with the game well in hand, and only the Auburn home game ended up being within a couple scores. Struggling with Arkansas on their home field isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of their quality either.
10-16-2019 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #50
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 10:32 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:10 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 09:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Are you guys incapable of just waiting three weeks. This is nothing more than "mine is bigger than urs".

Florida State was overrated. Marshall was overrated. Boise State has not played or beaten anyone of significance yet. There is no reason that they deserve to be ranked where they are. SMU has two good wins but has no clue what defense means. If they ever play a team who has really good defensive backs and plays 3/4 they are going to get owned. Cincinnati got demolished and has no business in the top 25.

I'm all for the belief that teams get better as the season goes on and that's why this is pointless. All of these teams need to play 8-9 games before we know how truly good any of them are.

Right now no one knows how good any of these teams are.

I realize that you believe I (as a Cincinnati alum) am not being objective, but this OSU team would beat 97% of the teams in CFB by multiple TDs. They've already smoked several B10 teams. I don't root for OSU at all and I'll say this- they'll be playing in the CFP alongside your Crimson Tide this year.

Ohio State is a great team. IMO they are a top 4 team.

But that does not excuse losing 42-0. Texas A&M is 3-3 and scored 28 on Alabama. Ole Miss is 3-4 and scored 31 on Alabama. FAU put up 21 on Ohio State.

Very good points - heck both Indiana and FAU lost by fewer points to Ohio State than did Cincy and nobody is touting them for the top 25.

And three of Cincy's four wins are against teams ranked 77, 93, and 99 in the computer composite.

It is often discussed that SOS bias hurts the G5 schools, but this could well be a case where it is helping. Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules.

I've heard TAMU mentioned a lot as the "most disappointing team in the country". But, they've lost to Alabama, Clemson, and Auburn. Did anyone seriously think they were going to beat Alabama or Clemson? I guess many thought they would beat Auburn, so that's the one game they should have won that they lost. But seriously, losing to *Auburn* makes you the most disappointing team in America?

The only way TAMU is disappointing AT ALL is if you thought they were a top 10 team. I sure didn't.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't really have a basis in any comparative analysis we have.

SOS ratings for Cincinnati:

Sagarin - 34
ESPN - 27
ESPN SOR - 13
Massey - 11
Team Rankings - 15

I put more stock in the top 2 than the others, but I don't think that can be considered a soft schedule.

Indiana lost by 41, while FAU was down 28 points 10 minutes into the game. I don't think touting those performances as better is a real strong argument. If you want to point at the zero on the scoreboard, that's fine, but I don't think there is a single performance against OSU this year that I would call competitive at all. They are #1 in most of the metrics one can find.

I get the perception that the OSU game has and it will be a factor in the NY6 race, but there is no objective basis that UC has just loaded up on soft opponents this year. Their SOS at the end of the year will likely be in the top 2 or 3 of the G5, and it won't just be because of the OSU game.

Also, TAMU has played a pretty brutal schedule, but also wasn't that competitive in their 3 losses. All 3 involved scoring points at the end with the game well in hand, and only the Auburn home game ended up being within a couple scores. Struggling with Arkansas on their home field isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of their quality either.

How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.

As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.

Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?
10-16-2019 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oliveandblue Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,779
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 02:56 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 12:01 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:25 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-14-2019 12:19 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  An undefeated App State would have wins over North Carolina AND South Carolina.

Can any AAC team top that?

IF App St beats SC and wins out they would have the best wins of any G5. They probably wouldn't jump Boise (maybe should though) but should be ahead of SMU and certainly any one loss AAC team.

This is a ludicrous statement.
South Carolina currently #38 (and would drop with a loss to App) and UNC #44 (all rankings in this post Massey Composite)

SMU's better wins would be:
#16 Cincinnati (conference championship game)
#29 Memphis
#32 Tulane
#33 Navy
#40 TCU
#48 Temple

One-loss Cincy could have:
#20 SMU (conference championship game)
#28 UCF
#29 Memphis
#48 Temple

One-loss Memphis would have:
#16 Cincinnati
#20 SMU
#32 Tulane
#33 Navy

And maybe a re-match with #48 Temple or add #28 UCF in ccg

One-loss Navy would have:
#16 Cincy (ccg) or UCF or Temple
#20 SMU
#32 Tulane
#42 Air Force....
oh, and #11 Notre Dame

In fact, IF App beats South Carolina and wins out...there is almost no way that the AAC champ WON'T have better wins than App's wins.


Pretty much all of those wins being in conference just tells me the conference is overrated.

We're using peak SEC logic. If everyone batters their weaker non conference opponents, then it basically means that you're guaranteed to have good SOS.

It's a tactic, but a good one that has already helped conference perception. Going 15-1 or so vs. G5 is doing us huge favors.
10-16-2019 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fresnofanatic Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 738
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 31
I Root For: fresno state
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
@TrojanCampaign. I said the MW “the 5 years prior to realignment”.

And concerning your reply about Cincinnati having G5 talent, etc, etc. usc Trojans have P5 talent and would get walloped by Ohio State this season.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2019 11:20 AM by fresnofanatic.)
10-16-2019 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,263
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 189
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #53
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:32 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:10 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I realize that you believe I (as a Cincinnati alum) am not being objective, but this OSU team would beat 97% of the teams in CFB by multiple TDs. They've already smoked several B10 teams. I don't root for OSU at all and I'll say this- they'll be playing in the CFP alongside your Crimson Tide this year.

Ohio State is a great team. IMO they are a top 4 team.

But that does not excuse losing 42-0. Texas A&M is 3-3 and scored 28 on Alabama. Ole Miss is 3-4 and scored 31 on Alabama. FAU put up 21 on Ohio State.

Very good points - heck both Indiana and FAU lost by fewer points to Ohio State than did Cincy and nobody is touting them for the top 25.

And three of Cincy's four wins are against teams ranked 77, 93, and 99 in the computer composite.

It is often discussed that SOS bias hurts the G5 schools, but this could well be a case where it is helping. Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules.

I've heard TAMU mentioned a lot as the "most disappointing team in the country". But, they've lost to Alabama, Clemson, and Auburn. Did anyone seriously think they were going to beat Alabama or Clemson? I guess many thought they would beat Auburn, so that's the one game they should have won that they lost. But seriously, losing to *Auburn* makes you the most disappointing team in America?

The only way TAMU is disappointing AT ALL is if you thought they were a top 10 team. I sure didn't.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't really have a basis in any comparative analysis we have.

SOS ratings for Cincinnati:

Sagarin - 34
ESPN - 27
ESPN SOR - 13
Massey - 11
Team Rankings - 15

I put more stock in the top 2 than the others, but I don't think that can be considered a soft schedule.

Indiana lost by 41, while FAU was down 28 points 10 minutes into the game. I don't think touting those performances as better is a real strong argument. If you want to point at the zero on the scoreboard, that's fine, but I don't think there is a single performance against OSU this year that I would call competitive at all. They are #1 in most of the metrics one can find.

I get the perception that the OSU game has and it will be a factor in the NY6 race, but there is no objective basis that UC has just loaded up on soft opponents this year. Their SOS at the end of the year will likely be in the top 2 or 3 of the G5, and it won't just be because of the OSU game.

Also, TAMU has played a pretty brutal schedule, but also wasn't that competitive in their 3 losses. All 3 involved scoring points at the end with the game well in hand, and only the Auburn home game ended up being within a couple scores. Struggling with Arkansas on their home field isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of their quality either.

How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.

As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.

Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?

Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

As to opinions, Cincy seems like a Top 20-30ish team. Not good enough to hang with a CFP team on the road, but certainly in the top quarter of college football's top level.
10-16-2019 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #54
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:32 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Ohio State is a great team. IMO they are a top 4 team.

But that does not excuse losing 42-0. Texas A&M is 3-3 and scored 28 on Alabama. Ole Miss is 3-4 and scored 31 on Alabama. FAU put up 21 on Ohio State.

Very good points - heck both Indiana and FAU lost by fewer points to Ohio State than did Cincy and nobody is touting them for the top 25.

And three of Cincy's four wins are against teams ranked 77, 93, and 99 in the computer composite.

It is often discussed that SOS bias hurts the G5 schools, but this could well be a case where it is helping. Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules.

I've heard TAMU mentioned a lot as the "most disappointing team in the country". But, they've lost to Alabama, Clemson, and Auburn. Did anyone seriously think they were going to beat Alabama or Clemson? I guess many thought they would beat Auburn, so that's the one game they should have won that they lost. But seriously, losing to *Auburn* makes you the most disappointing team in America?

The only way TAMU is disappointing AT ALL is if you thought they were a top 10 team. I sure didn't.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't really have a basis in any comparative analysis we have.

SOS ratings for Cincinnati:

Sagarin - 34
ESPN - 27
ESPN SOR - 13
Massey - 11
Team Rankings - 15

I put more stock in the top 2 than the others, but I don't think that can be considered a soft schedule.

Indiana lost by 41, while FAU was down 28 points 10 minutes into the game. I don't think touting those performances as better is a real strong argument. If you want to point at the zero on the scoreboard, that's fine, but I don't think there is a single performance against OSU this year that I would call competitive at all. They are #1 in most of the metrics one can find.

I get the perception that the OSU game has and it will be a factor in the NY6 race, but there is no objective basis that UC has just loaded up on soft opponents this year. Their SOS at the end of the year will likely be in the top 2 or 3 of the G5, and it won't just be because of the OSU game.

Also, TAMU has played a pretty brutal schedule, but also wasn't that competitive in their 3 losses. All 3 involved scoring points at the end with the game well in hand, and only the Auburn home game ended up being within a couple scores. Struggling with Arkansas on their home field isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of their quality either.

How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.

As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.

Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?

Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.

So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.

And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2019 02:12 PM by quo vadis.)
10-16-2019 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,263
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 189
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #55
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:32 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Very good points - heck both Indiana and FAU lost by fewer points to Ohio State than did Cincy and nobody is touting them for the top 25.

And three of Cincy's four wins are against teams ranked 77, 93, and 99 in the computer composite.

It is often discussed that SOS bias hurts the G5 schools, but this could well be a case where it is helping. Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules.

I've heard TAMU mentioned a lot as the "most disappointing team in the country". But, they've lost to Alabama, Clemson, and Auburn. Did anyone seriously think they were going to beat Alabama or Clemson? I guess many thought they would beat Auburn, so that's the one game they should have won that they lost. But seriously, losing to *Auburn* makes you the most disappointing team in America?

The only way TAMU is disappointing AT ALL is if you thought they were a top 10 team. I sure didn't.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't really have a basis in any comparative analysis we have.

SOS ratings for Cincinnati:

Sagarin - 34
ESPN - 27
ESPN SOR - 13
Massey - 11
Team Rankings - 15

I put more stock in the top 2 than the others, but I don't think that can be considered a soft schedule.

Indiana lost by 41, while FAU was down 28 points 10 minutes into the game. I don't think touting those performances as better is a real strong argument. If you want to point at the zero on the scoreboard, that's fine, but I don't think there is a single performance against OSU this year that I would call competitive at all. They are #1 in most of the metrics one can find.

I get the perception that the OSU game has and it will be a factor in the NY6 race, but there is no objective basis that UC has just loaded up on soft opponents this year. Their SOS at the end of the year will likely be in the top 2 or 3 of the G5, and it won't just be because of the OSU game.

Also, TAMU has played a pretty brutal schedule, but also wasn't that competitive in their 3 losses. All 3 involved scoring points at the end with the game well in hand, and only the Auburn home game ended up being within a couple scores. Struggling with Arkansas on their home field isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of their quality either.

How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.

As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.

Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?

Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.

So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.

And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Your original statement is that UC has played a soft schedule, and that has allowed them to rack up wins. Except, that isn't true as I already pointed out. If you subtract out OSU from UC's schedule, then you'd have to do something similar with these other 'P5' (or G5!) teams you mentioned in order to have a legitimate comparison. The fact that UC didn't play an FCS team and had two of the decently rated AAC teams early makes their schedule look solid so far, but it also doesn't jive with your argument just based on schedule. TAMU is a pretty big outlier as far as schedules go so far because it is so bipolar between great teams and awful teams. I think you'd struggle to find another comparison.

The comparison to TAMU specifically came later, and now you are clutching onto that pearl while the rest of your argument falls apart, as it was one small part of the original point you were trying to make. I feel like this is your MO when someone actually presents data that doesn't work with your argument. Single out one small part that was correct and hold on for dear life.

Your entire argument boils down to 'UC got killed by OSU', so they suck. Back to opinions, I think that proves UC isn't at all a Top 10 type team, but that's all it proves considering how the season has gone thus far.
10-16-2019 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #56
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 02:45 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:32 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't really have a basis in any comparative analysis we have.

SOS ratings for Cincinnati:

Sagarin - 34
ESPN - 27
ESPN SOR - 13
Massey - 11
Team Rankings - 15

I put more stock in the top 2 than the others, but I don't think that can be considered a soft schedule.

Indiana lost by 41, while FAU was down 28 points 10 minutes into the game. I don't think touting those performances as better is a real strong argument. If you want to point at the zero on the scoreboard, that's fine, but I don't think there is a single performance against OSU this year that I would call competitive at all. They are #1 in most of the metrics one can find.

I get the perception that the OSU game has and it will be a factor in the NY6 race, but there is no objective basis that UC has just loaded up on soft opponents this year. Their SOS at the end of the year will likely be in the top 2 or 3 of the G5, and it won't just be because of the OSU game.

Also, TAMU has played a pretty brutal schedule, but also wasn't that competitive in their 3 losses. All 3 involved scoring points at the end with the game well in hand, and only the Auburn home game ended up being within a couple scores. Struggling with Arkansas on their home field isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of their quality either.

How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.

As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.

Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?

Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.

So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.

And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Your original statement is that UC has played a soft schedule, and that has allowed them to rack up wins. Except, that isn't true as I already pointed out. If you subtract out OSU from UC's schedule, then you'd have to do something similar with these other 'P5' (or G5!) teams you mentioned in order to have a legitimate comparison. The fact that UC didn't play an FCS team and had two of the decently rated AAC teams early makes their schedule look solid so far, but it also doesn't jive with your argument just based on schedule. TAMU is a pretty big outlier as far as schedules go so far because it is so bipolar between great teams and awful teams. I think you'd struggle to find another comparison.

The comparison to TAMU specifically came later, and now you are clutching onto that pearl while the rest of your argument falls apart, as it was one small part of the original point you were trying to make. I feel like this is your MO when someone actually presents data that doesn't work with your argument. Single out one small part that was correct and hold on for dear life.

Your entire argument boils down to 'UC got killed by OSU', so they suck. Back to opinions, I think that proves UC isn't at all a Top 10 type team, but that's all it proves considering how the season has gone thus far.

You are really digging a deep hole. First, I never said that because UC got killed by OSU that UC sucks. Not once. FWIW, I don't think Cincy sucks, I think they are about a #30 - #35 type team, and that is far from sucking.

Second, my original statement about UC's soft schedule, the one you bolded, contained in the very same sentence the reference to TAMU.

I think what happened was, you are a Bearcat fan, the phrase about Cincy's schedule raised your ire, so you selectively latched on to that without appreciating the context. The irascible Bearcat in you doesn't want to let go, even after I acknowledged that I should have been clear that when I referred to Cincy's soft schedule, I was thinking sans Ohio State.

I don't think that is generally your MO, but it appears to have happened here.

And no, that is not a 'small part' of my argument, it is the only argument i was making, LOL. What else was i saying, but that Cincy was ranked and TAMU wasn't because TAMU played more monster teams than Cincy?

You have no pearls to clutch on to, just a Bearcat fan's defensiveness. So I'll say it again for you:

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2019 03:15 PM by quo vadis.)
10-16-2019 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,851
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 1622
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 02:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 02:45 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.

As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.

Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?

Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.

So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.

And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Your original statement is that UC has played a soft schedule, and that has allowed them to rack up wins. Except, that isn't true as I already pointed out. If you subtract out OSU from UC's schedule, then you'd have to do something similar with these other 'P5' (or G5!) teams you mentioned in order to have a legitimate comparison. The fact that UC didn't play an FCS team and had two of the decently rated AAC teams early makes their schedule look solid so far, but it also doesn't jive with your argument just based on schedule. TAMU is a pretty big outlier as far as schedules go so far because it is so bipolar between great teams and awful teams. I think you'd struggle to find another comparison.

The comparison to TAMU specifically came later, and now you are clutching onto that pearl while the rest of your argument falls apart, as it was one small part of the original point you were trying to make. I feel like this is your MO when someone actually presents data that doesn't work with your argument. Single out one small part that was correct and hold on for dear life.

Your entire argument boils down to 'UC got killed by OSU', so they suck. Back to opinions, I think that proves UC isn't at all a Top 10 type team, but that's all it proves considering how the season has gone thus far.

You are really digging a deep hole. First, I never said that because UC got killed by OSU that UC sucks. Not once.

Second, my original statement about UC's soft schedule contained in the very same sentence the reference to TAMU:

"Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules."

Where you tripped up is you latched on to the phrase about Cincy's schedule, even bolded it in your first reply, but failed to recognize the rest of the sentence, which invokes TAMU. If that is "later" to you, then that is just weird, as the comparison is right there from the git. Even the sentence that precedes that sentence makes it clear that Cincy's schedule is being mentioned in a comparative sense. There never was a mention of Cincy's schedule except in the context of comparing G5 vs P5 rankings, specifically them to TAMU.

I think what happened was, you are a Bearcat fan, the phrase about Cincy's schedule raised your ire, so you selectively latched on to that without appreciating the context. Now that you have been called on it, your pride is keeping you from acknowledging the error. I don't think that is generally your MO, but it appears to have happened here.

You have no pearls to clutch on to, just a Bearcat fan's defensiveness. So I'll say it again for you:

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Massey's matchup widget has Cincinnati by three points over Texas A&M on a neutral field.

https://www.masseyratings.com/game.php?s...&oid1=1529
10-16-2019 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,009
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 03:07 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 02:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 02:45 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.

So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.

And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Your original statement is that UC has played a soft schedule, and that has allowed them to rack up wins. Except, that isn't true as I already pointed out. If you subtract out OSU from UC's schedule, then you'd have to do something similar with these other 'P5' (or G5!) teams you mentioned in order to have a legitimate comparison. The fact that UC didn't play an FCS team and had two of the decently rated AAC teams early makes their schedule look solid so far, but it also doesn't jive with your argument just based on schedule. TAMU is a pretty big outlier as far as schedules go so far because it is so bipolar between great teams and awful teams. I think you'd struggle to find another comparison.

The comparison to TAMU specifically came later, and now you are clutching onto that pearl while the rest of your argument falls apart, as it was one small part of the original point you were trying to make. I feel like this is your MO when someone actually presents data that doesn't work with your argument. Single out one small part that was correct and hold on for dear life.

Your entire argument boils down to 'UC got killed by OSU', so they suck. Back to opinions, I think that proves UC isn't at all a Top 10 type team, but that's all it proves considering how the season has gone thus far.

You are really digging a deep hole. First, I never said that because UC got killed by OSU that UC sucks. Not once.

Second, my original statement about UC's soft schedule contained in the very same sentence the reference to TAMU:

"Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules."

Where you tripped up is you latched on to the phrase about Cincy's schedule, even bolded it in your first reply, but failed to recognize the rest of the sentence, which invokes TAMU. If that is "later" to you, then that is just weird, as the comparison is right there from the git. Even the sentence that precedes that sentence makes it clear that Cincy's schedule is being mentioned in a comparative sense. There never was a mention of Cincy's schedule except in the context of comparing G5 vs P5 rankings, specifically them to TAMU.

I think what happened was, you are a Bearcat fan, the phrase about Cincy's schedule raised your ire, so you selectively latched on to that without appreciating the context. Now that you have been called on it, your pride is keeping you from acknowledging the error. I don't think that is generally your MO, but it appears to have happened here.

You have no pearls to clutch on to, just a Bearcat fan's defensiveness. So I'll say it again for you:

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Massey's matchup widget has Cincinnati by three points over Texas A&M on a neutral field.

https://www.masseyratings.com/game.php?s...&oid1=1529

Same margin as App State over SMU
10-16-2019 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,158
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 440
I Root For: tOSU/UNL/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #59
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-15-2019 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 11:32 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 10:10 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 09:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Are you guys incapable of just waiting three weeks. This is nothing more than "mine is bigger than urs".

Florida State was overrated. Marshall was overrated. Boise State has not played or beaten anyone of significance yet. There is no reason that they deserve to be ranked where they are. SMU has two good wins but has no clue what defense means. If they ever play a team who has really good defensive backs and plays 3/4 they are going to get owned. Cincinnati got demolished and has no business in the top 25.

I'm all for the belief that teams get better as the season goes on and that's why this is pointless. All of these teams need to play 8-9 games before we know how truly good any of them are.

Right now no one knows how good any of these teams are.

I realize that you believe I (as a Cincinnati alum) am not being objective, but this OSU team would beat 97% of the teams in CFB by multiple TDs. They've already smoked several B10 teams. I don't root for OSU at all and I'll say this- they'll be playing in the CFP alongside your Crimson Tide this year.

Ohio State is a great team. IMO they are a top 4 team.

But that does not excuse losing 42-0. Texas A&M is 3-3 and scored 28 on Alabama. Ole Miss is 3-4 and scored 31 on Alabama. FAU put up 21 on Ohio State.

Very good points - heck both Indiana and FAU lost by fewer points to Ohio State than did Cincy and nobody is touting them for the top 25.

And three of Cincy's four wins are against teams ranked 77, 93, and 99 in the computer composite.

It is often discussed that SOS bias hurts the G5 schools, but this could well be a case where it is helping. Cincy's soft schedule has allowed them to rack up wins and hence a gaudy record, which is being valued over some P5, like TAMU, that have played withering schedules.

I've heard TAMU mentioned a lot as the "most disappointing team in the country". But, they've lost to Alabama, Clemson, and Auburn. Did anyone seriously think they were going to beat Alabama or Clemson? I guess many thought they would beat Auburn, so that's the one game they should have won that they lost. But seriously, losing to *Auburn* makes you the most disappointing team in America?

The only way TAMU is disappointing AT ALL is if you thought they were a top 10 team. I sure didn't.
Agree on these points for now. Starting next year ( year 3) for Jimbo Fisher, he better start winning these games. He's being paid to win these and paid very well.

No excuse for Texas A&M to not win National titles. You know, how everybody claims Texas recruits rule the world. Heck, Minnesota has a better history than A&M.
10-16-2019 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #60
RE: Top 25: FF’s ‘Race to NY6’ (Week 7) *App St, Cincy move up to 3 & 4
(10-16-2019 03:24 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Agree on these points for now. Starting next year ( year 3) for Jimbo Fisher, he better start winning these games. He's being paid to win these and paid very well.

No excuse for Texas A&M to not win National titles. You know, how everybody claims Texas recruits rule the world. Heck, Minnesota has a better history than A&M.

I agree on that: Fisher is being paid Saban money, and he's getting that to beat Alabama, LSU, and Clemson, not make excuses about why he isn't beating them.

He does have a grace period, but as you indicate, that is running out.
10-16-2019 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.