Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
Author Message
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #61
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-25-2021 11:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  .....
NY6 to NY8 or NY10
An 8-team playoff would almost certainly expand the bowl participants in the CFP arrangement.
The Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls' payouts to their contract partners -- the SEC, Big10, PAC12, Big12, and ACC -- represent a significant chunk of the money the conferences get from the CFP construct. Those bowls are going to resist anything that diminishes their importance, like being relegated to quarterfinal status and a new round of semi-finals being inserted outside their control, like the current CFP invitational tournament final. So those three plus the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta will have a voice in the conference setup. Most likely, two or more Bowls will get a Golden Ticket to be added to the CFP construct.
So think about a Straight 8 structure...depending on how rotations are set up, the top eight ranked teams could be committed, and contractual backfills to the Rose, Sugar, Orange could take the teams in the #9-#15 range...the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta or whichever other bowls are added to the NYx CFP structure, could have at-large CFP slots, but be looking at relatively low-ranked teams. In that case, a contract with the AAC - average final CFP ranking of #11 over the last 3-4 years - could grant them some certainty. Cross-promote the AAC all year and work with ESPN who has a contract with your bowl and with the AAC...Locking in #9 Cincinnati (if a magical committe eye test slid them down) instead of #25 Oregon or worse a WMU-like team might look pretty good to those bowls in negotiations in 2024 if the AAC continues current performance.
An NYx contract like that would almost certainly be less money for the AAC than the big five have with the Rose/Sugar/Orange. It could be conditional on ranking like the old "BCS-buster" criteria (off the cuff, higher than #15). It could exempt the Bowl from a backfill -- if they're not a quarterfinal/semifinal but the AAC champ does select the bowl is not obligated to take the next best AAC choice. But even if it's less money and gives the bowl escape clauses, that would be contract-bowl-conference status and formal inclusion in the CFP and therefore P6 success.
I posit this in a Straight 8 scenario, but the same logic on the part of the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta/NYx bowls could still apply in a 5-3 (top five ranked champions), or even a 5-1-2 scenario.


6-2 model
My idea is, I think the NY6 ought to be moved back the Christmas Day 6. No seeding the tournament. Just match the Big10 champ to the Pac12 champ just like tradition dictates. Follow suit with the other bowls:

Christmas eve morning:
Fiesta- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Peach- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Christmas eve afternoon:
Sugar - BigXII v. AAC
Cotton - at large (prob. SEC#2) v. G4 rep.
Christmas afternoon:
Rose - BigX v. PacXII
Orange - SEC v. ACC

THEN seed the winners 1 through 4.

NYD, 2 games. These get hosted by the NY6 bowls that DID NOT host a first round game (Peach and Fiesta). One week later, the final game. That visits each of the NY6 bowl sites once ever 6 years.

I know, it's got its problems, but it has equity as well. The Fiesta and Peach appear to be relegated to second class citizens, but they in turn get semi-final games that have no tradition, but major income potential for their bowl committees.
04-27-2021 03:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4xGrad Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 61
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Boise State
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-27-2021 03:12 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(04-27-2021 02:39 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  I am also using this opportunity to show boat my complete ineptness... I still have not figured out how to properly do these "quote cleanups" And I still have not figured out how to give people rep points....

I am old and stupid.

03-lmfao It's all good. Are you on a computer, or your phone? The phone makes it a lot harder.

Oh dear Lord, your saying I got the easy way to do it and I still can't figure it.
Like I said, I am slow but I will eventually figure out this dad burn technology...
04-27-2021 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4xGrad Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 61
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Boise State
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-27-2021 03:49 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  .....
NY6 to NY8 or NY10
An 8-team playoff would almost certainly expand the bowl participants in the CFP arrangement.
The Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls' payouts to their contract partners -- the SEC, Big10, PAC12, Big12, and ACC -- represent a significant chunk of the money the conferences get from the CFP construct. Those bowls are going to resist anything that diminishes their importance, like being relegated to quarterfinal status and a new round of semi-finals being inserted outside their control, like the current CFP invitational tournament final. So those three plus the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta will have a voice in the conference setup. Most likely, two or more Bowls will get a Golden Ticket to be added to the CFP construct.
So think about a Straight 8 structure...depending on how rotations are set up, the top eight ranked teams could be committed, and contractual backfills to the Rose, Sugar, Orange could take the teams in the #9-#15 range...the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta or whichever other bowls are added to the NYx CFP structure, could have at-large CFP slots, but be looking at relatively low-ranked teams. In that case, a contract with the AAC - average final CFP ranking of #11 over the last 3-4 years - could grant them some certainty. Cross-promote the AAC all year and work with ESPN who has a contract with your bowl and with the AAC...Locking in #9 Cincinnati (if a magical committe eye test slid them down) instead of #25 Oregon or worse a WMU-like team might look pretty good to those bowls in negotiations in 2024 if the AAC continues current performance.
An NYx contract like that would almost certainly be less money for the AAC than the big five have with the Rose/Sugar/Orange. It could be conditional on ranking like the old "BCS-buster" criteria (off the cuff, higher than #15). It could exempt the Bowl from a backfill -- if they're not a quarterfinal/semifinal but the AAC champ does select the bowl is not obligated to take the next best AAC choice. But even if it's less money and gives the bowl escape clauses, that would be contract-bowl-conference status and formal inclusion in the CFP and therefore P6 success.
I posit this in a Straight 8 scenario, but the same logic on the part of the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta/NYx bowls could still apply in a 5-3 (top five ranked champions), or even a 5-1-2 scenario.


6-2 model
My idea is, I think the NY6 ought to be moved back the Christmas Day 6. No seeding the tournament. Just match the Big10 champ to the Pac12 champ just like tradition dictates. Follow suit with the other bowls:

Christmas eve morning:
Fiesta- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Peach- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Christmas eve afternoon:
Sugar - BigXII v. AAC
Cotton - at large (prob. SEC#2) v. G4 rep.
Christmas afternoon:
Rose - BigX v. PacXII
Orange - SEC v. ACC

THEN seed the winners 1 through 4.

NYD, 2 games. These get hosted by the NY6 bowls that DID NOT host a first round game (Peach and Fiesta). One week later, the final game. That visits each of the NY6 bowl sites once ever 6 years.

I know, it's got its problems, but it has equity as well. The Fiesta and Peach appear to be relegated to second class citizens, but they in turn get semi-final games that have no tradition, but major income potential for their bowl committees.

I like the way you think.
04-27-2021 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,312
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-27-2021 03:59 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
(04-27-2021 03:49 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  .....
NY6 to NY8 or NY10
An 8-team playoff would almost certainly expand the bowl participants in the CFP arrangement.
The Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls' payouts to their contract partners -- the SEC, Big10, PAC12, Big12, and ACC -- represent a significant chunk of the money the conferences get from the CFP construct. Those bowls are going to resist anything that diminishes their importance, like being relegated to quarterfinal status and a new round of semi-finals being inserted outside their control, like the current CFP invitational tournament final. So those three plus the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta will have a voice in the conference setup. Most likely, two or more Bowls will get a Golden Ticket to be added to the CFP construct.
So think about a Straight 8 structure...depending on how rotations are set up, the top eight ranked teams could be committed, and contractual backfills to the Rose, Sugar, Orange could take the teams in the #9-#15 range...the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta or whichever other bowls are added to the NYx CFP structure, could have at-large CFP slots, but be looking at relatively low-ranked teams. In that case, a contract with the AAC - average final CFP ranking of #11 over the last 3-4 years - could grant them some certainty. Cross-promote the AAC all year and work with ESPN who has a contract with your bowl and with the AAC...Locking in #9 Cincinnati (if a magical committe eye test slid them down) instead of #25 Oregon or worse a WMU-like team might look pretty good to those bowls in negotiations in 2024 if the AAC continues current performance.
An NYx contract like that would almost certainly be less money for the AAC than the big five have with the Rose/Sugar/Orange. It could be conditional on ranking like the old "BCS-buster" criteria (off the cuff, higher than #15). It could exempt the Bowl from a backfill -- if they're not a quarterfinal/semifinal but the AAC champ does select the bowl is not obligated to take the next best AAC choice. But even if it's less money and gives the bowl escape clauses, that would be contract-bowl-conference status and formal inclusion in the CFP and therefore P6 success.
I posit this in a Straight 8 scenario, but the same logic on the part of the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta/NYx bowls could still apply in a 5-3 (top five ranked champions), or even a 5-1-2 scenario.


6-2 model
My idea is, I think the NY6 ought to be moved back the Christmas Day 6. No seeding the tournament. Just match the Big10 champ to the Pac12 champ just like tradition dictates. Follow suit with the other bowls:

Christmas eve morning:
Fiesta- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Peach- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Christmas eve afternoon:
Sugar - BigXII v. AAC
Cotton - at large (prob. SEC#2) v. G4 rep.
Christmas afternoon:
Rose - BigX v. PacXII
Orange - SEC v. ACC

THEN seed the winners 1 through 4.

NYD, 2 games. These get hosted by the NY6 bowls that DID NOT host a first round game (Peach and Fiesta). One week later, the final game. That visits each of the NY6 bowl sites once ever 6 years.

I know, it's got its problems, but it has equity as well. The Fiesta and Peach appear to be relegated to second class citizens, but they in turn get semi-final games that have no tradition, but major income potential for their bowl committees.

I like the way you think.

Hmmm......a 6-2 model with 2 spots going to G5 teams.....

G5 supporters would like it, but that's about it.

Yet, having said that, perhaps there would be some benefit in supporting a 6-2 model - - not because anyone would expect it to be approved, but because it would be a good negotiating position to start out with. The 5-1-2 proposal would then become a fall-back position.

If the AAC/G5 were to start out with a 5-1-2 proposal, there would be no fall-back position, but if they were to start out with a 6-2 proposal, they might have a better chance to get to 5-1-2.
04-27-2021 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #65
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-27-2021 04:28 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-27-2021 03:59 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  
(04-27-2021 03:49 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(04-25-2021 11:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  .....
NY6 to NY8 or NY10
An 8-team playoff would almost certainly expand the bowl participants in the CFP arrangement.
The Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls' payouts to their contract partners -- the SEC, Big10, PAC12, Big12, and ACC -- represent a significant chunk of the money the conferences get from the CFP construct. Those bowls are going to resist anything that diminishes their importance, like being relegated to quarterfinal status and a new round of semi-finals being inserted outside their control, like the current CFP invitational tournament final. So those three plus the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta will have a voice in the conference setup. Most likely, two or more Bowls will get a Golden Ticket to be added to the CFP construct.
So think about a Straight 8 structure...depending on how rotations are set up, the top eight ranked teams could be committed, and contractual backfills to the Rose, Sugar, Orange could take the teams in the #9-#15 range...the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta or whichever other bowls are added to the NYx CFP structure, could have at-large CFP slots, but be looking at relatively low-ranked teams. In that case, a contract with the AAC - average final CFP ranking of #11 over the last 3-4 years - could grant them some certainty. Cross-promote the AAC all year and work with ESPN who has a contract with your bowl and with the AAC...Locking in #9 Cincinnati (if a magical committe eye test slid them down) instead of #25 Oregon or worse a WMU-like team might look pretty good to those bowls in negotiations in 2024 if the AAC continues current performance.
An NYx contract like that would almost certainly be less money for the AAC than the big five have with the Rose/Sugar/Orange. It could be conditional on ranking like the old "BCS-buster" criteria (off the cuff, higher than #15). It could exempt the Bowl from a backfill -- if they're not a quarterfinal/semifinal but the AAC champ does select the bowl is not obligated to take the next best AAC choice. But even if it's less money and gives the bowl escape clauses, that would be contract-bowl-conference status and formal inclusion in the CFP and therefore P6 success.
I posit this in a Straight 8 scenario, but the same logic on the part of the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta/NYx bowls could still apply in a 5-3 (top five ranked champions), or even a 5-1-2 scenario.


6-2 model
My idea is, I think the NY6 ought to be moved back the Christmas Day 6. No seeding the tournament. Just match the Big10 champ to the Pac12 champ just like tradition dictates. Follow suit with the other bowls:

Christmas eve morning:
Fiesta- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Peach- 2 regionally responsible top 12 at-larges (not part of the playoff)
Christmas eve afternoon:
Sugar - BigXII v. AAC
Cotton - at large (prob. SEC#2) v. G4 rep.
Christmas afternoon:
Rose - BigX v. PacXII
Orange - SEC v. ACC

THEN seed the winners 1 through 4.

NYD, 2 games. These get hosted by the NY6 bowls that DID NOT host a first round game (Peach and Fiesta). One week later, the final game. That visits each of the NY6 bowl sites once ever 6 years.

I know, it's got its problems, but it has equity as well. The Fiesta and Peach appear to be relegated to second class citizens, but they in turn get semi-final games that have no tradition, but major income potential for their bowl committees.

I like the way you think.

Hmmm......a 6-2 model with 2 spots going to G5 teams.....

G5 supporters would like it, but that's about it.

Yet, having said that, perhaps there would be some benefit in supporting a 6-2 model - - not because anyone would expect it to be approved, but because it would be a good negotiating position to start out with. The 5-1-2 proposal would then become a fall-back position.

If the AAC/G5 were to start out with a 5-1-2 proposal, there would be no fall-back position, but if they were to start out with a 6-2 proposal, they might have a better chance to get to 5-1-2.

Sorry... I miss-spoke. What I meant was a 6-1-1 model, where the AAC is tied into the Cotton, and the G4 gets a rep.
04-27-2021 06:57 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4xGrad Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 61
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Boise State
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
I love the idea of the non-auto's getting 2 slots... I have to admit that I think it is a bit overly aspirational.

I do believe a 5-1-2 is possible. Just a theory here I am throwing out after perusing a few other conversations on other sites. I see a lot of what I feel is short sightedness in some of those discussions. They are talking about a "drain of talent" going to a certain handful of schools. That would be why there is only 6 to 8 schools in the country that actually ever get to compete for an NC.

First, I do not believe that. I believe those 6 to 8 schools is based on momentum and everything is cyclical. Look back over the last 50 years, the most powerful school programs have risen and faded, replaced by the next power to rise and then fade.

Back to the point, that short sightedness could be used as a talking point to help push for a 5-1-2. Convincing other autonomous conferences in that direction by convincing them the only way they are really going to have a chance at competing for an NC is if they have a designated opportunity granted to their conference, and only that will allow them to compete for the top recruits. The argument is slightly circular but you are trying to convince college presidents that typically did not play sports. As we can see in politics it is so much easier to blame the system for why we are not in the NC conversation rather than blaming yourself for not using the system the way it is.

Please forgive me, I am not an english major or journalist... But maybe someone will get what I am trying to say.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 07:32 AM by 4xGrad.)
04-28-2021 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Online
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,455
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #67
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 07:31 AM)4xGrad Wrote:  I love the idea of the non-auto's getting 2 slots... I have to admit that I think it is a bit overly aspirational.

I do believe a 5-1-2 is possible. Just a theory here I am throwing out after perusing a few other conversations on other sites. I see a lot of what I feel is short sightedness in some of those discussions. They are talking about a "drain of talent" going to a certain handful of schools. That would be why there is only 6 to 8 schools in the country that actually ever get to compete for an NC.

First, I do not believe that. I believe those 6 to 8 schools is based on momentum and everything is cyclical. Look back over the last 50 years, the most powerful school programs have risen and faded, replaced by the next power to rise and then fade.

Back to the point, that short sightedness could be used as a talking point to help push for a 5-1-2. Convincing other autonomous conferences in that direction by convincing them the only way they are really going to have a chance at competing for an NC is if they have a designated opportunity granted to their conference, and only that will allow them to compete for the top recruits. The argument is slightly circular but you are trying to convince college presidents that typically did not play sports. As we can see in politics it is so much easier to blame the system for why we are not in the NC conversation rather than blaming yourself for not using the system the way it is.

Please forgive me, I am not an english major or journalist... But maybe someone will get what I am trying to say.

The argument can, and should, be made that the 4-team CFP format is one of the levers driving that drain of talent. Take the PAC-12(please! kidding, couldn't help myself). With 4 playoff spots, and the PAC making the cut the least often, their recruiting will continue to suffer. The only thing that can drive parity keep the same 4-5 teams from showing up every year and boring us all to death is a clear path for all teams(even if teams in leagues like ours have a near-impossible road).

Sure, you'll still have a college basketball-like scenario where the same teams are involved most of the time. In college basketball, however, a Houston/Ohio/UConn/UNC-Greensboro fan is probably watching the thing all the way through, vs. the playoff where we all turn off our tvs after the first few bowls...or earlier.
04-28-2021 08:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #68
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-15-2021 07:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"

Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.
04-28-2021 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #69
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
I disagree.
04-28-2021 03:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,142
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 07:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better - CORRECTION 2.99
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower - CORRECTION 9.45
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower - CORRECTION 35.2
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"

Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.

Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98
SBC 71.97
AAC is 9.45 behind ACC and 2.99 ahead of SBC.
Reconstructing what I did two weeks ago, I was going from a post from late January. An earlier post in that thread ("AAC Still #1 non-contract-bowl conference?") cited Massey Composite with 55 rankings compiled - so just that single additional ranking compiled changed the numbers by 0.13 and 0.05 average ranking spots.

That offers NO explanation for messing up 2014!
Looks like I inserted the ACC MC conference average ranking there, not the difference between that and the AAC...so thanks!
ACC 48.73
mwc 76.73
CUSA 82.28
AAC 83.93
You are spot on: 35.2 behind the #5 and 7.2 behind #6.
I'll be correcting the original post in this thread, plus the January post. And here's an updated graph - still looks pretty similar.
(Glad you liked it - I was a happy little nerd to get that piece of work done)
.png  AAC-relative-Massey-Composite-trendlines-20210428.PNG (Size: 31.19 KB / Downloads: 159)
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 07:26 PM by slhNavy91.)
04-28-2021 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #71
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 05:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 07:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better - CORRECTION 2.99
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower - CORRECTION 9.45
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower - CORRECTION 35.2
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"

Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.

Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98

Yep, that's correct, I mistakenly looked at a pre-bowl composite.
04-28-2021 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,312
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

If the focus is simply on the top 25 teams, both the AP and CFP polls are of interest, depending on which years are being examined.

If the focus is on trends and patterns during the CFP era in particular, then the CFP polls tend to be preferable.

However, the AP polls are preferable if one is interested in examining patterns and trends dating back to the pre-CFP era.

.

There are many topics for which data from the Massey Composite archives are called for, since the MC provides rankings for all of the FBS teams.

.
04-28-2021 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,312
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #73
Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams- a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 05:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 07:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 10:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  First off why is anyone looking at AP polls when it comes to the NY6 bowls? You need to look at the Playoff poll which is what decides who gets the slot.

That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better - CORRECTION 2.99
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower - CORRECTION 9.45
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower - CORRECTION 35.2
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"

Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.

Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98
SBC 71.97
AAC is 9.45 behind ACC and 2.99 ahead of SBC.
Reconstructing what I did two weeks ago, I was going from a post from late January. An earlier post in that thread ("AAC Still #1 non-contract-bowl conference?") cited Massey Composite with 55 rankings compiled - so just that single additional ranking compiled changed the numbers by 0.13 and 0.05 average ranking spots.

That offers NO explanation for messing up 2014!
Looks like I inserted the ACC MC conference average ranking there, not the difference between that and the AAC...so thanks!
ACC 48.73
mwc 76.73
CUSA 82.28
AAC 83.93
You are spot on: 35.2 behind the #5 and 7.2 behind #6.
I'll be correcting the original post in this thread, plus the January post. And here's an updated graph - still looks pretty similar.

The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

I. The Trendlines:

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved by about 4 rankings "notches" (e.g., a "5 ranks" advantage in 2015 and a "9 ranks" advantage in 2020), relative to the average G4 rankings.

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved much more markedly - -by about 17 rankings notches (e.g., a "~23 ranks" gap in 2015, dropping down to a "~6 ranks" gap in 2020), relative to the average P5 rankings.

--Taken together, the two trendlines suggest that the AAC's rankings may have improved somewhat more relative to the P5 rankings (by narrowing the gap with the P5 teams) than they have relative to the average G4 rankings.

II. The Year-by-Year Data in the Graph:

--A. Year-by-year comparisons with the P5 rankings:

----There appears to be some evidence of a step-wise function:

----Phase 1 (2014): P5 rankings were ~35 ranks ahead of AAC rankings.
----Phase 2 (2015-2018): P5 rankings were only ~15-25 ranks ahead.
----Phase 3 (2019-2020): P5 rankings were only ~5 ranks ahead.

--B. Year-by-year comparisons with the G4 rankings:

----The AAC rankings have oscillated within a slightly narrower range (with an upward trend) relative to the rankings of the G4 rankings.


III. Given how atypical (and "outlier-like") the 2014 AAC rankings were,

--is it possible that the association that we're examining might be "curvilinear," rather than "linear?"

There appears to be some hint of curvilinearity in the 2014-2020 data.

--what would the trendlines be if the graph were to zoom in on the years 2015-2020,

AAC-P5 trendline: The improvement vis a vis P5 rankings remains evident between 2015 and 2020, but it would be less marked in magnitude (closer to a "10 rankings" reduction in the AAC-P5 rankings gap than to a "17-rankings" reduction in the size of the rankings gap between 2014 and 2020).

--Nevertheless, this "10 rankings" reduction in the rankings gap would still be considered very significant.


AAC-G4 trendline: Compared to the 2014-2020 trendline, the 2015-2020 AAC-G4 trendline would flatten out considerably with an average gap of ~ "8 rankings" in favor of the AAC.

--The AAC hasn't moved farther ahead of the G4 from the standpoint of their average rankings since 2015.


.

With reference to the original topic of this thread, the data in the graph seem to suggest that - - the conference may have made somewhat more progress in improving its rankings relative to the P5 conferences than it has made in putting more distance between itself and the G4 conferences.

It would be interesting to know what other readers think about this.

.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=10586]
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 09:11 PM by jedclampett.)
04-28-2021 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,142
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 05:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 07:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's correct, if we assume that getting the NY6 slot is all that matters to AAC or any other conference's reputation. But I don't think it is. Bowl season clearly counts, when bowl season unfolds there is all kinds of coverage in sports media about which conferences proved themselves and which ones have faltered and been exposed, etc. And that adds or subtracts from the conference reputation. It's kind of like the way the NCAA tournament works for college basketball.

That said, I readily agree with those that say "one year does not a trend make" such that we shouldn't be drawing big conclusions from the AAC's relatively poor 2020 campaign. But it also cuts both ways - when the AAC had a banner year in 2019, was actually slightly better than the ACC, I do recall some (not you) making a big deal out of it and projecting those results in to the future as a likely trend, etc.

So we should be consistent about that.

Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better - CORRECTION 2.99
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower - CORRECTION 9.45
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower - CORRECTION 35.2
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"

Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.

Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98
SBC 71.97
AAC is 9.45 behind ACC and 2.99 ahead of SBC.
Reconstructing what I did two weeks ago, I was going from a post from late January. An earlier post in that thread ("AAC Still #1 non-contract-bowl conference?") cited Massey Composite with 55 rankings compiled - so just that single additional ranking compiled changed the numbers by 0.13 and 0.05 average ranking spots.

That offers NO explanation for messing up 2014!
Looks like I inserted the ACC MC conference average ranking there, not the difference between that and the AAC...so thanks!
ACC 48.73
mwc 76.73
CUSA 82.28
AAC 83.93
You are spot on: 35.2 behind the #5 and 7.2 behind #6.
I'll be correcting the original post in this thread, plus the January post. And here's an updated graph - still looks pretty similar.

The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

I. The Trendlines:

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved by about 4 rankings "notches" (e.g., a "5 ranks" advantage in 2015 and a "9 ranks" advantage in 2020), relative to the average G4 rankings.

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved much more markedly - -by about 17 rankings notches (e.g., a "~23 ranks" gap in 2015, dropping down to a "~6 ranks" gap in 2020), relative to the average P5 rankings.

--Taken together, the two trendlines suggest that the AAC's rankings may have improved somewhat more relative to the P5 rankings (by narrowing the gap with the P5 teams) than they have relative to the average G4 rankings.

II. The Year-by-Year Data in the Graph:

--A. Year-by-year comparisons with the P5 rankings:

----There appears to be some evidence of a step-wise function:

----Phase 1 (2014): P5 rankings were ~35 ranks ahead of AAC rankings.
----Phase 2 (2015-2018): P5 rankings were only ~15-25 ranks ahead.
----Phase 3 (2019-2020): P5 rankings were only ~5 ranks ahead.

--B. Year-by-year comparisons with the G4 rankings:

----The AAC rankings have oscillated within a slightly narrower range (with an upward trend) relative to the rankings of the G4 rankings.


III. Given how atypical (and "outlier-like") the 2015 AAC rankings were,

--is it possible that the association that we're examining might be "curvilinear," rather than "linear?"

There appears to be some hint of curvilinearity in the 2014-2020 data.

--what would the trendlines be if the graph were to zoom in on the years 2015-2020,

AAC-P5 trendline: The improvement vis a vis P5 rankings remains evident between 2015 and 2020, but it would be less marked in magnitude (closer to a "10 rankings" reduction in the AAC-P5 rankings gap than to a "17-rankings" reduction in the size of the rankings gap between 2014 and 2020).

--Nevertheless, this "10 rankings" reduction in the rankings gap would still be considered very significant.


AAC-G4 trendline: Compared to the 2014-2020 trendline, the 2015-2020 AAC-G4 trendline would flatten out considerably with an average gap of ~ "8 rankings" in favor of the AAC.

--The AAC hasn't moved much farther ahead of the G4 from the standpoint of their average rankings, but it has [i]maintained a fairly sizable rankings lead
over the G4 since 2015.
[/i]

.



.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=10586]

Here's another look - at the conference average ranking in Massey Composite for all 10 conferences (plus the independents are in there) from 2013 to 2020. This is average ranking, so lower is better.
Overall trends:
- AAC trendline is improvement, and looks like a greater improvement than any of the G4s.
- SunBelt and MAC show similar slope on the trendline, from a much worse starting point...but those two trendlines greatly benefit from their 2020 outliers - they were a lot flatter going 2013-2019.
- mwc improving, but more flat than the AAC (and the SunBelt/MAC with 2020 included)
-CUSA trending the wrong direction.
- in the contract-bowl conferences, B12 improving, B10 pretty flat, SEC coming back to the rest of that five-team group, and ACC & PAC12 coming back to the AAC.

Other thoughts I had:
- This highlights that 2014 & 2018 were outliers for the AAC.
- 2019 was an outlier good year for the AAC, but slightly less of an outlier than 2014 & 2018
- I've previously said that 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc at the same time it was an outlier bad year for the AAC...that appears to have been incorrect for overall rankings - right on the mwc trendline. However, I will stand by the statement that their top 3 were outlier good, but dragged down by the middle and bottom of the conference.
- 2020 was not any sort of outlier for the AAC - 2015-2017 and 2020 are the years that set the trendline there.

That's composited average rankings - AAC benefits from being consistently stronger than the G4s top-to-bottom. But relevant to a couple posts ago, in the brand/perception arena, the top of the conference will still be important, so there is also still room to discuss top-25 rankings like AP/Coaches' Polls and CFP rankings.
.png  MasseyComposite2013-2020.PNG (Size: 73.61 KB / Downloads: 3)
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 09:19 PM by slhNavy91.)
04-28-2021 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #75
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

We could also look at moving averages:

Regarding the AAC/G4 relationship

2014: -7.2 (baseline)
2015: +3.6
2016: +5.6
2017: +8.5
2018: +6.3
2019: +7.6
2020: +6.9

So on that basis, we see that from 2014 - 2017 the AAC steadily and significantly increased its moving average, pulling away from the G4, but since 2017, the number has dipped from that peak.

And really, the 2020 number flatters the AAC. The SBC was probably actually better, but the computers were working with limited data, and some probably backfilled with data from 2019, a year that greatly favored the AAC.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 09:18 PM by quo vadis.)
04-28-2021 09:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,312
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 09:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 05:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-15-2021 07:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Yes, let's look at AAC average team ranking in Massey Composite.
Over seven years of the CFP.
Relative to the best of the "G4" and relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference.

Massey Composite conference average team ranking, AAC relative to the best G4
2020.....2.94 better - CORRECTION 2.99
2019.....14.29 better
2018.....2.48 lower
2017.....17.12 better
2016.....9.78 better
2015.....14.3 better
2014.....7.2 lower

As the #6, five years out of seven, AAC averages 11.69 better
When not #6, only twice in the CFP, AAC averages 4.84 behind

AAC relative to the lowest contract-bowl conference
2020.....9.58 lower - CORRECTION 9.45
2019.....0.12 better
2018.....24.61 lower
2017.....14.98 lower
2016.....16.66 lower
2015.....14.2 lower
2014......48.73 lower - CORRECTION 35.2
On this one, I'll highlight that indeed 2014 and 2018 are the outliers. 2020 (caveat/disclaimer assumed for strange year) in fact was not a down year looking through this lens. Just an extreme outlier good year for the SunBelt (as 2018 was an outlier good year for the mwc in addition to an outlier bad year for the AAC).

Graph them out...there is a trendline for each. Closer to the "P5" and separating from the "G4"

Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.

Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98
SBC 71.97
AAC is 9.45 behind ACC and 2.99 ahead of SBC.
Reconstructing what I did two weeks ago, I was going from a post from late January. An earlier post in that thread ("AAC Still #1 non-contract-bowl conference?") cited Massey Composite with 55 rankings compiled - so just that single additional ranking compiled changed the numbers by 0.13 and 0.05 average ranking spots.

That offers NO explanation for messing up 2014!
Looks like I inserted the ACC MC conference average ranking there, not the difference between that and the AAC...so thanks!
ACC 48.73
mwc 76.73
CUSA 82.28
AAC 83.93
You are spot on: 35.2 behind the #5 and 7.2 behind #6.
I'll be correcting the original post in this thread, plus the January post. And here's an updated graph - still looks pretty similar.

The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

I. The Trendlines:

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved by about 4 rankings "notches" (e.g., a "5 ranks" advantage in 2015 and a "9 ranks" advantage in 2020), relative to the average G4 rankings.

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved much more markedly - -by about 17 rankings notches (e.g., a "~23 ranks" gap in 2015, dropping down to a "~6 ranks" gap in 2020), relative to the average P5 rankings.

--Taken together, the two trendlines suggest that the AAC's rankings may have improved somewhat more relative to the P5 rankings (by narrowing the gap with the P5 teams) than they have relative to the average G4 rankings.

II. The Year-by-Year Data in the Graph:

--A. Year-by-year comparisons with the P5 rankings:

----There appears to be some evidence of a step-wise function:

----Phase 1 (2014): P5 rankings were ~35 ranks ahead of AAC rankings.
----Phase 2 (2015-2018): P5 rankings were only ~15-25 ranks ahead.
----Phase 3 (2019-2020): P5 rankings were only ~5 ranks ahead.

--B. Year-by-year comparisons with the G4 rankings:

----The AAC rankings have oscillated within a slightly narrower range (with an upward trend) relative to the rankings of the G4 rankings.


III. Given how atypical (and "outlier-like") the 2015 AAC rankings were,

--is it possible that the association that we're examining might be "curvilinear," rather than "linear?"

There appears to be some hint of curvilinearity in the 2014-2020 data.

--what would the trendlines be if the graph were to zoom in on the years 2015-2020,

AAC-P5 trendline: The improvement vis a vis P5 rankings remains evident between 2015 and 2020, but it would be less marked in magnitude (closer to a "10 rankings" reduction in the AAC-P5 rankings gap than to a "17-rankings" reduction in the size of the rankings gap between 2014 and 2020).

--Nevertheless, this "10 rankings" reduction in the rankings gap would still be considered very significant.


AAC-G4 trendline: Compared to the 2014-2020 trendline, the 2015-2020 AAC-G4 trendline would flatten out considerably with an average gap of ~ "8 rankings" in favor of the AAC.

--The AAC hasn't moved much farther ahead of the G4 from the standpoint of their average rankings, but it has [i]maintained a fairly sizable rankings lead
over the G4 since 2015.
[/i]

.



.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=10586]

Here's another look - at the conference average ranking in Massey Composite for all 10 conferences (plus the independents are in there) from 2013 to 2020. This is average ranking, so lower is better.

- AAC trendline is improvement, and looks like a greater improvement than any of the G4s.
- SunBelt and MAC show similar slope on the trendline, from a much worse starting point...but those two trendlines greatly benefit from their 2020 outliers - they were a lot flatter going 2013-2019.
- mwc relatively flat
-CUSA trending the wrong direction.
- in the contract-bowl conferences, B12 improving, B10 pretty flat, SEC coming back to the rest of that five-team group, and ACC & PAC12 coming back to the AAC.

That's composited average rankings - AAC benefits from being consistently stronger than the G4s top-to-bottom. But relevant to a couple posts ago, in the brand/perception arena, the top of the conference will still be important, so there is also still room to discuss top-25 rankings like AP/Coaches' Polls and CFP rankings.


It's a solid point that the 2020 data should perhaps be considered to be either "outliers" or even somewhat "unrepresentative" in some respects.

However, the 2014 data are also discrepant enough with the data between 2015 and 2019 to either be considered outliers or to suggest that some of the relationships might be curvilinear in nature (in that case, not only would linear regression lines, but also curvilinear trajectories (e.g., "data smoothing" lines) would be of interest.

It would thus be interesting to see what the graph would look like if the outlier years 2014 and 2020 were excluded from the graph.
04-28-2021 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,142
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 09:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 09:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 05:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Massey was messed up for 2020. The SBC was probably better than the AAC last year. I sure would have taken the SBC's results over the AAC's results last year.

And when I look at the other numbers I see some differences from what you have posted, e.g., in the final MC of 2014 the AAC was about 35 points behind the closest (worst) P5, not 48 points behind. The AAC was more than 10 points behind the worst P5 in 2020, not 9+. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are comparing.

But on average over the 7 years the gap between the AAC and the nearest G4 is much smaller than between the AAC and the nearest (worst) P5. The AAC is a tweener, but a tweener significantly closer to the G camp than P camp.

And +2 for the graph. That was cool.

Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98
SBC 71.97
AAC is 9.45 behind ACC and 2.99 ahead of SBC.
Reconstructing what I did two weeks ago, I was going from a post from late January. An earlier post in that thread ("AAC Still #1 non-contract-bowl conference?") cited Massey Composite with 55 rankings compiled - so just that single additional ranking compiled changed the numbers by 0.13 and 0.05 average ranking spots.

That offers NO explanation for messing up 2014!
Looks like I inserted the ACC MC conference average ranking there, not the difference between that and the AAC...so thanks!
ACC 48.73
mwc 76.73
CUSA 82.28
AAC 83.93
You are spot on: 35.2 behind the #5 and 7.2 behind #6.
I'll be correcting the original post in this thread, plus the January post. And here's an updated graph - still looks pretty similar.

The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

I. The Trendlines:

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved by about 4 rankings "notches" (e.g., a "5 ranks" advantage in 2015 and a "9 ranks" advantage in 2020), relative to the average G4 rankings.

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved much more markedly - -by about 17 rankings notches (e.g., a "~23 ranks" gap in 2015, dropping down to a "~6 ranks" gap in 2020), relative to the average P5 rankings.

--Taken together, the two trendlines suggest that the AAC's rankings may have improved somewhat more relative to the P5 rankings (by narrowing the gap with the P5 teams) than they have relative to the average G4 rankings.

II. The Year-by-Year Data in the Graph:

--A. Year-by-year comparisons with the P5 rankings:

----There appears to be some evidence of a step-wise function:

----Phase 1 (2014): P5 rankings were ~35 ranks ahead of AAC rankings.
----Phase 2 (2015-2018): P5 rankings were only ~15-25 ranks ahead.
----Phase 3 (2019-2020): P5 rankings were only ~5 ranks ahead.

--B. Year-by-year comparisons with the G4 rankings:

----The AAC rankings have oscillated within a slightly narrower range (with an upward trend) relative to the rankings of the G4 rankings.


III. Given how atypical (and "outlier-like") the 2015 AAC rankings were,

--is it possible that the association that we're examining might be "curvilinear," rather than "linear?"

There appears to be some hint of curvilinearity in the 2014-2020 data.

--what would the trendlines be if the graph were to zoom in on the years 2015-2020,

AAC-P5 trendline: The improvement vis a vis P5 rankings remains evident between 2015 and 2020, but it would be less marked in magnitude (closer to a "10 rankings" reduction in the AAC-P5 rankings gap than to a "17-rankings" reduction in the size of the rankings gap between 2014 and 2020).

--Nevertheless, this "10 rankings" reduction in the rankings gap would still be considered very significant.


AAC-G4 trendline: Compared to the 2014-2020 trendline, the 2015-2020 AAC-G4 trendline would flatten out considerably with an average gap of ~ "8 rankings" in favor of the AAC.

--The AAC hasn't moved much farther ahead of the G4 from the standpoint of their average rankings, but it has [i]maintained a fairly sizable rankings lead
over the G4 since 2015.
[/i]

.



.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=10586]

Here's another look - at the conference average ranking in Massey Composite for all 10 conferences (plus the independents are in there) from 2013 to 2020. This is average ranking, so lower is better.

- AAC trendline is improvement, and looks like a greater improvement than any of the G4s.
- SunBelt and MAC show similar slope on the trendline, from a much worse starting point...but those two trendlines greatly benefit from their 2020 outliers - they were a lot flatter going 2013-2019.
- mwc relatively flat
-CUSA trending the wrong direction.
- in the contract-bowl conferences, B12 improving, B10 pretty flat, SEC coming back to the rest of that five-team group, and ACC & PAC12 coming back to the AAC.

That's composited average rankings - AAC benefits from being consistently stronger than the G4s top-to-bottom. But relevant to a couple posts ago, in the brand/perception arena, the top of the conference will still be important, so there is also still room to discuss top-25 rankings like AP/Coaches' Polls and CFP rankings.


It's a solid point that the 2020 data should perhaps be considered to be either "outliers" or even somewhat "unrepresentative" in some respects.

However, the 2014 data are also discrepant enough with the data between 2015 and 2019 to either be considered outliers or to suggest that some of the relationships might be curvilinear in nature (in that case, not only would linear regression lines, but also curvilinear trajectories (e.g., "data smoothing" lines) would be of interest.

It would thus be interesting to see what the graph would look like if the outlier years 2014 and 2020 were excluded from the graph.

Regarding 2020 - I suppose there is a discussion to be had about "unreliability" smaller samples, less inter-conference data, etc. But 2020 wasn't really an outlier for the AAC: looking at 2013-2020 or 2015-2020 it's close to the trendline. 2018 was an outlier to the negative, 2019 slightly less an outlier to the positive for the AAC.
2020 really changes things for the SunBelt and MAC. And we've discussed elsewhere how variably the five rating systems dictating CFP payout performance shares treated the MAC.
(I think I was adding my "other thoughts" edit while you were drafting your reply)

But here are 2015-2019 and 2015-2020. AAC does benefit from omitting 2014 - trendline flattens. It seems to me that this is a case where more data is better, though. Just a five year sample is less representative than the seven or eight, right? Anyway, here are two more graphs, with all 11 trendlines flattening.



.png  MasseyComposite2015-2019.PNG (Size: 61.79 KB / Downloads: 4)
.png  MasseyComposite2015-2020.PNG (Size: 68.61 KB / Downloads: 96)
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2021 10:00 PM by slhNavy91.)
04-28-2021 09:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #78
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-28-2021 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

We could also look at moving averages:

Regarding the AAC/G4 relationship

2014: -7.2 (baseline)
2015: +3.6
2016: +5.6
2017: +8.5
2018: +6.3
2019: +7.6
2020: +6.9

So on that basis, we see that from 2014 - 2017 the AAC steadily and significantly increased its moving average, pulling away from the G4, but since 2017, the number has dipped from that peak.

And really, the 2020 number flatters the AAC. The SBC was probably actually better, but the computers were working with limited data, and some probably backfilled with data from 2019, a year that greatly favored the AAC.
That's multiple times I have seen you make that statement. What draws you to that conclusion?
04-29-2021 09:19 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,142
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-29-2021 09:19 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

We could also look at moving averages:

Regarding the AAC/G4 relationship

2014: -7.2 (baseline)
2015: +3.6
2016: +5.6
2017: +8.5
2018: +6.3
2019: +7.6
2020: +6.9

So on that basis, we see that from 2014 - 2017 the AAC steadily and significantly increased its moving average, pulling away from the G4, but since 2017, the number has dipped from that peak.

And really, the 2020 number flatters the AAC. The SBC was probably actually better, but the computers were working with limited data, and some probably backfilled with data from 2019, a year that greatly favored the AAC.
That's multiple times I have seen you make that statement. What draws you to that conclusion?

It requires ignoring the fact that #6-10 in the conference were #88, #100, #105, #115, and #127 of 127 teams...and that things happened like Coastal needing a last minute score to beat Troy..

Here's some discussion three months ago...
https://csnbbs.com/thread-914844-post-17...id17243579
(This post was last modified: 04-29-2021 10:26 AM by slhNavy91.)
04-29-2021 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #80
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(04-29-2021 09:19 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

We could also look at moving averages:

Regarding the AAC/G4 relationship

2014: -7.2 (baseline)
2015: +3.6
2016: +5.6
2017: +8.5
2018: +6.3
2019: +7.6
2020: +6.9

So on that basis, we see that from 2014 - 2017 the AAC steadily and significantly increased its moving average, pulling away from the G4, but since 2017, the number has dipped from that peak.

And really, the 2020 number flatters the AAC. The SBC was probably actually better, but the computers were working with limited data, and some probably backfilled with data from 2019, a year that greatly favored the AAC.
That's multiple times I have seen you make that statement. What draws you to that conclusion?

Well, first, I'm generally a huge fan of the Massey Composite. I would argue I probably have cited it earlier and more often than just about anyone around here. But, IMO, it is unreliable for 2020 because of a paucity of data points. Some computers, like Peter Wolfe, refused to publish rankings because he didn't think there would be enough data points.

All told, the 2020 MC only includes 56 computer rankings, when typically it has 100 or more. I suspect that those who did publish rankings had to resort to "backfilling" missing data with data from 2019. In the case of the AAC vs SBC, that would very much favor the AAC, because the AAC had a great 2019 and the SBC a lousy one.

I mean, look at the MC for December 12, the last rankings before the bowls. The MC has the SEC as the #2 conference. How is that possible when the SEC had played no OOC games? That simply makes no sense. A conference that does not play any OOC games cannot be meaningfully rated vs any other conference. But there they are, at #2. The B1G is rated #3 even though they had played no OOC games either. Ditto for the PAC at #3. That IMO is nonsensical, garbage in garbage out stuff.

So with computers useless, we are basically left with a subjective analysis, but one based on results. And what I see when I compare the SBC and AAC are these things:

Pro - AAC

The AAC won the H2H battle over the SBC .... 3-1

The AAC was better vs other G5 .................. 6-4 vs 9-8


Pro - SBC

The SBC was better in bowl games ................. 4-1 vs 1-5

The SBC was better vs FBS ............................ 15-15 vs 9-12

The SBC was better vs P5 .............................. 3-1 vs 1-4

Looking at those outcomes, IMO the Sun Belt's results are better. I bet that 90% of us, if given a blind test at the end of the season, would say they would prefer the AAC had the Sun Belt's results than vice-versa.

IMO, the AAC caught a big break with this year's computers. The AAC almost surely received the most money for being the CFP "top G5 conference" as the CFP uses computers to determine this, computers that IMO were unreliable.
(This post was last modified: 04-29-2021 11:39 AM by quo vadis.)
04-29-2021 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.