(12-26-2020 01:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:41 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 10:21 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Even with limited data, one thing we can say about the AAC vs other G5 is that the AAC has not been nearly as good as it was last year.

Last year, the AAC finished the season (regular and bowls) with a whopping 20-2 record vs other non-P5 (G5 and Indies other than Notre Dame).

This year, the overall record was 8-8 against the same group of opponents. You don't need to be a math whiz to see that this is much closer to the 2018 performance, when the AAC went 9-10 against that crew and finished behind the MW in the CFP conference rankings than to last year's exceptional run.

As always Quo you are spinning. Which is why I asked SLH about it and not you or Jed.

Its amusing to watch you explain how the numbers don't really mean anything because.......but the AAC sucks anyway, because of the numbers.

Talk about an amusing spin. I said computers are basically useless. Computers use formula that include a lot of different variables and then combine them using mathematical operations to derive values. That's a bit different than looking at just wins and losses. So not the same "numbers" at all.

Also, I did not say the AAC 'sucked' this year. I said the AAC was not nearly as good compared to other G5 this year versus last year. And that's absolutely true, the wins/losses tell us that.

The AAC may have been the best G5 this year, as it often is. But last year, the AAC was not only far ahead of the other G5, it was essentially equal with the ACC, meaning it did perform like a P6 conference. This year, definitely more like pre-2019 years.

AAC before the bowls:
4-0 vs FCS
3-1 vs SunBelt
2-0 vs CUSA
0-1 vs mwc (sorry, conference colleagues).

Yeah, 5-2 not nearly as good as last year but far from terrible vs the G4 conferences.

Add in independents - AAC was 0-2 vs BYU and 2-1 vs Army.

I did not say the AAC was 'terrible' vs other G5 conferences. To the contrary, I said the AAC may have been the best of the G5 conferences this year. It's hard to tell given that computers cannot be relied on.

What I did say was that the AAC wasn't nearly as good as last year, when it performed as basically a P6 on the field, not the usual tweener or G5 second-place conference. As in:

"Last year, the AAC finished the season (regular and bowls) with a whopping 20-2 record vs other non-P5 (G5 and Indies other than Notre Dame).

This year, the overall record was 8-8 against the same group of opponents. You don't need to be a math whiz to see that this is much closer to the 2018 performance, when the AAC went 9-10 against that crew and finished behind the MW in the CFP conference rankings than to last year's exceptional run."

20 - 2 vs 8 - 8 basically tells the tale.

Sorry I thought specifically using the exact same "not nearly as good as last year" verbiage as you would be seen as essential agreement, which could then be followed by further discussion.

Have a nice day.

(12-26-2020 12:02 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Any debate about whether computer ranking systems are basically useless is itself basically useless in one aspect.

The CFP revenue distribution to the non-contract-bowl-conferences will be pro-rated for performance. Performance will be measured as in every other year, reports indicating a composite of the BCS computers. The AAC will again be #1 among those conferences and will again be financially rewarded as such.

That is by all accounts true. Despite their uselessness, the CFP will use the BCS computers to determine the top G5 conference, and those computers will pick the AAC as #1 giving us the top share of that money.

Fortunate, because our performance on the field has not necessarily been best. It probably has, but advocates of the SBC and maybe even MW could put forth a case for themselves. The computers are relying on older data or fillers, and this is giving it clearly to the AAC.

E.g., the AAC is 8-8 against other non-P5 this year while the MW is 3-3 and the SBC is 15-15, the same winning percentage. Now if the AAC can win its two bowls vs P5, that would give it a decisive claim.

Sadly though from the POV of accuracy, the computer distortions are going to show the AAC with a clear-cut "tweener" status, halfway or so between the next-closest P5 and next-closest G5, when the reality is the AAC performed like a solid G5 conference this year, with little separation from the next best G5, albeit possibly the best.

Report on the first few bowl games
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2020/12...owl-games/

Boca Raton Bowl, BYU-UCF 1.55 million viewers
Montgomery Bowl FAU- Memphis 1.27 million
Potato Bowl Nevada-Tulane 914k
Myrtle Beach Bowl North Texas-Appalachian St 637k

Read the article's details on ups and downs and timeslots/networks and then we can nerd out talking about that.

(12-28-2020 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 12:02 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Any debate about whether computer ranking systems are basically useless is itself basically useless in one aspect.

The CFP revenue distribution to the non-contract-bowl-conferences will be pro-rated for performance. Performance will be measured as in every other year, reports indicating a composite of the BCS computers. The AAC will again be #1 among those conferences and will again be financially rewarded as such.

That is by all accounts true. Despite their uselessness, the CFP will use the BCS computers to determine the top G5 conference, and those computers will pick the AAC as #1 giving us the top share of that money.

Fortunate, because our performance on the field has not necessarily been best. It probably has, but advocates of the SBC and maybe even MW could put forth a case for themselves. The computers are relying on older data or fillers, and this is giving it clearly to the AAC.

E.g., the AAC is 8-8 against other non-P5 this year while the MW is 3-3 and the SBC is 15-15, the same winning percentage. Now if the AAC can win its two bowls vs P5, that would give it a decisive claim.

Sadly though from the POV of accuracy, the computer distortions are going to show the AAC with a clear-cut "tweener" status, halfway or so between the next-closest P5 and next-closest G5, when the reality is the AAC performed like a solid G5 conference this year, with little separation from the next best G5, albeit possibly the best.

I do agree with you that the computer rankings are LESS useful than normal years with far less connected data.
We can look a little deeper into the non-contract-bowl conferences' performance against the other non-contract-bowl conferences and get a little more in-depth than just the blunt instrument of W-L records. I figured that opponents' W-L and margin of victory let us sharpen the hatchet just a little.

The AAC was 6-4 vs mwc, CUSA, and SunBelt. Opponents' cumulative 43-54 for .443 win pctg. The Ws were against .335 and the Ls were against .617 Total MOV +32
SunBelt was 10-8 vs AAC and CUSA. Opponents' cumulative 90-87 for .508. The Ws were against .448 and the Ls were against .580 Total MOV +92
Interestingly, the SunBelt GREATLY improved those numbers in their 4 bowl wins against CUSA.
Pre-bowls SunBelt was 6-8 vs AAC and CUSA. Opponents' cumulative 69-64 for .518. Ws against .423 and Ls against .580 Total MOV +4
mwc was 3-0 against AAC teams a combined 12-18 for .400 winning pctg total MOV +58
CUSA was 5-12 vs AAC and SunBelt, opponents combined 110-83 for .570 winning pctg. total MOV was -182
MAC has only the bowl win Buffalo over Marshall. Even the Ball State-SJSU game will leave us with very small sample.

Before we get the independents involved, mwc certainly has a case head to head against the AAC, even if none of that 3-0 came against winning teams.
AAC head to head against SunBelt is similar - 3-1, with all the wins against losing teams.
Overall, SunBelt has a case better than the BCS computers show, with that case greatly bolstered by their bowl surge against CUSA.

BYU, Army, and Liberty all had really productive years against the non-contract-bowl conferences. Stands to reason at 11-1, 9-2, and 10-1, I guess.
I'm still compiling their opponents' winning pctgs, but BYU net MOV was 286 points. Army's net MOV in 6 wins over AAC, SunBelt, CUSA, and mwc was 103 points, but they took their two Ls vs the only .500+ AAC teams they faced in Cincinnati and Tulane. GaSo, UTSA, and AF were .500+ wins for Army, but BYU won against Boise State, SDSU, UTSA, UCF, and LaTech along with the loss to Coastal Carolina.

For the non-contract-bowl FBS opponents, including independents:
AAC 8-8, net score -8, opponents .620 (Ws vs .470, Ls vs .778)
mwc 3-3, net score +7, opponents .661 (Ws vs .400, Ls vs .885)
SBC 12-14, net score -2, opponents .617 (Ws vs .464, Ls vs .718)
CUSA 7-20, net score -271, opponents .645 (Ws vs .313, Ls vs .750)

My key takeaway though -- much like in 2018, Navy hurt the conference. Sorry, conference-mates.

.

From the standpoint of the top 25 rankings, the AAC took a step backward in 2020 in FB, compared to 2019, although Cincy is still in the top 10.

Not a great season, but then again, it wasn't great for anybody other than the SBC.

Viewership was off across the board, although AAC's remained stronger than that of the other G5 conferences.

But hey - it was an asterisk season (*)!

(12-29-2020 01:45 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

From the standpoint of the top 25 rankings, the AAC took a step backward in 2020 in FB, compared to 2019, although Cincy is still in the top 10.

Not a great season, but then again, it wasn't great for anybody other than the SBC.

Viewership was off across the board, although AAC's remained stronger than that of the other G5 conferences.

But hey - it was an asterisk season (*)!

The ****** conferences with only one or two quality teams were always going to benefit more than a conference with 4 or 5 good teams.