(06-05-2020 07:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  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.

Kent State was a program that NEEDED a good break to happen. They might be the most cursed program in FBS.

----

C-USA isn't a dying conference.

C-USA is alive and very competitive in FBS (and in hoops). It just happened to change its name to the AAC.

Kent was a double overtime/1 play from the Orange Bowl.

(06-05-2020 06:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(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

But .... the reason those bottom 7 could pull down their cinference ranking would be if they are lousy teams. So that lower conference ranking wouldn't be a mathematical artifact of a larger pool of FBS teams, it would be because the conference got worse when it added the team, eh?

(06-05-2020 05:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(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.

That type of curve is possible, we just don't know. But more teams in the top 25 doesn't tell us much about conference strength, that's one team out of 12 in most cases, though this year the AAC had multiple ranked teams and the conference was quite good. Conferences like the MAC and CUSA were terrible though.

(06-05-2020 10:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 05:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(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.

That type of curve is possible, we just don't know. But more teams in the top 25 doesn't tell us much about conference strength, that's one team out of 12 in most cases, though this year the AAC had multiple ranked teams and the conference was quite good. Conferences like the MAC and CUSA were terrible though.

True about the AAC, although the MWC also did very well, and App State represented the Sun Belt remarkably well.

The CUSA's low ranking must be partially attributable to having multiple programs that were FCS quality within the past 5-10 years.

As for the MAC, I don't have any explanation. Perhaps someone affiliated with one of the MAC schools can help explain their situation.

(06-05-2020 10:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  As for the MAC, I don't have any explanation. Perhaps someone affiliated with one of the MAC schools can help explain their situation.

Oh, it's typically just the luck of the draw in replacing a good coach gets picked up by a school with deeper pockets. If the draw is lucky, a really good school is merely good for a few years then builds back up to really good as the players that fit the new coach's way of doing thing fill out the depth chart ...

... if the draw is unlucky, it goes from very good to good to mediocre to bad and everyone realizes that the transition to the new coach's philosophy either doesn't work or else there is a weakness in philosophy/execution making him all-talk, no-results kind of guy. And then the school can't afford to replace him right away, so when his contract comes up there's another reach into the bingo bowl.

There will always be a few clubs on the upswing, like Kent last year, but they were on the upswing from so low that they need a couple more years on an upward trajectory to put some sizzle into the #MACtion games like they did in the 2012 season of "Thunder and Lightning". And if they do, then that coach will get poached too and it's back for another reach into the bingo bowl.

It's like following a farm club, but for ambitious young coaches rather than for pitchers who need another pitch in their arsenal or hitters who needs to work on a hole in their swing.

(06-05-2020 10:42 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The CUSA's low ranking must be partially attributable to having multiple programs that were FCS quality within the past 5-10 years.

This could well be true, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the issue, which is the strength of the "G5", which is defined by conferences. For example, what if somehow next year the SEC lost Alabama, LSU, Georgia and Florida and had to backfill with four FCS teams. Then five years from now we look at their Massey or Sagarin ranking and see that it is way down from what it was in 2019. Almost surely, that will be because they lost four powerhouse football programs and replaced them with four far less good programs. But so what? That doesn't change the fact that the SEC is, as of 2025, far less good of a football conference than it was in 2019. It's a lot worse.

Now, if what you are getting at is "well, that doesn't tell us whether the 10 SEC teams that were members in 2019 and 2025 got better or worse during that time", that's true, but it's also not the point, because the issue is the strength of the "SEC" at those points in time, not of Mississippi State or South Carolina or Tennessee or any combination of them.

Of course if you are more interested in how G5 *teams* have fared since the advent of the CFP compared to the BCS era, that's fine, but a different type of analysis. We'd have to look at say Temple's Massey ratings 10 or so years ago compared to now, etc.

I would think the G5 has improved collectively in some respects and "gotten worse" in others.

It does seems there is a bit move overall respect for the G5 (and from fans of P5 programs) specifically than there was seven or more years ago. So that's a positive.

(06-06-2020 09:01 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would think the G5 has improved collectively in some respects and "gotten worse" in others.

It does seems there is a bit move overall respect for the G5 (and from fans of P5 programs) specifically than there was seven or more years ago. So that's a positive.

I think there are winners and losers, and some of the biggest at both extremes are in the AAC. On one end, programs like Memphis and UCF are big winners, their football profiles have clearly been enhanced during the CFP era thanks to moving to the AAC. But other AAC schools like UConn and ECU have seen their profiles fall. USF sadly falls in there as well. Still others - Boise*, Cincy**, and Houston come to mind - seem to be about where they were before, not much change in status.

I can't escape the overall conclusion that as a category, the G5 is worse off than before, because of the big operating deficits that have been incurred trying to "keep in touch" with the P5. That IMO has more than canceled out the positives, such as improved bowl access and money and improved media exposure. Those subsidies have exploded.

* Obviously not in the AAC, just was thinking more broadly at that point

** Which is arguably a win for Cincy, as it is harder to maintain the status they had while in an AQ conference while now in a G5 conference.

(06-05-2020 10:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 06:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(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

But .... the reason those bottom 7 could pull down their cinference ranking would be if they are lousy teams. So that lower conference ranking wouldn't be a mathematical artifact of a larger pool of FBS teams, it would be because the conference got worse when it added the team, eh?

Well if you are ranked 30 out of 40 teams and then later 32 out of 50, you have done better relative to the average. So the drop in average rankings of the MAC and CUSA is not as bad as it appears.

On the other hand, if you are comparing to the top 25 teams who remain the top 25 in both rankings, you are further away from them even though you are relatively higher up among your peer group.

There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

(06-06-2020 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 09:01 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I would think the G5 has improved collectively in some respects and "gotten worse" in others.

It does seems there is a bit move overall respect for the G5 (and from fans of P5 programs) specifically than there was seven or more years ago. So that's a positive.

I think there are winners and losers, and some of the biggest at both extremes are in the AAC. On one end, programs like Memphis and UCF are big winners, their football profiles have clearly been enhanced during the CFP era thanks to moving to the AAC. But other AAC schools like UConn and ECU have seen their profiles fall. USF sadly falls in there as well. Still others - Boise, Cincy, and Houston come to mind - seem to be about where they were before, not much change in status.

I can't escape the overall conclusion that as a category, the G5 is worse off than before, because of the big operating deficits that have been incurred trying to "keep in touch" with the P5. That IMO has more than canceled out the positives, such as improved bowl access and money and improved media exposure. Those subsidies have exploded.

I agree overall.

Before the split TCU, Utah and Boise would get top five for undefeated seasons. Now UCF can win twenty something in a row and still be rated lower. The AAC is probably equal to the old MWC and the MWC to the old C-USA. So realignment is part of it . The SBC has improved and the AAC for most members everyone else has lost ground.

I think you look at the teams at the top of the G5, since the split.
Several of those teams (Utah, TCU, Louisville) have gone from the G5 into the P5 mostly based on merit and some have joined the BCS auto-qualifying leagues and left the P5 (UConn, Cincy, USF, Temple). Others were in the power structure in the SWC and are currently out of the P5 (Houston, SMU, Rice, Utep).

As a whole the G5 has continually gotten stronger even with the defections of Utah, TCU and Louisville.
Boise has become a power for almost 20 years now through multiple coaching changes.

The AAC has numerous schools who have gone to and/or won the G5 access bowl and are poised to continue to do so (Cincy, UCF, Memphis, Houston) and several others that could break through (Temple, Navy, USF (with a coaching change) and SMU almost made it this past year). All in All, as strong a league as there has been in the G5 since the split in the early 90's.

So yes, the G5 has continually gotten better since the split. Partially due to decrease competition as elite G5 football schools left the G5 and joined the P5, but mainly due to increased success of the premiere G5 schools vs. the P5 schools.

(06-07-2020 11:20 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I think you look at the teams at the top of the G5, since the split.
Several of those teams (Utah, TCU, Louisville) have gone from the G5 into the P5 mostly based on merit and some have joined the BCS auto-qualifying leagues and left the P5 (UConn, Cincy, USF, Temple). Others were in the power structure in the SWC and are currently out of the P5 (Houston, SMU, Rice, Utep).

As a whole the G5 has continually gotten stronger even with the defections of Utah, TCU and Louisville.
Boise has become a power for almost 20 years now through multiple coaching changes.

The AAC has numerous schools who have gone to and/or won the G5 access bowl and are poised to continue to do so (Cincy, UCF, Memphis, Houston) and several others that could break through (Temple, Navy, USF (with a coaching change) and SMU almost made it this past year). All in All, as strong a league as there has been in the G5 since the split in the early 90's.

So yes, the G5 has continually gotten better since the split. Partially due to decrease competition as elite G5 football schools left the G5 and joined the P5, but mainly due to increased success of the premiere G5 schools vs. the P5 schools.

UTEP wasn’t in the SWC.

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

...and yet in spite of all that, 7 G5 schools finished in the AP top 25 last season!

(06-08-2020 02:06 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  ...and yet in spite of all that, 7 G5 schools finished in the AP top 25 last season!

I think the CFP might have something to do with this. The G5 schools have learned how to "game" the system, so to speak. The goal is to get the NY6 spot, and that means getting a ranking of around #15 or so.

To do that, you don't need to beat good P5 teams, you just need to dominate other G5. Look at the G5 teams that were ranked last year, and the best P5 team they beat before the bowl games. All of these teams won at least 10 games, but these were their best wins vs P5 before the bowls (and after the bowls):

Memphis .................. Ole Miss (4-8)

Appalachian State ..... North Carolina (7-6)

Navy ....................... None ......................... Kansas State (8-5)

Cincy ...................... UCLA (4-8) ................. BC (6-7)

UCF ........................ Stanford (4-8)

Boise ...................... FSU (6-7)

Air Force ................. Colorado (5-7) ............ Wazzoo (6-7)

By the MC, the very best win that any of these ranked G5 had during the regular season was App State's win over UNC, which finished #42 in the final MC rankings. That means among all of these seven Top 25 finishers, there wasn't a single win over a P5 during the regular season that had a winning regular season record!

The best win overall counting bowls was Navy's win over K-State in their bowl game, K-State finished #32. None of the other "top wins" over P5 finished in the final Top 50.

What these top G5 did do was beat each other - Memphis beat Cincy twice, Cincy beat UCF, Boise and Navy beat Air Force. Quite a few games among these top G5 teams.

But basically, the top echelon of the G5 was a self-contained world with little interaction with top P5, and those few interactions that did happen ended badly (Memphis was beaten soundly by Penn State, Notre Dame and Ohio State thrashed Navy and Cincy). But winning 10+ games like that is a formula for being ranked in the final Top 25, albeit outside the Top 15 (Memphis was highest-ranked, at #17).

I've posted before and will do so again now.

If, for example, App State finishes 14-0 after having beaten no P5 team and "bumps" a "more deserving" P5 member (maybe even one of my teams from the P5, which would be unlikely, I admit) in the final poll ... I'm not losing sleep for the P5.

Good for App State and the G5.

(06-08-2020 11:37 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I've posted before and will do so again now.

If, for example, App State finishes 14-0 after having beaten no P5 team and "bumps" a "more deserving" P5 member (maybe even one of my teams from the P5, which would be unlikely, I admit) in the final poll ... I'm not losing sleep for the P5.

Good for App State and the G5.

If App State finishes 14-0, they'd be the second G5 to ever do that, tying 2009 Boise. They'd be among a handful of teams ever to do that. So they'd almost surely finish well inside the final Top 10, probably around #7 or so, like UCF did in 2017.

Maybe even higher, like #5 or so like Boise and TCU and Utah were able to do a decade ago.

Not counting Ivy teams from the 1800s, these are the teams that have gone undefeated with at least 14 wins:

2019 LSU ........... 15-0
2018 Clemson ..... 15-0

2002 Ohio State ... 14-0
2009 Boise ........... 14-0
2009 Alabama ...... 14-0
2010 Auburn ........ 14-0
2013 FSU ............. 14-0

All but Boise won the national title. Boise 2009 finished #4.