(12-20-2020 08:13 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If we go undefeated next year, having won games at IU and Notre Dame, there is no way they could keep us out.

In typical AAC fashion, you will beat them both....... and then promptly lose a conference game to destroy those chances

(12-21-2020 12:41 PM)otown Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 08:13 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If we go undefeated next year, having won games at IU and Notre Dame, there is no way they could keep us out.

In typical AAC fashion, you will beat them both....... and then promptly lose a conference game to destroy those chances

UCF's 25 game win streak says hi

(12-21-2020 12:41 PM)otown Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 08:13 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If we go undefeated next year, having won games at IU and Notre Dame, there is no way they could keep us out.

In typical AAC fashion, you will beat them both....... and then promptly get screwed over by the committee with their first rankings then be punished by ever changing criteria that always just leaves you out, till they soft shoe it to the final rankings and you get a multiple loss runner up at best p5 opponent. Then it's set up so they can claim when the p5 wins you are not equal OR if you win the p5 wasn't that good and disappointed to be playing you. Ignoring your players are disappointed to play a team who is set up to degrade their achievements.

FIFY


I know we sometimes scoff at the student part of this equation, but these kids aren't dumb, they can see when the game is rigged, especially when no one bothers to try and hide it.

(12-20-2020 04:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 03:35 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Yeah, I don’t think the American could ever agree with that. I know that our champion is being cheated out of a spot due to P5 bias, but the fact that our champion is the automatic front-runner for the New Years Day bowl is due to AAC bias. We’re building and building. A G5 playoff would kill that.

^This x10. I know some harp on Aresco’s salary, but his beating the drum has changed perception enough to result in millions more $ per year than otherwise may/would have been with a less vocal commish.

I agree Aresco is an energetic cheerleader for the conference. I'm not sure what this worth, though, in this situation. For example, a couple days ago, he banged the drum loudly for Cincy to be strongly considered for the playoffs, and that did attract a lot of attention. Even ESPN's talking heads had segments talking about the worthiness of Cincy and the plight of the G5.

But, once the CCGs were played, that basically dissipated. Yesterday and today, to the extent there is controversy about the CFP rankings at all, it is centered on Notre Dame getting in vs Texas AM. Cincy is basically not involved in that. And the reason is, the underwhelming performance vs Tulsa in the CCG.

This leads me to believe that perceptions for the AAC are strong when the public themselves sees a strong case. A few days ago, there was a belief that Cincy had gone 8-0 in a dominant fashion and thus the CFP was doing them wrong by inching them backwards from 7 to 9 in the recent rankings. But, there was also an expectation that they would confirm that by dominating Tulsa. That didn't happen, so almost instantly the surge for Cincy seemed to quell.

This leads me to think that it doesn't seem too matter much what the commissioner says. The public - the college football public - is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

(12-21-2020 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 03:35 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Yeah, I don’t think the American could ever agree with that. I know that our champion is being cheated out of a spot due to P5 bias, but the fact that our champion is the automatic front-runner for the New Years Day bowl is due to AAC bias. We’re building and building. A G5 playoff would kill that.

^This x10. I know some harp on Aresco’s salary, but his beating the drum has changed perception enough to result in millions more $ per year than otherwise may/would have been with a less vocal commish.

I agree Aresco is an energetic cheerleader for the conference. I'm not sure what this worth, though, in this situation. For example, a couple days ago, he banged the drum loudly for Cincy to be strongly considered for the playoffs, and that did attract a lot of attention. Even ESPN's talking heads had segments talking about the worthiness of Cincy and the plight of the G5.

But, once the CCGs were played, that basically dissipated. Yesterday and today, to the extent there is controversy about the CFP rankings at all, it is centered on Notre Dame getting in vs Texas AM. Cincy is basically not involved in that. And the reason is, the underwhelming performance vs Tulsa in the CCG.

This leads me to believe that perceptions for the AAC are strong when the public themselves sees a strong case. A few days ago, there was a belief that Cincy had gone 8-0 in a dominant fashion and thus the CFP was doing them wrong by inching them backwards from 7 to 9 in the recent rankings. But, there was also an expectation that they would confirm that by dominating Tulsa. That didn't happen, so almost instantly the surge for Cincy seemed to quell.

This leads me to think that it doesn't seem too matter much what the commissioner says. The public - the college football public - is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

Here's USAToday national cfb writer overnight between the ccgs and the committee selections:

Here he is after the selections, as Barta talked about Cincinnati:

Here's The Athletic today, featuring Aresco:

Here's Mandel, during the selection show:

Why not a couple of invitational NIT type post-season options?

Invite G5 champs and at large schools that aren't in the NY6, including P5 schools. I'm not sure you would get any P5 schools at first...or even G5 that are playing a P5 opponent, but you already have Sun Belt Champ Coastal Carolina playing Liberty and MWC Champ San Jose State playing MAC Champ Ball State. #16 BYU is playing unranked UCF, #19 Louisiana is playing unranked UTSA, and Army doesn't have a bowl game this year.

CUSA Champ UAB is playing 2-win South Carolina; Tulsa is playing 3-7 Mississippi State...so may be they don't participate.

This would be fun:

NIT
(8)Ball State @ (1)Coastal Carolina
(7)Marshall* @ (2)BYU
(6)Army @ (3)Louisiana
(5)Liberty @ (4)San Jose State
*Replaces UAB


Pre-Christmas Bowl in Florida?: (1)Coastal Carolina v. (4)San Jose State
Pre-Christmas Bowl in Texas?: (2)BYU v. (3)Louisiana
Post-Christmas Bowl in South: Liberty v. Marshall
Post-Christmas Bowl in East: Army v. Ball State

NIT Bowl around New Year's timeframe: 12/31 or 1/1 or closest Saturday

(12-21-2020 03:38 PM)YNot Wrote:  Why not a couple of invitational NIT type post-season options?

Invite G5 champs and at large schools that aren't in the NY6, including P5 schools. I'm not sure you would get any P5 schools at first...or even G5 that are playing a P5 opponent, but you already have Sun Belt Champ Coastal Carolina playing Liberty and MWC Champ San Jose State playing MAC Champ Ball State. #16 BYU is playing unranked UCF, #19 Louisiana is playing unranked UTSA, and Army doesn't have a bowl game this year.

CUSA Champ UAB is playing 2-win South Carolina; Tulsa is playing 3-7 Mississippi State...so may be they don't participate.

This would be fun:

NIT
(8)Ball State @ (1)Coastal Carolina
(7)Marshall* @ (2)BYU
(6)Army @ (3)Louisiana
(5)Liberty @ (4)San Jose State
*Replaces UAB


Pre-Christmas Bowl in Florida?: (1)Coastal Carolina v. (4)San Jose State
Pre-Christmas Bowl in Texas?: (2)BYU v. (3)Louisiana
Post-Christmas Bowl in South: Liberty v. Marshall
Post-Christmas Bowl in East: Army v. Ball State

NIT Bowl around New Year's timeframe: 12/31 or 1/1 or closest Saturday

Another interesting idea that can work if done correctly. Im ok with the general concept of an NIT for football---but it only makes sense to participate in it if it works like the NIT and includes the P5. So--like the NIT---regular season conference champs not in the CFP would get autobids (so all your G5 champs and P5 champs not heading to CFP sponsored bowl are in automatically). Then you'd fill out the bracket using the top ranked teams (P5 and G5) not committed to CFP any sponsored bowls. THAT could potentially be fun, popular, and interesting---but I have no interest in the concept if its just exclusively G5 event.

If you want to play in the G4 playoffs feel free, but the AAC is out.

(12-20-2020 08:13 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If we go undefeated next year, having won games at IU and Notre Dame, there is no way they could keep us out.

With the CFP committee, I would not bet on it.
I have seen videos on yt that have shown that Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson have been on most of the Top 4's in this playoff era, and unless this changes with a larger playoff, it is not likely to change. It is the recruiting with these teams and unless this changes, the playoffs at four teams may become a problem. The AAC needs to stick together and not buy into the G5 playoff.

(12-21-2020 12:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 06:13 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 08:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American has made too many strides in football to be on board with such an idea.

The idea certainly does seem to be counterproductive for the other G5 conferences, as well.

However, Attack Coog has made an interesting suggestion (above) that the non-P5 schools might actually improve if there were a parallel non-P5 (G5 + Independents) playoff series - - if, and only if, such a parallel series were to be equivalent or nearly equivalent in nearly all respects (compensation per school, broadcast in similar prime-time slots with comparable viewership potential, similar levels of marketing and
promotional advertising, etc.).

Admittedly, this may seem like a very unlikely scenario. However, a highly sophisticated strategic approach, if implemented properly, might make it possible to work out an arrangement that would create both: (1) much better bowl game opportunities for the top-ranked non-P5 teams; and (2)opportunities for the non-P5 conferences and schools to reap the benefits of a formal or informal coalition (much like the benefits that have been reaped by the de facto coalition of P5 conferences), which might well grant them the opportunity to empower themselves more broadly, going forward.

If they were to start small, by building a simple empowerment coalition to work toward a more inclusive post-season playoff bowl structure, their efforts could lead to a much better overall outcome for the non-P5 schools and conferences.

.

A strategic plan to set up a fully-equivalent "Non-P5 Mirror CFP" series.


The idea that any broadcasting network would offer to pay a roughly proportionate - if not equivalent - amount (on a per-school basis) that is currently paid to broadcast the CFP playoffs for the rights to televise a 4 team "Non-P5 Championship Series" would certainly seem, at present, to have little or chance of success.

However, there might be a way to create a much more inclusive playoff system for the non-P5 schools by implementing a relatively sophisticated strategy based on "Game Theory."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/

The following is an explication of a "thought-experiment" conducted to examine the potential feasibility of setting up a non-P5 playoff series that would have the potential to be played under conditions very similar to those of the existing CFP series, with respect to broadcasting time (i.e., optimal prime-time slots), payments allocated on a per-school basis, marketing, halftime events, and other promotional efforts.

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

NOTE: The following "thought-experiment" might or might not be feasible under the terms of the current broadcasting agreements between the various non-P5 conferences. [i]However, the fact that special provisions have been made to permit the existence of the CFP, itself, which has been able to operate autonomously despite the varying terms of the agreements between the 10 conferences and their broadcasters suggest that this might not be a major stumbling block.

Moreover, were an attempt to obtain a special waiver or a simple extension of the terms governing the CFP to be thwarted, the non-P5 conferences would be in a strong position were they to pursue the right to negotiate a broadcasting agreement for an autonomous playoff series, were they to pursue the matter through civil litigation, given that: (a) They have never had a team in the CFP, and (b) Under the terms of U.S. laws prohibiting discriminatory and anti-monopolistic practices, their right to hold a championship series would be likely to be upheld.

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

The basic elements of a game theory-based strategic plan would include the following:

The initial assumption of such a strategic plan would include the fundamental recognition that, in order to generate sufficient interest in such a proposal, among the potential broadcasters, the non-P5s - as a group - would need to make it clear to the various broadcasting entities that they would be willing to consider participating in a non-P5 "mirror CFP" playoff series, which would be initiated with an agreement to play an inaugural non-P5 playoff series for 50% of the amount that is currently paid for the exclusively P5 (CFP) series, contingent on a multi-year broadcasting agreementthat would phase-in a series of annual increases in per-school payments until they begin to approach the per-school payments for the CFP playoffs.

If there were enough interest among the non-P5 schools to create at least a willingness to give the idea a try, they could start out, very simply, by organizing themselves into a very loose-knit (or theoretical semblance of a) coalition, at first, with a title or name hinting (or yielding the vague impression) that they might be (but aren't actually) informally entertaining the idea of evolving into an FBS rival quasi-"league," which could be represented by the non-P5 Commissioners on a rotating basis. Alternatively, the non-P5s could opt to elect a "organizing committee" to represent them, with a dedicated or rotating chair.

The next step would be to develop a very simple consensus proposal for a parallel CFP series, which could be as simple as an agreement to convey (to the broadcasting organizations) nothing more than a mere willingness to consider the idea of conducting a non-P5 playoff series that would mirror the CFP playoff series in every respect, but would include the top 4 non-P5 teams.

From a game theory perspective, even an informal agreement to convey a mere willingness "to consider" the idea, might have the potential to be many times more empowering than one might ordinarily imagine, particularly if the news of such a decision were to be transmitted in a very sophisticated, strategic manner.

If managed properly, the "playing field" among the broadcasters could be affected almost instantaneously, by presenting them with a sudden realization that they - or their competitors - would now have a completely unexpected and challenging opportunity to initiate potentially profitable discussions with a newly self-empowered group of FBS conferences.

One of the more sophisticated strategies would be for the non-P5 coalition or committee to leak a couple of sketchy, but tantalizing mid-to-week details to a few selected reporters or bloggers, with the weekend approaching, of what might be referred to as "rumored" discussions among the non-P5 schools. The advantage of preceding formal notifications with strategic leaks of sketchy details is that such leaks often have the potential to go viral, like "memes," and to create a sense of enthusiasm (i.e., "buzz") that can sweep across the nation like wildfire. Very often, an idea that might be rejected out of hand if it were to be made directly, through normal channels, may instead be perceived as a potential opportunity if it is accompanied by a wave of public enthusiasm.

One way to illustrate the game theory implications of preceding an announcement with the release of a few sketchy details is by noting that the potential consequences of mere, but partially substantiated rumors have often been known to cause significant swings in valuation in the financial markets (S&P, Dow Jones, NASDAQ).

Within a few days - - just long enough for the rumor mill to begin to go "viral" over an upcoming weekend, or for the first couple reports to mention the rumors - - the non-P5 group would then proceed to send letters to the major and potential (entrepreneurial) broadcasters stating that there is a consensus among the non-P5 schools they would be willing to consider holding a non-P5 playoff series along the lines of a "mirror CFP" if there are broadcasters who would be interested in meeting the terms (near or full parity with the P5's CFP outlays within a specified period of years). To emphasize the competitive nature of the situation, he letters would be clearly marked with a "cc" note, making it crystal clear that the offer has been extended to their broadcasting competitors.

[i]The game theory element[/i] in making it clear that the non-P5 coalition is expressing nothing more than a "willingness to consider" such a proposal is that it would make it clear that, rather than taking a hopelessly subservient position by requesting a non-P5 playoff series, the non-P5 coalition has instead elected to empower itself by taking no action other than informing the recipients of a potential business opportunity for which the non-P5 coalition would be willing to consider competitive bids.

Because perceived scarcity tends to generate demand, it would be crucial for the fledgling coalition of non-P5 schools to make it clear that their agreement to consider proposals (similar to a "RFP" or request for proposals) would have a relatively tight (3-month) deadline, making it a "limited time offer." If there are no offers within 3 months, the formal "quasi-RFP" would simply expire, with no hints of willingness to extend the deadline or issue another quasi-RFP.

The chances of being contacted with a serious inquiry after the expiration of a 3-month deadline might actually increase if the willingness to consider a non-P5 series were not reiterated, because their silence on the matter would tend confirm the impression that the non-P5 coalition was truly offering broadcasters an opportunity, rather than making a request, which would be beneficial from the standpoint of perceived supply and demand.

Emphasizing the stipulation that the non-P5 coalition would not consider any offer that falls short of a proposed pathway to what would become a nearly-equivalent “mirror CFP” - - to be broadcasted in equivalent prime-time hours, preceded by equivalent pre-game marketing efforts, and with per-school payments scheduled to match the amount paid for the CFP playoffs within a few (e.g. 5) years - - would make it clear that patronizing or trivializing responses would be rejected. Although some broadcasters might be inclined to respond with an offer to pay a tiny fraction of the per-school CFP payments (e.g., to broadcast a Saturday noon “G5” championship game on ESPN+), they would be unlikely to do so, since it would generate a negative response and might redound to the benefit of one of their competitors.

Some, if not most of the major broadcasters would be expected, at least, to respond within the specified time limit, and to at least signal indicate some willingness to discuss the possibility of broadcasting some kind of a non-P5 playoff series, without necessarily addressing the strict criteria set forth by the latter. This, itself could be somewhat empowering, since the ball would then be in the hands of the non-P5 coalition, which would have a variety of options, ranging from reiterating that they would only be willing to consider offers that meet the minimum terms specified in their initial letter, to expressing a willingness to enter into broader discussions on a more flexible bona fides basis (e.g., a more gradual increase in per-school payments over a longer time frame, or an agreement to make per-school payments contingent on viewership data).

One of the most hoped-for outcomes of cc’ing their letters to a sufficient number of broadcasters, is that there would be some possibility that a non-P5 coalition might thus be able to set the stage for what would become tantamount to an auction. The hoped-for outcome would be to engage the potential broadcasters in a competitive bidding process, since this would make it much more likely that something closely approximating an equivalent non-P5 playoff could be set into motion.

Another equally sanguine possibility is that, if the non-P5 coalition were to pursue their strategy doggedly enough, it is possible that the P5 conferences might become sufficiently concerned to reach out to the non-P5 coalition with an offer to expand the CFP series. If they were to do so, the non-P5 coalition could choose between negotiating the details of an expanded CFP series or continuing to entertain competitive bids from the P5 and any broadcasters that might be interested in sponsoring a non-P5 “mirror CFP.”

To be clear---I think accepting a separate G5 playoff would be a MASSIVE mistake for the G5.

...The top G5 still goes to the access bowl in my plan.

Understood. However, what inspired the proposed game theory-based strategic plan, above was a different post, on page 1 of this thread, in which you wrote:

"There is a price---its $460 million---the same as the CFP. If ESPN pays that, then the G5 CFP is legitimized as being equal to the current CFP....and even then, Im still not sure its not a mistake in the long run. If we take a dollar less, then its tacit admission by all parties involved that its not the top level of football."

I view that as a pretty brilliant - and totally "out of the box" type of idea, even though it may seem completely unattainable. However, with the right backing, some really clever entrepreneurship, sophisticated marketing and a top-notch legal firm deeply versed in anti-trust law, just about anything is possible in this country.

.

However, I have intentionally waited until now to present the most dazzling element of the plan - - the "pièce de résistance," s'il vous plaît...

The final element in the plan is......nothing less than............!

(flourish.......trumpets!)





Ladies and gentlemen, presenting.........

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SUPER BOWL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL ! ! ! !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==================================================



Mind you, this is just taking your out-of-the-box utopian idea of a completely equivalent non-P5 championship series and bumping it up by an order of magnitude.

'just saying....that, if there could be an equally-funded and equivalent-in all-respects-championship-series for the non-P5 FBS teams, then it wouldn't stop there, now would it?

Of course it wouldn't (!), and why not? Because, just as the first AFL-NFL championship game was the ultimate no-brainer (since it generated the highest viewership of any game in history, and has created an ongoing revenue stream in the tens of $$billions$$ ever since), it would be just as much of a no-brainer to cap it all off with an annual College Football Super Bowl!

.

Now, wouldn't that raise the stature of the non-P5 FBS schools and conferences up to equivalence, while generating enough $$$ to make it worthwhile for everyone concerned?

You bet your life it would!





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

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." - J.L.

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

I'd watch a G4 playoff. 4 conference winners and 4 at large. Make it happen.

(12-21-2020 03:38 PM)YNot Wrote:  Why not a couple of invitational NIT type post-season options?

Invite G5 champs and at large schools that aren't in the NY6, including P5 schools. I'm not sure you would get any P5 schools at first...or even G5 that are playing a P5 opponent, but you already have Sun Belt Champ Coastal Carolina playing Liberty and MWC Champ San Jose State playing MAC Champ Ball State. #16 BYU is playing unranked UCF, #19 Louisiana is playing unranked UTSA, and Army doesn't have a bowl game this year.

CUSA Champ UAB is playing 2-win South Carolina; Tulsa is playing 3-7 Mississippi State...so may be they don't participate.

This would be fun:

NIT
(8)Ball State @ (1)Coastal Carolina
(7)Marshall* @ (2)BYU
(6)Army @ (3)Louisiana
(5)Liberty @ (4)San Jose State
*Replaces UAB


Pre-Christmas Bowl in Florida?: (1)Coastal Carolina v. (4)San Jose State
Pre-Christmas Bowl in Texas?: (2)BYU v. (3)Louisiana
Post-Christmas Bowl in South: Liberty v. Marshall
Post-Christmas Bowl in East: Army v. Ball State

NIT Bowl around New Year's timeframe: 12/31 or 1/1 or closest Saturday

An NIT would work if you could bribe some P5 schools with 1st round home games. Then play the semifinals and final in the 3 largest bowls that were left out of the CFI (Citrus, Alamo, Holiday). Now sell it to a network.

1.) Cincinnati
8.) Louisiana

4.) Oregon/USC/Washington
5.) San Jose State

3.) Texas A&M
6.) BYU

2.) Coastal Carolina
7.) Liberty

(12-21-2020 02:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 03:35 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Yeah, I don’t think the American could ever agree with that. I know that our champion is being cheated out of a spot due to P5 bias, but the fact that our champion is the automatic front-runner for the New Years Day bowl is due to AAC bias. We’re building and building. A G5 playoff would kill that.

^This x10. I know some harp on Aresco’s salary, but his beating the drum has changed perception enough to result in millions more $ per year than otherwise may/would have been with a less vocal commish.

I agree Aresco is an energetic cheerleader for the conference. I'm not sure what this worth, though, in this situation. For example, a couple days ago, he banged the drum loudly for Cincy to be strongly considered for the playoffs, and that did attract a lot of attention. Even ESPN's talking heads had segments talking about the worthiness of Cincy and the plight of the G5.

But, once the CCGs were played, that basically dissipated. Yesterday and today, to the extent there is controversy about the CFP rankings at all, it is centered on Notre Dame getting in vs Texas AM. Cincy is basically not involved in that. And the reason is, the underwhelming performance vs Tulsa in the CCG.

This leads me to believe that perceptions for the AAC are strong when the public themselves sees a strong case. A few days ago, there was a belief that Cincy had gone 8-0 in a dominant fashion and thus the CFP was doing them wrong by inching them backwards from 7 to 9 in the recent rankings. But, there was also an expectation that they would confirm that by dominating Tulsa. That didn't happen, so almost instantly the surge for Cincy seemed to quell.

This leads me to think that it doesn't seem too matter much what the commissioner says. The public - the college football public - is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

Here's USAToday national cfb writer overnight between the ccgs and the committee selections:

Here he is after the selections, as Barta talked about Cincinnati:

Here's The Athletic today, featuring Aresco:

Here's Mandel, during the selection show:

Did someone say UCF was Cincy's best win?

(12-22-2020 09:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 03:35 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Yeah, I don’t think the American could ever agree with that. I know that our champion is being cheated out of a spot due to P5 bias, but the fact that our champion is the automatic front-runner for the New Years Day bowl is due to AAC bias. We’re building and building. A G5 playoff would kill that.

^This x10. I know some harp on Aresco’s salary, but his beating the drum has changed perception enough to result in millions more $ per year than otherwise may/would have been with a less vocal commish.

I agree Aresco is an energetic cheerleader for the conference. I'm not sure what this worth, though, in this situation. For example, a couple days ago, he banged the drum loudly for Cincy to be strongly considered for the playoffs, and that did attract a lot of attention. Even ESPN's talking heads had segments talking about the worthiness of Cincy and the plight of the G5.

But, once the CCGs were played, that basically dissipated. Yesterday and today, to the extent there is controversy about the CFP rankings at all, it is centered on Notre Dame getting in vs Texas AM. Cincy is basically not involved in that. And the reason is, the underwhelming performance vs Tulsa in the CCG.

This leads me to believe that perceptions for the AAC are strong when the public themselves sees a strong case. A few days ago, there was a belief that Cincy had gone 8-0 in a dominant fashion and thus the CFP was doing them wrong by inching them backwards from 7 to 9 in the recent rankings. But, there was also an expectation that they would confirm that by dominating Tulsa. That didn't happen, so almost instantly the surge for Cincy seemed to quell.

This leads me to think that it doesn't seem too matter much what the commissioner says. The public - the college football public - is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

Here's USAToday national cfb writer overnight between the ccgs and the committee selections:

Here he is after the selections, as Barta talked about Cincinnati:

Here's The Athletic today, featuring Aresco:

Here's Mandel, during the selection show:

Did someone say UCF was Cincy's best win?

If you're going to quote that post, you need to admit you were (as usual) wrong with your take which I bolded.

Learn how to message board.

In the spirit of Christmas charity, I will go ahead and answer your question before you fix yourself. Yes. UCF is ranked ahead of Army, as of now and the time of the exchange you're referencing, even if you can't properly quote it.. Army is also neck and neck in the rankings with two or three other Cincy AAC wins. So when you used evocative "very best" language and were wrong to boot, you needed to be called on it.

Tell you what - how about a wager.
If Army is ranked ahead of UCF after the bowls, and therefore a better Cincy win, I'll stop posting for two months.
If Army is still a better win for Cincy than UCF you'll go back to the exile to the conference realignment silly forum.

(12-22-2020 09:30 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-22-2020 09:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 04:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  ^This x10. I know some harp on Aresco’s salary, but his beating the drum has changed perception enough to result in millions more $ per year than otherwise may/would have been with a less vocal commish.

I agree Aresco is an energetic cheerleader for the conference. I'm not sure what this worth, though, in this situation. For example, a couple days ago, he banged the drum loudly for Cincy to be strongly considered for the playoffs, and that did attract a lot of attention. Even ESPN's talking heads had segments talking about the worthiness of Cincy and the plight of the G5.

But, once the CCGs were played, that basically dissipated. Yesterday and today, to the extent there is controversy about the CFP rankings at all, it is centered on Notre Dame getting in vs Texas AM. Cincy is basically not involved in that. And the reason is, the underwhelming performance vs Tulsa in the CCG.

This leads me to believe that perceptions for the AAC are strong when the public themselves sees a strong case. A few days ago, there was a belief that Cincy had gone 8-0 in a dominant fashion and thus the CFP was doing them wrong by inching them backwards from 7 to 9 in the recent rankings. But, there was also an expectation that they would confirm that by dominating Tulsa. That didn't happen, so almost instantly the surge for Cincy seemed to quell.

This leads me to think that it doesn't seem too matter much what the commissioner says. The public - the college football public - is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

Here's USAToday national cfb writer overnight between the ccgs and the committee selections:

Here he is after the selections, as Barta talked about Cincinnati:

Here's The Athletic today, featuring Aresco:

Here's Mandel, during the selection show:

Did someone say UCF was Cincy's best win?

If you're going to quote that post, you need to admit you were (as usual) wrong with your take which I bolded.

Learn how to message board.

In the spirit of Christmas charity, I will go ahead and answer your question before you fix yourself. Yes. UCF is ranked ahead of Army, as of now and the time of the exchange you're referencing, even if you can't properly quote it.. Army is also neck and neck in the rankings with two or three other Cincy AAC wins. So when you used evocative "very best" language and were wrong to boot, you needed to be called on it.

Tell you what - how about a wager.
If Army is ranked ahead of UCF after the bowls, and therefore a better Cincy win, I'll stop posting for two months.
If Army is still a better win for Cincy than UCF you'll go back to the exile to the conference realignment silly forum.

Looks like Coastal's best win just obliterated Cincy's best win. But like I said, I thought I was doing Cincy a favor by calling Army their best win. UCF did not seem like much to me and well, tonight's game was supportive of that view.

PS - About the bolded, if you think a few tweets/articles mean that there is still a sustained outcry for Cincy in the playoffs, have at it. I do not.

PSS - About the wager, sure but with some conditions. First, I think you messed up your wording - you meant to say if UCF is still ahead of Army and thus Cincy's best win, I am exiled, right? Second, by "rankings" we have to mean the human polls. Computers are useless this year. Third, it has to be an equal wager. So whoever loses does not post on this AAC forum for 60 days, not permanently.

If neither is ranked in the polls, we look at "others receiving votes", if neither gets those, wager is voided. So to summarize ... If UCF is ahead of Army in the combined AP and Coaches polls post-bowls, I exit here for 60 days. If Army is ahead of UCF in the same, you exit for 60 days. Deal?

(12-22-2020 10:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I was as usual right - a handful of tweets or articles don't change the fact that once the CCGs were played and the CFP was announced, the cry for Cincy faded considerably. It has largely evaporated, nobody cares.

You were right, but only temporarily.

One wave of outrage may have passed, but there will be additional waves of outrage, all the way through the completion of the CFP series, and it won't be over then, either.

People don't forget so quickly.

Americans don't like to see the little guys getting shoved around, and that's exactly what they have been seeing this year. It ain't over.

(12-22-2020 10:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-22-2020 09:30 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-22-2020 09:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-21-2020 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree Aresco is an energetic cheerleader for the conference. I'm not sure what this worth, though, in this situation. For example, a couple days ago, he banged the drum loudly for Cincy to be strongly considered for the playoffs, and that did attract a lot of attention. Even ESPN's talking heads had segments talking about the worthiness of Cincy and the plight of the G5.

But, once the CCGs were played, that basically dissipated. Yesterday and today, to the extent there is controversy about the CFP rankings at all, it is centered on Notre Dame getting in vs Texas AM. Cincy is basically not involved in that. And the reason is, the underwhelming performance vs Tulsa in the CCG.

This leads me to believe that perceptions for the AAC are strong when the public themselves sees a strong case. A few days ago, there was a belief that Cincy had gone 8-0 in a dominant fashion and thus the CFP was doing them wrong by inching them backwards from 7 to 9 in the recent rankings. But, there was also an expectation that they would confirm that by dominating Tulsa. That didn't happen, so almost instantly the surge for Cincy seemed to quell.

This leads me to think that it doesn't seem too matter much what the commissioner says. The public - the college football public - is watching and drawing its own conclusions.

Here's USAToday national cfb writer overnight between the ccgs and the committee selections:

Here he is after the selections, as Barta talked about Cincinnati:

Here's The Athletic today, featuring Aresco:

Here's Mandel, during the selection show:

Did someone say UCF was Cincy's best win?

If you're going to quote that post, you need to admit you were (as usual) wrong with your take which I bolded.

Learn how to message board.

In the spirit of Christmas charity, I will go ahead and answer your question before you fix yourself. Yes. UCF is ranked ahead of Army, as of now and the time of the exchange you're referencing, even if you can't properly quote it.. Army is also neck and neck in the rankings with two or three other Cincy AAC wins. So when you used evocative "very best" language and were wrong to boot, you needed to be called on it.

Tell you what - how about a wager.
If Army is ranked ahead of UCF after the bowls, and therefore a better Cincy win, I'll stop posting for two months.
If Army is still a better win for Cincy than UCF you'll go back to the exile to the conference realignment silly forum.

Looks like Coastal's best win just obliterated Cincy's best win. But like I said, I thought I was doing Cincy a favor by calling Army their best win. UCF did not seem like much to me and well, tonight's game was supportive of that view.

PS - About the bolded, if you think a few tweets/articles mean that there is still a sustained outcry for Cincy in the playoffs, have at it. I do not.

PSS - About the wager, sure but with some conditions. First, I think you messed up your wording - you meant to say if UCF is still ahead of Army and thus Cincy's best win, I am exiled, right? Second, by "rankings" we have to mean the human polls. Computers are useless this year. Third, it has to be an equal wager. So whoever loses does not post on this AAC forum for 60 days, not permanently.

If neither is ranked in the polls, we look at "others receiving votes", if neither gets those, wager is voided. So to summarize ... If UCF is ahead of Army in the combined AP and Coaches polls post-bowls, I exit here for 60 days. If Army is ahead of UCF in the same, you exit for 60 days. Deal?

You are right about my transposition - I was typing too quickly.
AND you are right that Coastal's number one win just wiped up Cincinnati's (current) number one win.*
But I will decline your terms - I was going Massey Composite. That was in fact the discussion in question. https://csnbbs.com/thread-912857-post-17...id17165388
On 16 December, you said Army was Cincy's "very best win" although Army was on that day #48 Massey Composite, UCF 25, Memphis 50, SMU 51, etc.

You and I disagree on the value of computer rankings in 2020 - I agree they have less value with lower connectedness, but that is far different from "useless."
Human polls, by contrast, are very prone to recency bias as well as human biases such as falling for Monken's "disrespecting the troops" puffery.
Your terms but Massey Composite, deal. Human polls with all their human failings, no deal.


* so here are all their wins in the post-19 December Massey Composite (i.e. prior to the CFP committee rankings):
Coastal Car: # 9, 18, 35, 70, 74, 90, 103, 105, 113, 122, FCS
Cincinnati: # 23, 27, 43, 49, 50, 62, 93, 117, FCS
CCU is better at best win, marginally better at next two wins and then worse throughout. That trash at the middle and bottom plus being last seen needing a last second field goal vs #90 Troy, and the committee's choice is pretty easy to understand.

(12-23-2020 12:07 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Your terms but Massey Composite, deal. Human polls with all their human failings, no deal.

We'll just have to pass on this one then, IMO the MC is just too wacked to rely on this year. Human polls do have all sorts of biases - Dabo ranking Ohio State #11 the other day - but I trust them more than the computers this year.

No P5 Conference Champ team would ever play in a NIT style bowl set-up. They'd just decline and sit home.

(12-23-2020 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 12:07 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Your terms but Massey Composite, deal. Human polls with all their human failings, no deal.

We'll just have to pass on this one then, IMO the MC is just too wacked to rely on this year. Human polls do have all sorts of biases - Dabo ranking Ohio State #11 the other day - but I trust them more than the computers this year.

All right - I know there is a gulf between our positions on that point.
The banter will continue!