Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
Author Message
Todor Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 417
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Nmsu
Location:
Post: #21
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-16-2020 08:29 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(11-16-2020 08:24 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would say this year is an exception because most of the non-P5's aren't playing many if any P5's. In most normal years, Coastal Carolina and Marshall would have played more P5's and would have had at least one loss by now (Coastal Carolina did play Kansas but come on, they're Kansas!) BYU normally plays Utah as well as one or more Pac-12 teams, what's the chance BYU goes undefeated in a "normal" year? The records are better but that's because they're not playing the P5's. And I'm not saying G5's never beat P5's but the odds are stacked against them, especially since most games are at the P5's. If Coastal Carolina and/or Marshall are undefeated in a year where they beat multiple legit P5's (Kansas doesn't count), I would be impressed. I'm not even sure Cincinnati would be undefeated if they played a "buy in" game, especially if that buy in game was in Columbus.

Ok, let's pretend that 2020 is just an "exception" (i.e., a fluke...)

But if you think it is, how do you explain the steady increase between 2017 and 2019, or the fact that there were twice as many non-P5s in the week 9-11 AP Top 25 in 2019 as there were in 2015, 2016, and 2017?

Was that just an "exception," too?

......................................................................

Denial (or "De' Nile") is not a river in Egypt!

I like the logic that essentially jumps to, if Cincy can’t win in Columbus, than non P5s aren’t really getting better.
11-16-2020 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #22
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
The realignment of the past decade has brought up programs like Liberty and Coastal with potential. Throw App in there as well while they aren't ranked this year their longer term success has given hope to others.

Another factor which I've said (a very few people buy) is that with all of these FCS call ups what it amounts to is a huge transfer of talent to the FBS division, a greater gap between G5 and FCS which means dominance of FCS by the G5 and a better relative ranking. Further that talent shift takes 5 or 6 years to cycle through.

As I predicted the CFP system with (1) access bowl for the G5 and nothing for the independents will in due time come under pressure. BYU and Liberty can go undefeated and be left out this year as independents. Coastal and Marshall are long shots at the G5 bid against Cincinnati.

Make it a Top 20 rule for conference champs and/or undefeated teams for an access bowl. That would open things up more while maintaining a modicum of quality in the top tier bowl system.
11-16-2020 04:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,536
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 479
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #23
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-16-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-16-2020 10:06 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Looking at the makeup of the avg. numbers, the SBC and independents are doing a good job of taking advantage of the unique opportunities of 2020 (playing as many games as possible which helps in the polls). Will it continue when everyone plays a standard season, who knows?

I agree with this, the late entry of some P5 conferences created ranking opportunities for "lower rung" G5 (SBC, CUSA and MAC), and once a team is ranked, poll inertia tends to keep them ranked until they lose.

Nevertheless, Jed has a point that there does seem to be a kind of trend in the past 3 or so years. It seems to me that pollsters are giving G5 more credit for beating other G5 than they had been.

The AAC last year was a good example - the AAC had a fantastic year, they actually ranked slightly ahead of the ACC in the MC, but had really no 'quality' wins against P5 teams, not even for Memphis or Cincy. The high rankings were gained by dominating the other G5 conferences. And the pollsters gave them credit for that.

For example, Memphis and Cincy were both ranked in the final regular season Top 20 last year. Cincy had one win over a P5, a 24-14 win over a 4-8 UCLA team. Memphis also had one P5 win, a 15-10 win over a 4-8 Ole Miss team. The pollsters seem to be willing to give more credit for winning within the G5.

It goes back before that.
In 2016, prior to the conference championship games, the CFP Committee was discussing the possibility of a 2-loss AAC team overtaking undefeated WMU. Navy had a win over Notre Dame, but that ND team would finish 4-8 ranked #66 in the Massey Composite (i.e. below the median of FBS teams) and the committee statements didn't mention that win rather, "Navy has three what the Selection Committee would look at quality wins over Houston, Memphis and Tulsa."
In 2019, the point of AAC's out of conference record was a dominating performance - 16-2 regular season and bowls, 2-1 in bowls, but 8-2 vs bowl eligible G4 teams. Those results are kind of P6-ish.

It's not just "credit for winning withing the G5"...it's credit for the AAC separating from the mwc, SunBelt, CUSA, and MAC.
11-16-2020 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,482
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 556
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #24
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
This year the human polls are close to worthless for reasons already stated here. Other rankings are equally suspect.

An analysis of the six highest ranked non-P5 teams in the Massey Composite shows the following. The first column is the Massey ranking. The second is the Sagarin rank. The third is the highest (best) ranking of all 40 of the services that make up the Massey composite, and the fourth is the lowest ranking for each team.

Team.........Mas.....Sag.....High....Low

Cincinnati....6........13........1........19
BYU............7........21........1........21
Marshall......17......43........2........55
CCU...........25......58.........1........68
Boise St......26......31.........7........14
UCF............27......29........14......124

With disparities like this, rankings make no sense. We only have them because Americans are obsessed with ranking things, not because they shed actual light on anything.
11-17-2020 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 36,480
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1079
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #25
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-16-2020 08:03 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(11-16-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-16-2020 10:06 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Looking at the makeup of the avg. numbers, the SBC and independents are doing a good job of taking advantage of the unique opportunities of 2020 (playing as many games as possible which helps in the polls). Will it continue when everyone plays a standard season, who knows?

I agree with this, the late entry of some P5 conferences created ranking opportunities for "lower rung" G5 (SBC, CUSA and MAC), and once a team is ranked, poll inertia tends to keep them ranked until they lose.

Nevertheless, Jed has a point that there does seem to be a kind of trend in the past 3 or so years. It seems to me that pollsters are giving G5 more credit for beating other G5 than they had been.

The AAC last year was a good example - the AAC had a fantastic year, they actually ranked slightly ahead of the ACC in the MC, but had really no 'quality' wins against P5 teams, not even for Memphis or Cincy. The high rankings were gained by dominating the other G5 conferences. And the pollsters gave them credit for that.

For example, Memphis and Cincy were both ranked in the final regular season Top 20 last year. Cincy had one win over a P5, a 24-14 win over a 4-8 UCLA team. Memphis also had one P5 win, a 15-10 win over a 4-8 Ole Miss team. The pollsters seem to be willing to give more credit for winning within the G5.

It goes back before that.
In 2016, prior to the conference championship games, the CFP Committee was discussing the possibility of a 2-loss AAC team overtaking undefeated WMU. Navy had a win over Notre Dame, but that ND team would finish 4-8 ranked #66 in the Massey Composite (i.e. below the median of FBS teams) and the committee statements didn't mention that win rather, "Navy has three what the Selection Committee would look at quality wins over Houston, Memphis and Tulsa."
In 2019, the point of AAC's out of conference record was a dominating performance - 16-2 regular season and bowls, 2-1 in bowls, but 8-2 vs bowl eligible G4 teams. Those results are kind of P6-ish.

It's not just "credit for winning withing the G5"...it's credit for the AAC separating from the mwc, SunBelt, CUSA, and MAC.

Well, the AAC has achieved that separation really only one year, in 2019. It certainly didn't in 2018, when it wasn't even the top-ranked G5 conference. It hasn't really achieved much separation this year either - mainly because so few OOC games have been played by anyone so it is difficult to tell.

And yet as you note the trend of getting more credit for wins within the G5 extends back a few years. So that suggests a very limited impact of an alleged separation effect on the rankings of G5 teams, AAC included.
11-17-2020 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 36,480
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1079
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #26
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-17-2020 10:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  This year the human polls are close to worthless for reasons already stated here. Other rankings are equally suspect.

Yes, with the paucity of OOC games, we are basically left with the eyeball and gut feeling and smell tests, and of course those are prone to bias, though they also tend to have a core accuracy - e.g. our guts tell us Ohio State is better than Marshall, and we are almost certainly right about that.

The CFP should not waste a lot of time analyzing computer data, as that data is useless this year.
11-17-2020 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,019
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 107
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #27
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-16-2020 11:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

(11-16-2020 10:36 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I’d like to think it’s a positive thing...

Of course you would, and so would we all!

One could argue that, as good as it is for the non-P5, it will even be better for the P5 in the long run.

Why?

Because the rise of the non-P5 teams will force the P5s to stay fit, so that they will be able to ward off the hordes of competitive non-P5 teams in the coming years.

2020 is very much like 1960, when it comes to organized football.

In 1959, the NFL was alone in the world - - the only professional football league on the planet.

However, in 1960, the AFL sprang upon the scene with these teams, and everything suddenly changed.

Boston Patriots, Buffalo Bills, Houston Oilers, Miami Dolphins, New York Titans/Jets, Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs, Denver Broncos, Los Angeles/San Diego Chargers, & Oakland Raiders

The new kids on the block (AFL) played a more exciting brand of football, and the red blooded American footoball fan suddenly had a wider range of viewing options...

...and Americans LOVE options!

They weren't everybody's cup of tea, at first, and they were a little 'rough around the edges,' but gradually they started to catch on.

.

The same type of phenomenon is taking place in college football today.

Sure, the Boise States and Marshalls and the Tulsas aren't everybody's cup of tea nowadays, but just you wait...

...before long, they will be the sexy teams of the 2020s, with the college football equivalents of Buck Buchanan, Lenny Dawson, Mike Garrett, and the great Jim Otis (Kansas City fans know who I'm talkin' about!)...jes' you wait and see!
totally agree with you here, spot on, you and i can see further down the road than most about the brightness of the G5 future, and it’s only getting better
11-18-2020 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco'14 Offline
WMU
*

Posts: 6,455
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 57
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Post: #28
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
How many different G5 teams have been ranked this year? Seems like a lot. & a lot recieving votes as well. Crazy
11-19-2020 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,444
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 175
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #29
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
As to the "separation" of the AAC from the other G5, and particularly from the MWC, it might be too easy to simply compare wins. In that respect, there likely hasn't been much separation between the American and the Mountain West. As such, I would be curious to see where the AAC and MWC compare regarding the following:

* Average number of four-star recruits (and three-star recruits) the leagues have landed the past five seasons.

* Number of programs in the top 60 for team ranking in recruiting the past five seasons.

* Average number of teams each week in the Top 25 the past five seasons.

* Average head coach salary

* Average assistant coach salary

* Average league-wide attendance (throwing out the high and low marks)

* Average number of players drafted into the NFL the past five seasons

When all these metrics are considered, I would think the AAC has established a clear separation from the MWC. I'm biased as a Cincy and Memphis fan, but I simply feel based on my talks with friends and acquaintances who know college sport that the perception is that the AAC has created rather notable separation the past five years or so.

It's an interesting debate and somewhat subjective. I hugely respect the MWC. My father served in the Air Force in the 1950s. He was stationed in New Mexico and attended college at New Mexico Highland University while doing his military service. He likes the MWC team, particularly Wyoming (for some odd reason).

But the American continues to seemingly get better while the MWC seems to have reached a plateau of sorts. Maybe I'm wrong. Somebody show me the light.
11-19-2020 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 36,480
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1079
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #30
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As to the "separation" of the AAC from the other G5, and particularly from the MWC, it might be too easy to simply compare wins. In that respect, there likely hasn't been much separation between the American and the Mountain West. As such, I would be curious to see where the AAC and MWC compare regarding the following:

* Average number of four-star recruits (and three-star recruits) the leagues have landed the past five seasons.

G5 teams land so few 4* recruits that this metric is probably null and void. Just looking at the 24/7 rankings for 2020, the entire G5 had 4 four-star recruits. 3-star guys are the mead and drink of the G5.

As for coaching salaries, the AAC is surely well ahead. IIRC, the top 5 paid G5 coaches are in the AAC. USF actually is fourth in that regard, we are paying our current coach more than Boise pays theirs. We haven't yet gotten much ROI from it.
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2020 09:45 AM by quo vadis.)
11-19-2020 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,444
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 175
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #31
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As to the "separation" of the AAC from the other G5, and particularly from the MWC, it might be too easy to simply compare wins. In that respect, there likely hasn't been much separation between the American and the Mountain West. As such, I would be curious to see where the AAC and MWC compare regarding the following:

* Average number of four-star recruits (and three-star recruits) the leagues have landed the past five seasons.

G5 teams land so few 4* recruits that this metric is probably null and void. Just looking at the 24/7 rankings for 2020, the entire G5 had 4 four-star recruits. 3-star guys are the mead and drink of the G5.

As for coaching salaries, the AAC is surely well ahead. IIRC, the top 5 paid G5 coaches are in the AAC. USF actually is fourth in that regard, we are paying our current coach more than Boise pays theirs. We haven't yet gotten much ROI from it.


Agree on the four stars. But, for example, if the American averaged, say, four four-star football recruits each year to the MWC's, say, one four-star recruit ... that is a "separation of sorts." But I would not know as I don't check MWC football recruiting. I do know Memphis and Cincy have landed some four-star football recruits the past few years (as has, at least, Houston, if I recall correctly).

USF will be back in football.
11-19-2020 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 36,480
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1079
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #32
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 09:52 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As to the "separation" of the AAC from the other G5, and particularly from the MWC, it might be too easy to simply compare wins. In that respect, there likely hasn't been much separation between the American and the Mountain West. As such, I would be curious to see where the AAC and MWC compare regarding the following:

* Average number of four-star recruits (and three-star recruits) the leagues have landed the past five seasons.

G5 teams land so few 4* recruits that this metric is probably null and void. Just looking at the 24/7 rankings for 2020, the entire G5 had 4 four-star recruits. 3-star guys are the mead and drink of the G5.

As for coaching salaries, the AAC is surely well ahead. IIRC, the top 5 paid G5 coaches are in the AAC. USF actually is fourth in that regard, we are paying our current coach more than Boise pays theirs. We haven't yet gotten much ROI from it.


Agree on the four stars. But, for example, if the American averaged, say, four four-star football recruits each year to the MWC's, say, one four-star recruit ... that is a "separation of sorts." But I would not know as I don't check MWC football recruiting. I do know Memphis and Cincy have landed some four-star football recruits the past few years (as has, at least, Houston, if I recall correctly).

USF will be back in football.

Regarding #1, if the AAC lands an average of 4 four star recruits and the MW lands 1, that averages out to about 1/3 of a 4 star recruit per AAC team and 1/12 of one for an MW team. Those numbers are so small as to be trivial, IMO.

As for USF football, I hope you are right but I have my doubts. As much as I think our coaching has been lousy (save for a couple years of Taggart) the past 10 years, at a certain point you have to look at the structure of your program. With us, I think it starts with the lack of an on-campus stadium. I don't think we develop much until we have one.
11-19-2020 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
THUNDERStruck73 Offline
Complete Jackass
*

Posts: 8,684
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 487
I Root For: The Herd!!
Location: Huntington, WV
Post: #33
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-16-2020 08:24 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Marshall would have played more P5's and would have had at least one loss by now...

Wrong. We had Pitt, and Boise at home this year. We lost to Boise last year at Boise 14-7 with an inept qb and Pitt is no juggernaut. Most likely we would be 10-0 right now.
11-19-2020 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 387
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Liberty, UF
Location: Virginia
Post: #34
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 12:57 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  How many different G5 teams have been ranked this year? Seems like a lot. & a lot recieving votes as well. Crazy

Great question! Here is a breakdown of their AP rankings this season:

Preseason: #20 Cincinnati, #21 UCF (Others receiving votes: #26 Memphis, #28 Boise St, #32 App St, #40 Navy, #42 SMU, #44 Air Force, #46 UAB)

Week 3: #13 Cincinnati, #14 UCF, #16 Memphis, #19 Louisiana (ULL), #21 BYU, #22 Army, #23 App St (Others receiving votes: #31 Arkansas St, #32 SMU, #35 USF, #38 UAB, #41 Air Force, #42 Marshall, #46 Houston)

Week 4: #13 UCF, #14 Cincinnati, #17 Memphis, #18 BYU, #19 Louisiana (ULL), #22 Army, #25 Marshall (Others receiving votes: #28 SMU, #32 Arkansas St, #34 UAB, #37 App St, #38 UTSA, #39 Troy, #40 Coastal)

Week 5: #11 UCF, #15 Cincinnati, #22 BYU, #25 Memphis (Others receiving votes: #27 Louisiana {ULL}, #31 SMU, #32 Marshall, #37 Arkansas St, #38 UAB, #42 Army)

Week 6: #11 Cincinnati, #15 BYU, #18 SMU, #23 Lousiana (ULL) (Others receiving votes: #29 UCF, #31 Marshall, #32 Tulsa, #35 Coastal, #39 UAB, #40 Army, #42 Memphis, #48 Air Force)

Week 7: #8 Cincinnati, #14 BYU, #17 SMU, #21 Lousiana (ULL) (Others receiving votes: #26 Memphis, #29 Tulsa, #30 UCF, #32 Coastal, #34 UAB, #37 Army, #38 Memphis, #39 Air Force, #42 Houston, #46 Louisiana Tech)

Week 8: #9 Cincinnati, #12 BYU, #16 SMU, #22 Marshall, #25 Coastal (Others receiving votes: #26 Memphis, #28 Tulsa, #32 Louisiana {ULL}, #33 Liberty, #35 UAB, #36 Army, #38 Air Force)

Week 9: #7 Cincinnati, #11 BYU, #19 Marshall, #20 Coastal, #22 SMU, #25 Boise St (Others receiving votes: #26 Memphis, #27 Liberty, #28 Tulsa, #29 Louisiana {ULL}, #30 Army, #39 App St, #43 San Diego St)

Week 10: #6 Cincinnati, #9 BYU, #15 Coastal, #16 Marshall, #18 SMU, #21 Boise St, #25 Liberty (Others receiving votes: #27 Louisiana {ULL}, #30 Tulsa, #31 Army, #38 San Diego St, #40 App St)

Week 11: #7 Cincinnati, #8 BYU, #15 Coastal, #16 Marshall, #19 SMU, #22 Liberty, #25 Louisiana (ULL) (Others receiving votes: #27 Army, #28 Tulsa, #34 Boise St, #35 App St, #38 Nevada)

Week 12: #7 Cincinnati, #8 BYU, #15 Coastal, #15 Marshall, #21 Liberty, #24 Louisiana (ULL), #25 Tulsa (Others receiving votes: #27 SMU, #31 Boise St, #32 San Jose St, #33 App St, #34 Nevada, #36 Buffalo, #37 UCF)

Looking at the information above, we have 13 different G5 schools (in order of first appearance: Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis, Louisiana {ULL}, BYU, Army, App St, Marshall, SMU, Coastal, Boise St, Liberty, & Tulsa) appearing in the Top 25 at least once this season, & a total of 26 different G5 schools have received any votes this season.
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2020 11:06 AM by Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51.)
11-19-2020 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,201
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 667
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #35
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:52 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As to the "separation" of the AAC from the other G5, and particularly from the MWC, it might be too easy to simply compare wins. In that respect, there likely hasn't been much separation between the American and the Mountain West. As such, I would be curious to see where the AAC and MWC compare regarding the following:

* Average number of four-star recruits (and three-star recruits) the leagues have landed the past five seasons.

G5 teams land so few 4* recruits that this metric is probably null and void. Just looking at the 24/7 rankings for 2020, the entire G5 had 4 four-star recruits. 3-star guys are the mead and drink of the G5.

As for coaching salaries, the AAC is surely well ahead. IIRC, the top 5 paid G5 coaches are in the AAC. USF actually is fourth in that regard, we are paying our current coach more than Boise pays theirs. We haven't yet gotten much ROI from it.


Agree on the four stars. But, for example, if the American averaged, say, four four-star football recruits each year to the MWC's, say, one four-star recruit ... that is a "separation of sorts." But I would not know as I don't check MWC football recruiting. I do know Memphis and Cincy have landed some four-star football recruits the past few years (as has, at least, Houston, if I recall correctly).

USF will be back in football.

Regarding #1, if the AAC lands an average of 4 four star recruits and the MW lands 1, that averages out to about 1/3 of a 4 star recruit per AAC team and 1/12 of one for an MW team. Those numbers are so small as to be trivial, IMO.

As for USF football, I hope you are right but I have my doubts. As much as I think our coaching has been lousy (save for a couple years of Taggart) the past 10 years, at a certain point you have to look at the structure of your program. With us, I think it starts with the lack of an on-campus stadium. I don't think we develop much until we have one.

I can’t speak for MW schools but one thing that sticks out about the AAC is the number of guys who transfer in from P5 schools. Tulsa, SMU, Houston and Memphis have a bunch and so do my Bearcats who have transfers from Michigan, Alabama, Notre Dame, Arkansas and BC starting or contributing (we have a couple Ohio State guys who have been out with injury). UC’s guys weren’t just guys who were on the practice squad at those schools, Jerome Ford started several games as a freshman at Alabama and James Hudson was penciled in as a starter before transferring from Michigan.
11-19-2020 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 36,480
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1079
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #36
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 11:05 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:52 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As to the "separation" of the AAC from the other G5, and particularly from the MWC, it might be too easy to simply compare wins. In that respect, there likely hasn't been much separation between the American and the Mountain West. As such, I would be curious to see where the AAC and MWC compare regarding the following:

* Average number of four-star recruits (and three-star recruits) the leagues have landed the past five seasons.

G5 teams land so few 4* recruits that this metric is probably null and void. Just looking at the 24/7 rankings for 2020, the entire G5 had 4 four-star recruits. 3-star guys are the mead and drink of the G5.

As for coaching salaries, the AAC is surely well ahead. IIRC, the top 5 paid G5 coaches are in the AAC. USF actually is fourth in that regard, we are paying our current coach more than Boise pays theirs. We haven't yet gotten much ROI from it.


Agree on the four stars. But, for example, if the American averaged, say, four four-star football recruits each year to the MWC's, say, one four-star recruit ... that is a "separation of sorts." But I would not know as I don't check MWC football recruiting. I do know Memphis and Cincy have landed some four-star football recruits the past few years (as has, at least, Houston, if I recall correctly).

USF will be back in football.

Regarding #1, if the AAC lands an average of 4 four star recruits and the MW lands 1, that averages out to about 1/3 of a 4 star recruit per AAC team and 1/12 of one for an MW team. Those numbers are so small as to be trivial, IMO.

As for USF football, I hope you are right but I have my doubts. As much as I think our coaching has been lousy (save for a couple years of Taggart) the past 10 years, at a certain point you have to look at the structure of your program. With us, I think it starts with the lack of an on-campus stadium. I don't think we develop much until we have one.

I can’t speak for MW schools but one thing that sticks out about the AAC is the number of guys who transfer in from P5 schools. Tulsa, SMU, Houston and Memphis have a bunch and so do my Bearcats who have transfers from Michigan, Alabama, Notre Dame, Arkansas and BC starting or contributing (we have a couple Ohio State guys who have been out with injury). UC’s guys weren’t just guys who were on the practice squad at those schools, Jerome Ford started several games as a freshman at Alabama and James Hudson was penciled in as a starter before transferring from Michigan.

No question, those who thought the "Transfer Portal" was going to work against the G5 have proven to be wrong. To the contrary, it has allowed a back-door pipeline to better talent for the G5, when a 3* or even a 4* guy at Notre Dame or Tennessee finds he is stuck at 3rd on the depth chart and unlikely to move up. SMU quickly became "pipeline U" two years ago.

It also has helped lesser G5, for example Maryland is having a better season than predicted in part because Tua's brother transferred there from Alabama and is playing well at QB for them.

What has not happened nearly as much is underrated G5 talent transferring to P5, as some feared.
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2020 11:22 AM by quo vadis.)
11-19-2020 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,201
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 667
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #37
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 11:05 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:52 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  G5 teams land so few 4* recruits that this metric is probably null and void. Just looking at the 24/7 rankings for 2020, the entire G5 had 4 four-star recruits. 3-star guys are the mead and drink of the G5.

As for coaching salaries, the AAC is surely well ahead. IIRC, the top 5 paid G5 coaches are in the AAC. USF actually is fourth in that regard, we are paying our current coach more than Boise pays theirs. We haven't yet gotten much ROI from it.


Agree on the four stars. But, for example, if the American averaged, say, four four-star football recruits each year to the MWC's, say, one four-star recruit ... that is a "separation of sorts." But I would not know as I don't check MWC football recruiting. I do know Memphis and Cincy have landed some four-star football recruits the past few years (as has, at least, Houston, if I recall correctly).

USF will be back in football.

Regarding #1, if the AAC lands an average of 4 four star recruits and the MW lands 1, that averages out to about 1/3 of a 4 star recruit per AAC team and 1/12 of one for an MW team. Those numbers are so small as to be trivial, IMO.

As for USF football, I hope you are right but I have my doubts. As much as I think our coaching has been lousy (save for a couple years of Taggart) the past 10 years, at a certain point you have to look at the structure of your program. With us, I think it starts with the lack of an on-campus stadium. I don't think we develop much until we have one.

I can’t speak for MW schools but one thing that sticks out about the AAC is the number of guys who transfer in from P5 schools. Tulsa, SMU, Houston and Memphis have a bunch and so do my Bearcats who have transfers from Michigan, Alabama, Notre Dame, Arkansas and BC starting or contributing (we have a couple Ohio State guys who have been out with injury). UC’s guys weren’t just guys who were on the practice squad at those schools, Jerome Ford started several games as a freshman at Alabama and James Hudson was penciled in as a starter before transferring from Michigan.

No question, those who thought the "Transfer Portal" was going to work against the G5 have proven to be wrong. To the contrary, it has allowed a back-door pipeline to better talent for the G5, when a 3* or even a 4* guy at Notre Dame or Tennessee finds he is stuck at 3rd on the depth chart and unlikely to move up. SMU quickly became "pipeline U" two years ago.

It also has helped lesser G5, for example Maryland is having a better season than predicted in part because Tua's brother transferred there from Alabama and is playing well at QB for them.

What has not happened nearly as much is underrated G5 talent transferring to P5, as some feared.

And it had allowed some guys to “move up”. UC has a guy from Hampton that was a “late bloomer” transfer in and is now on our two-deep at Safety. We had a guy on the OL two years ago transfer in from Rhode Island that is now playing in the NFL. One of our coaches once made a comment that he would rather have those guys than the kid that could not make the two-deep at a P5 school- those kids are more mature and have a chip on their shoulder.
11-19-2020 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colohank Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,340
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 133
I Root For: Cincy
Location: Colorado
Post: #38
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
In this thread, people are confusing the "power" appellation of P5 with prowess on the field, but in reality, it relates only to the networks' perceptions of the ability to draw eyeballs and generate revenue -- haves vs. have-nots. There are a number of G5 teams that consistently outperform P5 counterparts, but they've been relegated by virtue of name, history, academic status, market size and command, the size of their fan-bases, and geographic location. If the P5 and G5 distinctions were suddenly ignored, every team thrown in a hopper, and then reassigned to conferences based on actual performance on the field, the division of power and non-power would be noticeably different.

Excluding its four-year lapse during the Tuberville era, Cincinnati has been consistently good for a decade and a half or more. Is it exceeding expectations by continuing to be good? I don't think so. Do Texas Tech, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Illinois, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Kentucky, Oregon State, Iowa State, Mississippi State, UCLA, Miami (FL), et al consistently excel on the field because they're in P5 conferences? Don't make me laugh. They're affiliated only because they were in the right place at the right time.

Cincinnati and some other G5 schools put a competent and entertaining product on the field, and they consistently excel. That won't go unnoticed.
11-19-2020 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 36,480
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1079
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #39
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 11:59 AM)colohank Wrote:  In this thread, people are confusing the "power" appellation of P5 with prowess on the field, but in reality, it relates only to the networks' perceptions of the ability to draw eyeballs and generate revenue -- haves vs. have-nots. There are a number of G5 teams that consistently outperform P5 counterparts, but they've been relegated by virtue of name, history, academic status, market size and command, the size of their fan-bases, and geographic location. If the P5 and G5 distinctions were suddenly ignored, every team thrown in a hopper, and then reassigned to conferences based on actual performance on the field, the division of power and non-power would be noticeably different.

Excluding its four-year lapse during the Tuberville era, Cincinnati has been consistently good for a decade and a half or more. Is it exceeding expectations by continuing to be good? I don't think so. Do Texas Tech, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Illinois, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Kentucky, Oregon State, Iowa State, Mississippi State, UCLA, Miami (FL), et al consistently excel on the field because they're in P5 conferences? Don't make me laugh. They're affiliated only because they were in the right place at the right time.

Cincinnati and some other G5 schools put a competent and entertaining product on the field, and they consistently excel. That won't go unnoticed.

Some strange teams you included there. Miami and UCLA are in the P5 only because of time and place? Seriously?

And the reputation thing cuts both ways - schools like Kentucky and Texas Tech and Mississippi State are generally thought to be worse on the field than they actually are. In their case, being in Power conferences hurts their perception because they are regarded as lower-rung within their conferences.

For example, in the past 15 seasons, Cincy has won 6 bowl games. But Texas Tech has won 6 as well. Mississippi State has won 7, Kentucky has won 5, all pretty comparable.
11-19-2020 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,444
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 175
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #40
RE: The non-P5 FB teams are surpassing expectations to a greater and greater extent.
(11-19-2020 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:52 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As to the "separation" of the AAC from the other G5, and particularly from the MWC, it might be too easy to simply compare wins. In that respect, there likely hasn't been much separation between the American and the Mountain West. As such, I would be curious to see where the AAC and MWC compare regarding the following:

* Average number of four-star recruits (and three-star recruits) the leagues have landed the past five seasons.

G5 teams land so few 4* recruits that this metric is probably null and void. Just looking at the 24/7 rankings for 2020, the entire G5 had 4 four-star recruits. 3-star guys are the mead and drink of the G5.

As for coaching salaries, the AAC is surely well ahead. IIRC, the top 5 paid G5 coaches are in the AAC. USF actually is fourth in that regard, we are paying our current coach more than Boise pays theirs. We haven't yet gotten much ROI from it.


Agree on the four stars. But, for example, if the American averaged, say, four four-star football recruits each year to the MWC's, say, one four-star recruit ... that is a "separation of sorts." But I would not know as I don't check MWC football recruiting. I do know Memphis and Cincy have landed some four-star football recruits the past few years (as has, at least, Houston, if I recall correctly).

USF will be back in football.

Regarding #1, if the AAC lands an average of 4 four star recruits and the MW lands 1, that averages out to about 1/3 of a 4 star recruit per AAC team and 1/12 of one for an MW team. Those numbers are so small as to be trivial, IMO.

As for USF football, I hope you are right but I have my doubts. As much as I think our coaching has been lousy (save for a couple years of Taggart) the past 10 years, at a certain point you have to look at the structure of your program. With us, I think it starts with the lack of an on-campus stadium. I don't think we develop much until we have one.


As to USF and the lack of an on-campus stadium ... you might be right. In contrast, Memphis lacks an on-campus facility but is doing fairly well regardless. Of course, and in fairness, USF shares its stadium with an NFL team, which could be a negative.

As to the four stars ... I would not use the term "trivial." When an AAC program lands a four-star player, other good players/recruits take note. The AAC has programs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Texas, five of the, likely, 10 best high school football states in the nation. The MWC has only one state of note in this regard: California. If you're not a P5 program and you're trying to convince a kid to sign on with your program in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada ... well, it's a tougher sell for the MWC programs than it is for the AAC programs.

So I would describe the "four-star factor" a "modest" advantage for the AAC but not "trivial," as there might be potentially ancillary benefits to getting a few more four-stars than not. For example, getting more three stars than otherwise and planting seeds for other four stars. Hard to say.

AAC football has done a fairly solid job of capitalizing on its qualities. Every program has enjoyed Top 25 votes (if I'm not mistaken) except for USF and ECU. And those two programs have strong potential.

Now, AAC hoops ... bordering on a disaster.
11-19-2020 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.