(11-22-2020 06:31 PM)slhNavy91 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.

* 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.

Okay.
Recruiting - clear advantage AAC (even if 4-star recruits is a statistically difficult metric to use, clear advantage in team rankings).
Top 25 presence - clear advantage AAC
Head coach and assistant coach salaries - clear advantage AAC
Attendance - clear advantage AAC
NFL Draft picks clear advantage AAC

All of those demonstrated over five years (even if there is the rare year like the single time out of five when Boise State's recruiting ranking was ahead of all AAC teams, or the single time out of five when NFL draft picks was close).

At some point in the discussion I raised it - pick a metric, and there are generally only a couple of mwc/MAC/CUSA/SunBelt teams in the range of the top half of the AAC; and the worst AAC are still around middle of the pack of the mwc/MAC/CUSA/SunBelt.
That's what P6 is about - really, all the AAC has in common with those other four conferences is being left on the outside looking in at the creation of the CFP. While we don't hit the contract-bowl-conferences' numbers in all those metrics, we're a tweener. When the 2025-26 CFP restructure (not re-alignment, but restructure) judge the AAC on its own merits rather than hitting the easy button to lump the conference in with those others .

Here is the good part - on-field.
Looking at the year-end Massey Composite Rankings over the last five years:

2019 AAC #5!!! Ahead of the ACC at #6. Closer to #2 than to the #7 mwc. Closer to #1 SEC than to #8-#10
2018 AAC #7. Bummer. mwc at #6 was 2.48 avg ranking spots better...compared to AAC 14.17 better than the mwc in 2019 and 17.12 better than the mwc in 2017
2017 AAC #6. Closer to #5 than to #7-10. Closer to #1 than to #9-10.
2016 AAC #6. Closer to #5 than to #8-10. Gap from #6-7 58% of the gap from #5-6.
2015 AAC #6. Closer to #5 than to #7-10.

There are posters on here who will grab onto that 2018 result like Leo DiCaprio on that floating door in the North Atlantic. But here are the full numbers (in fact, even earlier than 2015); graph them out, include a trend line and 2018 is the anomaly, and the scale of AAC being better than the G4 all the other years will be evident.

2019:
SEC #1 42.91
AAC #5 60.28
ACC #6 60.40
mwc #7 74.57

2018:
SEC #1 32.85
P12 #5 55.19
mwc #6 77.32
AAC #7 79.80

2017:
ACC #1 42.59
P12 #5 51.71
AAC #6 66.69
mwc #7 83.81

2016:
B12 #5 52.02
AAC #6 68.68
mwc #7 78.46


2015:
ACC #5 54.75
AAC #6 68.95
MAC #7 83.25
mwc #8 86.79

2014:
ACC #5 48.73
mwc #6 76.73
CUSA#7 82.28
AAC #8 83.93

2013:
ACC #5 52.12
AAC #6 72.05
mwc #7 79.04

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...019-16.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...018-15.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...017-15.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...016-15.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...015-15.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...014-16.htm
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/co...013-16.htm

and oh by the way...2020 shaping up just the same...AAC is closer to #5 than to the mwc or the others...

(11-22-2020 06:32 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  [and oh by the way...2020 shaping up just the same...AAC is closer to #5 than to the mwc or the others...

In the six years of the CFP, the AAC has been the top G5 conference four times, the MW twice. That's a clear advantage to the AAC, but not decisive.

As for this year, the MC is useless, as computers are useless given the lack of OOC games to make cross-conference comparisons. We're all sailing by dead reckoning this year.

(11-19-2020 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Not here to say Wake Forest has "excelled" on the playing field, but, since they were mentioned, I would say they compare favorably as well over the last 15 years. In the last 15 years, Wake Forest has appeared in 8 bowl games, won 5 bowl games and 1 conference championship. Their bowl victories were over UConn (9-3 record prior to game), Navy (8-4), Temple (10-3) (#23), Texas A&M (7-5) and Memphis (8-5). Their losses were to Louisville (11-1) (Orange Bowl), Miss. St. (6-6) and Michigan State (6-6).

I believe some of the problem is really P5 teams underperforming at the coaching level. It’s my theory that coaches are all trying to run some variation of the RPO or offenses that prepare athletes for the pros, when the vast majority won’t even be invited to pre-draft camps. If more teams turned back the clock, and ran “college” offenses, they’d keep their defense off the field longer. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Navy, Georgia Tech, and now Army all have had success with much less “talent”. Remember when Army went toe to toe with Oklahoma? How many pros on that team?

Stop the fad offenses, and maybe you’ll give your team a chance to win the game. Let’s face it, most of these quarterbacks aren’t even sniffing the CFL.

(11-23-2020 09:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 06:32 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  [and oh by the way...2020 shaping up just the same...AAC is closer to #5 than to the mwc or the others...

In the six years of the CFP, the AAC has been the top G5 conference four times, the MW twice. That's a clear advantage to the AAC, but not decisive.

As for this year, the MC is useless, as computers are useless given the lack of OOC games to make cross-conference comparisons. We're all sailing by dead reckoning this year.

Western Michigan is in the MAC not the MWC.

(11-24-2020 08:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 09:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 06:32 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  [and oh by the way...2020 shaping up just the same...AAC is closer to #5 than to the mwc or the others...

In the six years of the CFP, the AAC has been the top G5 conference four times, the MW twice. That's a clear advantage to the AAC, but not decisive.

As for this year, the MC is useless, as computers are useless given the lack of OOC games to make cross-conference comparisons. We're all sailing by dead reckoning this year.

Western Michigan is in the MAC not the MWC.

In 2016, when WMU was the top CFP-rated champion of a non-contract-bowl conference, the MAC was actually the #9 conference overall, looking at the College Football Ranking Composite which Mr. Massey compiles.

The AAC was the #6 conference by that composite, closer to the #5 Big12 than to the #8, 9, and 10 conferences. The gap between #6 AAC and #7 mwc was 58.7% of the gap between #6 and #5.

(11-24-2020 08:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(11-23-2020 09:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2020 06:32 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  [and oh by the way...2020 shaping up just the same...AAC is closer to #5 than to the mwc or the others...

In the six years of the CFP, the AAC has been the top G5 conference four times, the MW twice. That's a clear advantage to the AAC, but not decisive.

As for this year, the MC is useless, as computers are useless given the lack of OOC games to make cross-conference comparisons. We're all sailing by dead reckoning this year.

Western Michigan is in the MAC not the MWC.

Um, yes, I know that. What made you think I didn't?

(11-23-2020 06:29 PM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Not here to say Wake Forest has "excelled" on the playing field, but, since they were mentioned, I would say they compare favorably as well over the last 15 years. In the last 15 years, Wake Forest has appeared in 8 bowl games, won 5 bowl games and 1 conference championship. Their bowl victories were over UConn (9-3 record prior to game), Navy (8-4), Temple (10-3) (#23), Texas A&M (7-5) and Memphis (8-5). Their losses were to Louisville (11-1) (Orange Bowl), Miss. St. (6-6) and Michigan State (6-6).

Good point, yes, Wake is comparable as well, and they are another good example of what I was talking about. There are some P5 programs whose reputation is worse than their actual performance, because they rarely if ever contend for their conference title, which makes many assume they are doormats in a national sense.

Heck, when it comes to bowl games, it's probably more impressive to win 5 of them as a P5 member than in the G5, as P5 tend to have better bowl tie-ins. E.g., of Cincy's six bowl wins since 2005, the only one against a team with a winning regular season record was back in 2006, vs a 8-4 Western Michigan team. The last five bowl wins have come against teams that had 6-6 regular seasons.