I believe this data is correct (updated through bowl games of 2020 season) but will gladly accept corrections/edits.

Total for 2015-2020 period: SBC 23, C-USA 21
Among teams currently in each league: SBC 22, C-USA 19
C-USA 1-8 vs. Appalachian State; 18-14 vs. all other current SBC members.

SBC won 9x10 bowl games over past 4 seasons.

Bowl games in bold/italics.

2020: SBC 9, C-USA 5
South Alabama 32, @Southern Miss 21
@Appalachian State 35, Charlotte 20
2OT: UTSA 51, @Texas State 48
Troy 47, @Middle Tennessee 14
@Marshall 17, Appalachian State 7
UAB 42, @South Alabama 10
UTEP 31, @UL-Monroe 6
UL-Lafayette 24, @UAB 20
Middle Tennessee 20, @Troy 17
@Georgia Southern 20, Florida Atlantic 3
@Conway, SC: Appalachian State 56, North Texas 28
@New Orleans: Georgia Southern 38, Louisiana Tech 3
@Mobile: Georgia State 39, Western Kentucky 21
@Dallas: UL-Lafayette 31, UTSA 24


2019: SBC 3, C-USA 2
@Appalachian State 56, Charlotte 41
@UAB 35, South Alabama 3
Southern Miss 47, @Troy 42
@Montgomery: Arkansas State 34, FIU 26
@New Orleans: Appalachian State 31, UAB 17

2018: SBC 4, C-USA 2
Louisiana Tech 30, @South Alabama 26
Appalachian State 45, @Charlotte 9
UL-Monroe 21, @Southern Miss 20
@Coastal Carolina 47, UAB 24
@UTSA 25, Texas State 21
@New Orleans: Appalachian State 45, MTSU 13

2017: C-USA 5, SBC 4
@UAB 30, Coastal Carolina 23
Southern Miss 28, @UL-Monroe 17
Georgia State 28, @Charlotte 0
UTSA 44, @Texas State 14
@New Mexico State 41, UTEP 14
@Louisiana Tech 34, South Alabama 16
@New Orleans: Troy 50, North Texas 30
@Orlando: Georgia State 27, Western Kentucky 17
@Montgomery: MTSU 35, Arkansas State 30

2016: 2-2 tie
@UTEP 38, New Mexico State 22
@Appalachian State 31, Old Dominion 7
Troy 37, @Southern Miss 31
@New Orleans: Southern Miss 28, UL-Lafayette 21

2015: C-USA 5, SBC 1
Charlotte 23, @Georgia State 20
Southern Miss 56, @Texas State 50
OT: UTEP 50, @New Mexico State 47
Appalachian State 49, @Old Dominion 0
@Louisiana Tech 43, UL-Lafayette 14
@New Orleans: Louisiana Tech 47, Arkansas State 28

(09-20-2020 01:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  I believe this data is correct but will gladly accept corrections/edits.

Total for 2017-2020 period: SBC 14, C-USA 11. For teams currently in the league: SBC 13, C-USA 11.
C-USA 1-5 vs. Appalachian State; 10-9 vs. all other SBC members.

Bowl games in bold/italics.

2020 so far: SBC 3, C-USA 2
South Alabama 32, @Southern Miss 21
@Appalachian State 35, Charlotte 20
2OT: UTSA 51, @Texas State 48
Troy 47, @Middle Tennessee 14
@Marshall 17, Appalachian State 7

2019: SBC 3, C-USA 2
@Appalachian State 56, Charlotte 41
@UAB 35, South Alabama 3
Southern Miss 47, @Troy 42
@Montgomery: Arkansas State 34, FIU 26
@New Orleans: Appalachian State 31, UAB 17

2018: SBC 4, C-USA 2
Louisiana Tech 30, @South Alabama 26
Appalachian State 45, @Charlotte 9
UL-Monroe 21, @Southern Miss 20
@Coastal Carolina 47, UAB 24
@UTSA 25, Texas State 21
@New Orleans: Appalachian State 45, Middle Tennessee 13

2017: C-USA 5, SBC 4
@UAB 30, Coastal Carolina 23
Southern Miss 28, @UL-Monroe 17
Georgia State 28, @Charlotte 0
UTSA 44, @Texas State 14
@New Mexico State 41, UTEP 14
@Louisiana Tech 34, South Alabama 16
@New Orleans: Troy 50, North Texas 30
@Orlando: Georgia State 27, Western Kentucky 17
@Montgomery: Middle Tennessee 35, Arkansas State 30

For a true measure, we really need to stretch this to 2014 and up. Almost there though. That will give us a full picture.

I think most of us will gladly concede that CUSA was the better conference prior to 2016. Keep in mind most of are only talking about recent history, the past four years or so, which is significant.

Since then, the massey's (composite of over 100 rating system) are as follows:

2016 (End of Season)

1-5 Power 5
6 AAC | 68.68
7 FBS IND | 74.85
8 MWC | 78.46
9 Sun Belt | 87.04
10 MAC | 88.45
11 CUSA | 94.23

2017 (End of Season)

1-5 Power 5
6 FBS IND | 65.21
7 AAC | 66.69
8 MWC | 83.81
9 MAC | 87.68
10 CUSA | 91.09
11 Sun Belt | 98.53

2018 (End of Season)

1-5 Power 5
6 FBS IND | 70.50
7 MWC | 77.32
8 AAC | 79.80
9 Sun Belt | 84.10
10 MAC | 91.51
11 CUSA | 91.84

2019 (End of Season)

1-4 Power 5
5 AAC | 60.28
6 ACC | 60.40
7 MWC | 74.57
8 Sun Belt | 82.72
9 FBS IND | 84.71
10 CUSA | 91.02
11 MAC | 92.18

2020 (as of this morning)

1-4 Power 5
5 FBS IND | 46.63
6 American Athletic | 48.35
7 Sun Belt | 62.86
8 CUSA | 69.95

It's pretty clear to me that the Sun Belt is better than both the MAC and CUSA on a consistent basis (Sun Belt seasons finish 3-1 over CUSA, and leads this year as well).

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...016-15.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...017-15.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...018-15.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...019-16.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Again... our top is pretty equal. Our bottom is worse which is the difference

To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

Trying to update to include individual game scores from pre-2017. That is not information I have stored anywhere, so I'm having to search it out. Corrections/edits welcome.

(09-20-2020 03:02 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  2016 (End of Season)

1-5 Power 5
6 AAC | 68.68
7 FBS IND | 74.85
8 MWC | 78.46
9 Sun Belt | 87.04
10 MAC | 88.45
11 CUSA | 94.23

2017 (End of Season)

1-5 Power 5
6 FBS IND | 65.21
7 AAC | 66.69
8 MWC | 83.81
9 MAC | 87.68
10 CUSA | 91.09
11 Sun Belt | 98.53

2018 (End of Season)

1-5 Power 5
6 FBS IND | 70.50
7 MWC | 77.32
8 AAC | 79.80
9 Sun Belt | 84.10
10 MAC | 91.51
11 CUSA | 91.84

2019 (End of Season)

1-4 Power 5
5 AAC | 60.28
6 ACC | 60.40
7 MWC | 74.57
8 Sun Belt | 82.72
9 FBS IND | 84.71
10 CUSA | 91.02
11 MAC | 92.18

Note: these ratings (2016-'19) included Notre Dame as FBS Independent, which is obviously true, but somewhat misleading since most people also consider them part of the P5. And of course, for this year, they are officially ACC. The only three teams competing as an FBS Independent this year are BYU, Army, and Liberty.

(09-20-2020 03:48 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

(09-20-2020 03:51 PM)banker Wrote:  The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

For every chance you have to have a bad team, you have an change to have a good team as well. You could easily argue the only reason you have as many comparable top end teams as you have (I'm thinking only of Marshall and FAU, sometimes LATECH and UAB to be fair, though) is because you have a few more programs to draw from.

(09-20-2020 04:26 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 03:48 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

(09-20-2020 03:51 PM)banker Wrote:  The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

For every chance you have to have a bad team, you have an change to have a good team as well. You could easily argue the only reason you have Marshall and FAU is because you have a few more programs to draw from.

That is a very fair argument. But if we are all rational football fans, I would think we’d agree that our top four and the Belts top four are pretty even. The problem is we have four of the bottom teams in the conference are worse than your two worst. Agree?

The true test is the middle-rank programs. For a 10-team league, I'd look at their 4-5-6-7 teams. For a 14-team league, look at 6-7-8-9, or maybe 5-6-7-8-9-10.

That way, the outliers at the top and the bottom are not the determining factor.

(09-20-2020 04:29 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 04:26 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 03:48 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

(09-20-2020 03:51 PM)banker Wrote:  The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

For every chance you have to have a bad team, you have an change to have a good team as well. You could easily argue the only reason you have Marshall and FAU is because you have a few more programs to draw from.

That is a very fair argument. But if we are all rational football fans, I would think we’d agree that our top four and the Belts top four are pretty even. The problem is we have four of the bottom teams in the conference are worse than your two worst. Agree?

Agree. You still have them though

CUSA TOP 4: Marshall, FAU, LATECH, UAB.
SBC TOP 4: Louisiana, App, Arkansas State, Troy

Very comparable. The SBC usually has "the four horsemen" that carry the league. It used to be MTSU, WKU, Louisiana, and Arkansas State during the last years they were a part of the belt. This year, that 4th spot could be a number of teams. Don't really know how good Troy is, Coastal has been on a roll, South Alabama has surprised some folks, Georgia Southern may be headed for a down year if they are as bad as their fans say.

(09-20-2020 04:35 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 04:29 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 04:26 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 03:48 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

(09-20-2020 03:51 PM)banker Wrote:  The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

For every chance you have to have a bad team, you have an change to have a good team as well. You could easily argue the only reason you have Marshall and FAU is because you have a few more programs to draw from.

That is a very fair argument. But if we are all rational football fans, I would think we’d agree that our top four and the Belts top four are pretty even. The problem is we have four of the bottom teams in the conference are worse than your two worst. Agree?

Agree. You still have them though

CUSA TOP 4: Marshall, FAU, LATECH, UAB.
SBC TOP 4: Louisiana, App, Arkansas State, Troy

Very comparable. The SBC usually has "the four horsemen" that carry the league. It used to be MTSU, WKU, Louisiana, and Arkansas State during the last years they were a part of the belt. This year, that 4th spot could be a number of teams. Don't really know how good Troy is, Coastal has been on a roll, South Alabama has surprised some folks, Georgia Southern may be headed for a down year if they are as bad as their fans say.

I still think it’s:

App
stAte
ULL
Troy

In C-USA at this moment, I’d say:

Marshall
Tech
USM
(Surprise pick) Charlotte/FAU

Caveat- FAU hasn’t played so I reserve the right to alter my opinion

We will see if I have to eat my hat at the end of the season.

(09-20-2020 04:45 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 04:35 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 04:29 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 04:26 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 03:48 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

(09-20-2020 03:51 PM)banker Wrote:  The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

For every chance you have to have a bad team, you have an change to have a good team as well. You could easily argue the only reason you have Marshall and FAU is because you have a few more programs to draw from.

That is a very fair argument. But if we are all rational football fans, I would think we’d agree that our top four and the Belts top four are pretty even. The problem is we have four of the bottom teams in the conference are worse than your two worst. Agree?

Agree. You still have them though

CUSA TOP 4: Marshall, FAU, LATECH, UAB.
SBC TOP 4: Louisiana, App, Arkansas State, Troy

Very comparable. The SBC usually has "the four horsemen" that carry the league. It used to be MTSU, WKU, Louisiana, and Arkansas State during the last years they were a part of the belt. This year, that 4th spot could be a number of teams. Don't really know how good Troy is, Coastal has been on a roll, South Alabama has surprised some folks, Georgia Southern may be headed for a down year if they are as bad as their fans say.

I still think it’s:

App
stAte
ULL
Troy

In C-USA at this moment, I’d say:

Marshall
Tech
USM
(Surprise pick) Charlotte/FAU

Caveat- FAU hasn’t played so I reserve the right to alter my opinion

We will see if I have to eat my hat at the end of the season.

The top four in CUSA for 2020 probably looks like

Marshall
La Tech
UAB
FAU

That's just my opinion...and it's early. WKU was supposed to be the front-runner, but they've really struggled (they would have really thumped Liberty last year).

Tech has to face UAB and Marshall this year. That means we have to beat UAB to make it to Conference Title game.

(09-20-2020 04:26 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 03:48 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

(09-20-2020 03:51 PM)banker Wrote:  The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

For every chance you have to have a bad team, you have an change to have a good team as well. You could easily argue the only reason you have as many comparable top end teams as you have (I'm thinking only of Marshall and FAU, sometimes LATECH and UAB to be fair, though) is because you have a few more programs to draw from.

It doesn’t work that way, not in G5 conferences and not in P5 conferences. Yes, you can have a team have a good year, but that only happens because other teams are down. We are the bottom half of FBS, the teams at the top can be mid pack, to slightly better, FBS teams, but our conferences (G5) are always going to dominate the bottom 30 spots. The more teams you have, the more in the bottom 30.

Here is one look at it. Our conferences have only been in the current format since 2017. That’s you guys getting CCU and us getting UAB back. Over those last three years only 7 teams from our conferences have been ranked under 100 all 3 years -App, FAU, Marshall, La Tech, UAB, Ark St, and USM (with the average ranking being in that order). That’s 2 ‘belt and 5 CUSA. Fourteen schools have averaged better than 100. Those seven plus Troy, Ga So, Louisiana, UNT, FIU, Middle and WKU. So 9 for CUSA and 5 for the belt.

If you look at the teams floundering under the 100 average it’s mostly the “reach” move ups from FCS. Not the established, good FCS programs but the start ups that cusa took too many of.

(09-21-2020 02:54 PM)banker Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 04:26 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(09-20-2020 03:48 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  To date Tech has never lost to a Sunbelt team since joining CUSA in 2013. The problem with all these metrics are that is it really measures how bad the bad teams are in each conference more than anything. CUSA is at a disadvantage because it has 14 teams compared to 10 in Sunbelt.

(09-20-2020 03:51 PM)banker Wrote:  The difference in composite ratings is primarily due to cusa having 14’teams, which means a couple extra crappy teams at the bottom.

For every chance you have to have a bad team, you have an change to have a good team as well. You could easily argue the only reason you have as many comparable top end teams as you have (I'm thinking only of Marshall and FAU, sometimes LATECH and UAB to be fair, though) is because you have a few more programs to draw from.

It doesn’t work that way, not in G5 conferences and not in P5 conferences. Yes, you can have a team have a good year, but that only happens because other teams are down. We are the bottom half of FBS, the teams at the top can be mid pack, to slightly better, FBS teams, but our conferences (G5) are always going to dominate the bottom 30 spots. The more teams you have, the more in the bottom 30.

Here is one look at it. Our conferences have only been in the current format since 2017. That’s you guys getting CCU and us getting UAB back. Over those last three years only 7 teams from our conferences have been ranked under 100 all 3 years -App, FAU, Marshall, La Tech, UAB, Ark St, and USM (with the average ranking being in that order). That’s 2 ‘belt and 5 CUSA. Fourteen schools have averaged better than 100. Those seven plus Troy, Ga So, Louisiana, UNT, FIU, Middle and WKU. So 9 for CUSA and 5 for the belt.

If you look at the teams floundering under the 100 average it’s mostly the “reach” move ups from FCS. Not the established, good FCS programs but the start ups that cusa took too many of.

At the G5 level you're ability to sustain a winning program depends on your university's willingness to provide leadership. Let's take GS for example. In recent years two solid coaches come and go back to back for greener pastures. To be expected. Happy to do it. Then your leadership has the confidence to hire a potential game changer but who brings a system that deviates significantly from the successful past. You win two games the following year with a solid roster. No one and dones we can't afford it at this level. Thankfully somehow GS relieve the game changer half way through the second season realizing that we'll be in a tough spot. Hire the interim coach at a bargain price. Ahhh the life in the G5...

Despite a very normal experience in GSs short time in the G5 with the possible exception of one 2 win season we enjoy the 3rd winningest record in the conference just short of the second spot by a couple games. This league is complicated.

I think it is safe to say that we are all equals in the G5 boat. Here is how I’d rate the G5 today:
1)AAC
2)SBC/MWC/CUSA
3)MAC

To think one is head and shoulders better than the other is comical.

I noticed the Sun Belt has only played CUSA flagship Marshall once....and lost.

(09-21-2020 07:26 PM)Big Buds Wrote:  I think it is safe to say that we are all equals in the G5 boat. Here is how I’d rate the G5 today:
1)AAC
2)SBC/MWC/CUSA
3)MAC

To think one is head and shoulders better than the other is comical.

Much parity at the G5 level currently but going forward the dynamics that impact competitive "positioning" are significant. This new dynamic includes the reality that Sun Belt programs are less likely to jump. Not saying it's not possible. If change occurs it's more likely to be small changes rather than complete conference realignment IMO. Swaps of one or two are more likely now. Not trying to troll you here but honestly the numbers tell the story. Two from CUSA may pitch the jump idea before the Sun Belt initiates any potential. Could be the Florida U's just based on travel who knows but this may be the olive branch for the greater good in the end. We'll see. Could be UNCC or even Marshall or UAB. They're all in sweet spots. It's all good and getting better for all of us.