(06-03-2020 11:24 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  CFP era has been 1 step forward and 2 steps back for the G5.

It was certainly a step up in money from the previous arrangement and a guaranteed NYD bowl game for the group was a nice improvement.

However the CFP pollsters have been totally biased toward a P5 schedule even if the AAC plays a better one in some years. More bias than even the old polling system.

The money disparity has intensified and forced AAC teams to push salaries to 3 or 4 million to project major conference status. Its become an unsustainable situation for them.

I think the "one step forward, two back" analogy makes sense. In some important ways, the G5 has advanced. Post-season opportunities, from access to the NY6 to ties with lesser bowls to the overall money received have never been better. Plus, TVs insatiable demand for college football means that basically every game played by every G5 conference is nationally available on some platform be it cable or streaming.

But the one giant negative is that while G5 money has gone up, P5 money has gone up a lot faster, and since all G5 envision - unrealistic as it may be - themselves as P5 some day, the disparity means that G5 feel pressured to pay "P5 prices" in order to keep up appearances or "stay in touch". As a result, their finances have become absurd, requiring enormous subsidies to cover operating deficits that keep growing larger. So overall, worse off.

It’s like a great taffy pull. AAC and MWC seem to be sticking towards the P5 blob. Albeit, the tail end, but with the contrast between AAC and ACC looking very similar last season with Clemson sticking out like a sore thumb wanting to be deeper in the main blob. MAC, SBC and CUSA seem to be trying very hard not to be on the wrong side of the break. These days it’s SBC looking like they’re going to join AA and MW, but the few years before that, it looked like the MAC was and they regressed towards where CUSA is. Is CUSA next in making a run as the temporary #3 (#8 fbs) conference?

I hope all 5 survive. I like our little thing we got going on as the underdogs that have power in their bite. Going to an 8 team playoff with top G5 included would be a dream come true in the taffy pull machine.

Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

I love it, Quo, thanks.

I was thinking tho. Wouldn’t it be better to compare the last 3 years of this playoff era and the same 3 years after the start of the BCS era? Being that the start of the BCS era and the start of the Playoff era were both resets.

What year are we in the playoff era? I can’t think off the top of my head. But say the last 3 years were years 5, 6 and 7...compare that to the same three years INTO the BCS era, if you can/will/may. And please include the AAC and WAC. They were both not AQ or A5.

The best thing for College football would to implement a CFP 5-1-2 model

P5 Champs + Highest Ranked G5 Champ + 2 CFP Committee picks (best of the rest)

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

There is also more teams in FBS though which skews the averages downward.

(06-03-2020 05:43 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Would you say:

more than 50% better?

50% better?

≥25% better?

only slightly better?

no change?

slightly worse?

≥25% worse?

50% worse?

more than 50% worse?

====================================

I will not use your system Jed but my view is that:

The AAC has gotten much better over the last 5 years.

The MWC has become slightly worse over that time.

The MAC has become even worse than it was.

The CUSA is pathetic and ready for collapse.

The Sun Belt has improved slightly but is still much worse than the AAC or MWC.

There are 6 and sometimes 7 very good teams in the AAC, 2 and sometimes 3 good teams in the MWC and last year 1 good team in the SB. The MAC and CUSA have almost nothing to offer. That is a shame because I remember when CUSA and the MAC had several decent teams.

(06-04-2020 11:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

There is also more teams in FBS though which skews the averages downward.

I had just looked this up myself. FBS teams added by calendar year:
2012-2013: UMass, South Alabama, Texas State, UTSA
2013-2014: Georgia State
2014-2015: Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Old Dominion
2015-2016: Charlotte
2016-2017:
2017-2018: Coastal Carolina
2018-2019: Liberty

(06-04-2020 11:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

There is also more teams in FBS though which skews the averages downward.

Good point. I had forgotten how recent some of those schools were. So 2017-2019 averaged 129.67. 2011-2013 averaged 123. 4 new ones are now in CUSA, 5 in Sun Belt and 2 are independents with Idaho dropping down.

For the MAC, they would drop from 67.4% ahead of them to 69.7% ahead of them. CUSA dropped from 66.5% to 70.2%. Sun Belt improved from 69.5% to 68.1%. MWC from 63.2% to 60.5%.

2018 130 Liberty
2017 129 Coastal Carolina, Idaho down
2016 129
2015 129 Charlotte
2014 128 ODU, Appalachian St., Georgia So.
2013 125 Georgia St.
2012 124 UMass, USA, Texas St., UTSA
2011 120

(06-04-2020 11:28 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The best thing for College football would to implement a CFP 5-1-2 model

P5 Champs + Highest Ranked G5 Champ + 2 CFP Committee picks (best of the rest)

That's an excellent suggestion!

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

Interesting data.

However, there are other types of data that might tell a different story.

One might be that, regardless of winning % vs. P5 teams, it's possible that the quality of the G5 teams as a whole may have been improving noticeably - - even if the quality of the P5 teams may have been improving to a somewhat greater extent.

The point, I'm suggesting here, is that it's possible that the entertainment quality of G5 FB may have been getting better, since the split, regardless of the winning % vs. the P5.

It would be interesting to know if the TV viewership ratings have improved for the G5, as a whole, since the split.

============================================

There's also another way to look at the P5 vs. G5 situation - - focusing on the upper tier of G5 teams.

Since the P5-G5 split occurred, when one examines the final AP top 25 rankings, there has been a trend toward more G5 teams in the final AP rankings over the past 7 years.

In 2013, there were 0 non-P5 teams in the final AP top 25:

In 2019, there were 7 non-P5 teams in the final AP top 25:


2013: 0

2014: 3 (Boise, Marshall, & Memphis)

2015: 2 (Navy & WKU)

2016: 3 (WMU, USF, & SDSU)

2017: 3 (USF, Boise, & Memphis)

2018: 5 (Fresno St., Army Utah St., Boise St., & Cincinnati)

2019: 7 (Memphis, App St, Navy, Cincy, Air Force, Boise, & UCF)

(06-04-2020 01:21 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 01:14 AM)ah59396 Wrote:  The G5 has vastly improved solely because it added App State.

I hope you guys go over to the AAC message board and make your case for admission to the AAC.

There are some meanies over there who are pummeling the brave AAC fans who dare to argue for admission to replace UConn FB.

I've been persuaded, now that the MWC schools have signed their long term broadcasting agreement.

Advertising now?

(06-04-2020 06:54 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 01:21 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 01:14 AM)ah59396 Wrote:  The G5 has vastly improved solely because it added App State.

I hope you guys go over to the AAC message board and make your case for admission to the AAC.

There are some meanies over there who are pummeling the brave AAC fans who dare to argue for admission to replace UConn FB.

I've been persuaded, now that the MWC schools have signed their long term broadcasting agreement.

Advertising now?

No - just a "flight of fancy."

(06-04-2020 06:48 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

Interesting data.

However, there are other types of data that might tell a different story.

One might be that, regardless of winning % vs. P5 teams, it's possible that the quality of the G5 teams as a whole may have been improving noticeably - - even if the quality of the P5 teams may have been improving to a somewhat greater extent.

The point, I'm suggesting here, is that it's possible that the entertainment quality of G5 FB may have been getting better, since the split, regardless of the winning % vs. the P5.

Interesting, but I think that all rankings systems are relative. I mean, as athletes get bigger/stronger/faster we can always expect that quality in that sense is on the rise. But that doesn't translate into much if the other guys are improving even more.

Also, there's really no way of relating quality to entertainment value either - ratings could be going up as quality goes down, for example.

There's also another way to look at the P5 vs. G5 situation - - focusing on the upper tier of G5 teams.

Since the P5-G5 split occurred, when one examines the final AP top 25 rankings, there has been a trend toward more G5 teams in the final AP rankings over the past 7 years.

In 2013, there were 0 non-P5 teams in the final AP top 25:

In 2019, there were 7 non-P5 teams in the final AP top 25:


2013: 0

2014: 3 (Boise, Marshall, & Memphis)

2015: 2 (Navy & WKU)

2016: 3 (WMU, USF, & SDSU)

2017: 3 (USF, Boise, & Memphis)

2018: 5 (Fresno St., Army Utah St., Boise St., & Cincinnati)

2019: 7 (Memphis, App St, Navy, Cincy, Air Force, Boise, & UCF)

(06-04-2020 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 11:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

There is also more teams in FBS though which skews the averages downward.

Good point. I had forgotten how recent some of those schools were. So 2017-2019 averaged 129.67. 2011-2013 averaged 123. 4 new ones are now in CUSA, 5 in Sun Belt and 2 are independents with Idaho dropping down.

For the MAC, they would drop from 67.4% ahead of them to 69.7% ahead of them. CUSA dropped from 66.5% to 70.2%. Sun Belt improved from 69.5% to 68.1%. MWC from 63.2% to 60.5%.

Why would more FBS schools necessarily skew averages downward? For example, what if the entirety of FCS was suddenly included in the analysis as FBS. Wouldn't that boost the MAC, as presumably it would suddenly be ahead of a much higher % of "FBS" teams than before, because its average would be ahead of all those FCS teams?

(06-04-2020 07:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ...as athletes get bigger/stronger/faster we can always expect that quality in that sense is on the rise. But that doesn't translate into much if the other guys are improving even more.

But actually, if "quality is on the rise," maybe it does "translate into much" because athletes keep improving.

Q: Why?

A: Perhaps P5 and G5 team play has been improving in an asymptotic way, like this, with the improvements gradually flattening out:
........................................................*
.................................................*
........................................*
..................................*
...........................*
.....................*
................*
............*
.........*
......*
....*
..*
*

If so, then even if the average quality of the P5 has remained ahead of the G5, it's possible that the differences between the G5 and P5 are becoming smaller over time.

.

With respect to entertainment value, I have been amazed at the improvement in the entertainment value of G5 FB.

Remembering back to the quality of Big Ten college football some time ago, many G5 FB teams probably have more entertainment than most Big Ten teams had a decade or two ago.

.

An asymptotic "quality improvement curve" for both G5 and P5 might help to explain why the number of G5 teams in the final AP top 25 has been increasing in recent years.

(06-05-2020 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 11:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Some have argued that the G5 are better off in terms of on-field performance now than under the old BCS regime. So I looked at the average Massey rating for the last three years of the BCS (2011, 2012, 2013) and the last three years of the CFP (2018, 2019, 2020) to compare the four "G" conferences that existed in both time frames ... SB, CUSA, MW and MAC. Yes, there has been significant membership changes during that time, but that's irrelevant as we are looking at things from the conference level. Here are the results, where a lower number means better performance:

Conference ................. CFP (last 3) ............. BCS (last 3)

MAC ............................... 90.33 ..................... 82.93
Sun Belt ......................... 88.30 ..................... 85.50
CUSA ............................. 91.00 ..................... 81.84
MW ................................ 78.40 ..................... 77.72

So we see that in every case, the performance of these "G" conferences was better during the last three years of the BCS than it has been these past three years of the CFP. For the MAC and CUSA it is strikingly so, they have gotten much worse during the CFP regime. For the MW the numbers are so close as to basically be a wash. But even the Sun Belt, lauded for its improvement the last few years, was better at the tail-end of the BCS era.

There is also more teams in FBS though which skews the averages downward.

Good point. I had forgotten how recent some of those schools were. So 2017-2019 averaged 129.67. 2011-2013 averaged 123. 4 new ones are now in CUSA, 5 in Sun Belt and 2 are independents with Idaho dropping down.

For the MAC, they would drop from 67.4% ahead of them to 69.7% ahead of them. CUSA dropped from 66.5% to 70.2%. Sun Belt improved from 69.5% to 68.1%. MWC from 63.2% to 60.5%.

Why would more FBS schools necessarily skew averages downward? For example, what if the entirety of FCS was suddenly included in the analysis as FBS. Wouldn't that boost the MAC, as presumably it would suddenly be ahead of a much higher % of "FBS" teams than before, because its average would be ahead of all those FCS teams?

If you’re taking the percentage of where the teams place respective to others, then that’s different. But if you’re strictly taking the average rank of the teams then there would be a difference. You would now have ranks of 121-130 that figure into the average that didn’t exist previously.

If a hypothetical 8 team conference existed with the top 4 and bottom 4 teams in the county, then using FBS numbers of 120 (BCS) and 130 (CFP) would give you an average rank of 60.5 (BCS) and 65.5 (CFP) for occupying the same relative positions.

(06-05-2020 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why would more FBS schools necessarily skew averages downward? For example, what if the entirety of FCS was suddenly included in the analysis as FBS.

Let's just deal with this question academically, mathematically, regardless of which side of this debate one happens to take.

Mathematically, if the several teams that made the FCS to G5/FBS transition since 2013 have had relatively low rankings in the years since they made the transition, they would help to account for a decrease in G5 conference rankings.

If all of the FCS teams were suddenly included in the analysis as members of the existing G5 conferences, the G5 conference rankings would plummet precipitously, since more than 80% of FCS teams are ranked below the least proficient FBS teams.

The computation would be of a mean (or average) ranking. When lower ranks are factored in, they would drag the mean lower.

(06-05-2020 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wouldn't that boost the MAC, as presumably it would suddenly be ahead of a much higher % of "FBS" teams than before, because its average would be ahead of all those FCS teams?

What you're suggesting here is pooling all the FBS and FCS teams into one group and ranking them all. In that case, there would be well over 200 teams.

But the rankings of the existing conferences wouldn't be affected very discernably, because very few FCS teams are ranked higher than the average rankings of any of the G5 conferences.

If a FB conference's average ranking was something like "50.0," that ranking wouldn't necessarily change very much if all the FCS teams were included in the rankings, since the vast majority of FCS teams would be ranked lower (their mean rankings might be something like 160.0).

============================================

Former FCS schools that have joined the G5:

These former FCS schools have probably increased the rankings of their G5 conferences:

1. Appalachian State

.

These former FCS schools have probably reduced the rankings of their G5 conferences:

1. Charlotte

2. Coastal Carolina

3. Georgia Southern

4. Georgia State

5. South Alabama

6. Texas State

7. UTSA

Y'all trying to turn this into rocket science.

MAC FB really sucked last year. But the Golden Flashes finally won a bowl.

So you win some, you lose some. That's life.