Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC Targets Next Commish
Author Message
Yosef181 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,936
Joined: Sep 2021
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Appalachian State
Location:
Post: #61
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-06-2024 09:45 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Let me try and do the last five years succinctly. Tells a different story than quo wants to, and doesn't look like what Yosef 181 thinks is clear.

2019-2023 CFP rankings.
AAC (of 2024) - 30 weeks
Sun Belt (of '22 on) - 20 weeks
mwc - 14 weeks
CUSA - 4 weeks.

2023
AAC - 5 weeks (all Tulane)
CUSA - 4 weeks (all Liberty)

2022
AAC - 7 weeks (Tulane 6, UTSA 1)
Sun Belt 1 (Troy)

2021
mwc - 7 weeks (SDSU 6, Fresno State 1)
AAC 3 weeks (UTSA)
Sun Belt - 2 (Louisiana)

2020
Sun Belt 12 weeks (Coastal Carolina 5, Louisiana 4, Marshall 3)
AAC 5 weeks (Tulsa)
mwc 1 (SJSU)
CUSA 1 (Liberty)

2019
AAC 10 weeks (Memphis 6, Navy 4)
mwc 6 (Boise State)
Sun Belt 5 (Appalachian State)

Using one ranking doesn't make it any more clear, and CFP isn't the best metric. You're talking about the opinion of 12 people, only covering a 6-week period per year. In 2022, Troy was ranked in the final AP poll, but since CFP doesn't do a poll after bowl games, you don't count that week for Troy. Same with App State in 2019. JMU spent 7 weeks in the AP poll in 2023, but 0 in the CFP. You can't use one metric and expect a clear picture when it varies so much from others.

For the fun of it, here are the number of current members who have been ranked in the last 5 seasons (AP poll, because that's the easiest to find quickly):

Sun Belt: 6
- Coastal Carolina (3 seasons)
- Appalachian State (2 seasons)
- James Madison (2 seasons)
- Louisiana (2 seasons)
- Marshall (1 season)
- Troy (1 season)

AAC: 5
- Memphis (2 seasons)
- Tulane (2 seasons)
- UTSA (2 seasons)
- Tulsa (1 season)
- Navy (1 season)

Source: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/

Still a "top heavy" metric, but it shows how many programs in each conference have had great success recently. Stuff like Massey is a better indication of overall conference strength, top-to-bottom.
(This post was last modified: 04-07-2024 08:30 AM by Yosef181.)
04-07-2024 08:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,597
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 968
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #62
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-07-2024 07:21 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  
(04-06-2024 03:52 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  My criticism of some Sun Belt posters, Y-181, is that they are dismissive of the AAC for what they feel is a misguided emphasis on markets. They mock some league members for being located in big markets and having no fan support (which is worth constructive criticism, no doubt). But they fail to either see or acknowledge that the AAC members' locations are helpful (at least on paper) for football and basketball recruiting. The list of cities you note ... as a Memphis Tiger basketball fan, that's what I want to see.

As I've posted previously, markets can be valuable beyond fan base/attendance.

I'll call this out directly: The AAC (and CUSA) strategy was (and still is) a completely misguided emphasis on markets, and it's starting to show in conference rankings (yes, there's more to a conference than its top team, for anyone out there who thinks otherwise. Can't just ride the coattails of one successful school forever).

I hope you realize by now why fans of Sun Belt schools poke fun at the "marketz" strategy not working. That strategy screwed most of the SBC schools into being "left behind", schools which definitely had the merit at the time to move forward. You think App State wanted to move to the SBC from FCS? No, we wanted CUSA, but UNC-Charlotte, a school which didn't even have a football program at the time, was picked while we were told No. You think Southern Miss and Marshall wanted to stay in CUSA while over a dozen schools passed them in the realignment pecking order? Of course not, they watched interest in their programs decline because of it. You think 2010 football champions Troy and 2011 + 2012 football champions Arkansas State liked seeing market schools like North Texas and FAU being promoted while they were left behind? No, because Troy and Arkansas State were proving their worth with on-field results, that they had better programs than the market teams. North Texas had 8 consecutive losing seasons before moving to CUSA for more money. FAU had 4 consecutive losing seasons before moving to CUSA for more money. These schools were chosen for off-field reasons (marketz), not on-field results.

You better believe we're going to be happy about being better than the schools who wanted nothing to do with us (see my earlier links to Massey, Colley, and Bleacher Report's algorithm of AP Top 25 + FPI + bowl results). You better believe we're going to have a positive reaction when we rise above conferences who didn't want us.

And sure, recruiting locations are important, but that doesn't seem to be helping UNC-Charlotte, so...being in a city can't mean that much. To be fair, the same is true for Georgia State in the SBC, which only has 1 season of 8+ wins in 11 years.


I agree with you (and strongly overall) that the AAC seemingly placed excessive emphasis on markets, Y-181. What I don't agree with (and not suggesting you feel this way) is the notion that markets have limited (or even zero) value. Is that what you think. If so, that is very simplistic way of looking at it.

And to say schools were added for markets without acknowledging 1. their potential to get better in football; 2. basketball was a factor; 3. shared-league history was a consideration and 4. academics were a factor ... is shortsighted. For example, UAB, Charlotte and North Texas had variously been aligned in the past in leagues with Tulsa, Wichita, Memphis and Tulane. UAB and Charlotte at the time of their adding were much more appealing, from a men's hoops perspective, than any of the Sun Belt members you note (just like AppState was more appealing in football than any of the six schools that were invited).

Your focus seems to be overwhelmingly on football. And the new-look AAC has had only one football season to prove itself (the Belt was better last year and I give full credit). More time is needed for this to play out. I'm not particularly optimistic. But, again, I want to see at least four more seasons (if not five, with Army in and SMU out) before I give a grade on the additions. You don't lose Cincy, Houston, UCF and, now, SMU in a brief period and immediately be equal or better. Time is required.

I've posted many times: The AAC was initially formed as essentially a league for city-located universities and for the "leftover highest-level athletics programs" located from Texas to the East. I'm not sure conference officials ever truly wanted to offer the "best" football of the "G" leagues (though they would never say that publicly) after the announcement that Cincinnati, Houston and UCF were leaving. Had they, they would have wanted Southern Miss, AppSt and Marshall. Rather, they likely took a more realistic and focused approach and said "Let's be the best all-round urban-centric league that a group conference can be.

There are many Sun Belt members that are worthy of and qualified for AAC membership (not that they would want that today). The fact that some (not all) SBC schools don't fit the AAC model (due to non-urban locations, so-so academics, low-profile hoops and/or modest histories of playing at the highest levels of college sports) does not mean they could not ramp up fast if joining either the AAC or the Mountain West.

I'm a Vanderbilt fan of 50 years. Many SEC fans don't want my school in the league. We get dissed much like some Belt schools do (as you noted) by some fans of AAC schools. So I can kind of relate to your overall argument.

The Sun Belt will be fine. And so will the AAC. Two very different leagues. Different models. Different approaches. Different membership histories. You likely feel the SBC is better for AppState than would be the AAC. I can see that. In contrast, I feel that the AAC is better for Memphis than would be the Belt.

I always enjoy our exchanges.

04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 04-07-2024 10:03 AM by bill dazzle.)
04-07-2024 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,738
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #63
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-02-2024 08:58 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  ESPN article by Pete Thamel:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ources-say

No doubt his "strong television background" helped Pernetti land the job, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be given that the AAC is locked into their current TV deal with ESPN until 2031-32.
04-07-2024 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,549
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #64
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-06-2024 03:45 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-05-2024 07:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-04-2024 08:30 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-04-2024 05:52 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  
(04-03-2024 04:28 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Right!

It's like everybody except for almost half!

Ha ha ha (laughs in Standard Sunbelt Supremacy Scenario)

Woah now, never suggested that. Don't get too excited.

10/15 is 66.66%.

True, but the general point, Y-181, is that the bulk of the AAC members were not exclusively affiliated with the previous version of C-USA.

Original C-USA members USF (the Big East, the Metro), Memphis (Missouri Valley, the Metro, The Great Midwest), Charlotte (A10), UAB (The Great Midwest), North Texas (MVC), Tulsa (WAC, MVC), Tulane (SEC and the Metro) and Rice (SWC) have league-membership histories that go beyond C-USA. This history helps differentiate these schools (and some would contend in a positive way) from most schools in the Belt and the current C-USA. Obviously, there are exceptions in both the Belt (USM in the Metro, for example) and the new-look C-USA (UTEP in the WAC, for example).

Add to the seven AAC schools I list Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State (none of which has a C-USA membership background) — and you get an AAC with a nice diversity of member histories. It's a conference with its own identity.

It's too convenient to paint the current AAC as solely a C-USA-type league. I understand the temptation (particularly for Sun Belt fans who wish the AAC failure). But it just seems a bit misguided to do so.

Rice, Tulsa, and UNT weren’t original C-USA members, unless you’re referencing something else. From the inception of C-USA: Rice ended up in the WAC after the SWC, Tulsa was an Indy then WAC, and UNT went from 1-A Indy to I think the Big West to the Sun Belt.

My fumble, esayem. Good catch.

I think it just goes to show what a great league the original C-USA was.

In its first ten years, the original C-USA garnered 38 Bid Dance bids, and this was before tournament expansion. Pretty much four C-USA programs were expected to Dance every season. Very strong considering conferences were much smaller back then.

Anybody remember how scheduling worked in the 12-team, 3-division format?
04-07-2024 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,597
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 968
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #65
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-07-2024 08:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-06-2024 03:45 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-05-2024 07:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-04-2024 08:30 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-04-2024 05:52 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Woah now, never suggested that. Don't get too excited.

10/15 is 66.66%.

True, but the general point, Y-181, is that the bulk of the AAC members were not exclusively affiliated with the previous version of C-USA.

Original C-USA members USF (the Big East, the Metro), Memphis (Missouri Valley, the Metro, The Great Midwest), Charlotte (A10), UAB (The Great Midwest), North Texas (MVC), Tulsa (WAC, MVC), Tulane (SEC and the Metro) and Rice (SWC) have league-membership histories that go beyond C-USA. This history helps differentiate these schools (and some would contend in a positive way) from most schools in the Belt and the current C-USA. Obviously, there are exceptions in both the Belt (USM in the Metro, for example) and the new-look C-USA (UTEP in the WAC, for example).

Add to the seven AAC schools I list Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State (none of which has a C-USA membership background) — and you get an AAC with a nice diversity of member histories. It's a conference with its own identity.

It's too convenient to paint the current AAC as solely a C-USA-type league. I understand the temptation (particularly for Sun Belt fans who wish the AAC failure). But it just seems a bit misguided to do so.

Rice, Tulsa, and UNT weren’t original C-USA members, unless you’re referencing something else. From the inception of C-USA: Rice ended up in the WAC after the SWC, Tulsa was an Indy then WAC, and UNT went from 1-A Indy to I think the Big West to the Sun Belt.

My fumble, esayem. Good catch.

I think it just goes to show what a great league the original C-USA was.

In its first ten years, the original C-USA garnered 38 Bid Dance bids, and this was before tournament expansion. Pretty much four C-USA programs were expected to Dance every season. Very strong considering conferences were much smaller back then.

Anybody remember how scheduling worked in the 12-team, 3-division format?

The original C-USA (and I'm counting Houston and Army) was of very solid quality.

But I'm not sure I ever viewed it as better than the old Metro. Maybe. Maybe not.
04-07-2024 09:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,110
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #66
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-06-2024 07:27 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  
(04-05-2024 09:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the poor performance of 2023 will repeat in 2024, rather than being like 2014 with a bounceback.

One of the biggest factors in overstating the doom of the AAC has been overstating the departures as some Big Three.

After 2023, the AAC has more weeks spent in the CFP Committee Rankings by the teams remaining than by the teams departed/departing.
Looking a little deeper:

By conference, Appearances in the 2014-2023 CFP Committee Rankings:
2024 American Athletic Conference 52 (48 from six out of seven legacy teams)
Departing AAC to Big 12 Teams: 47
Departing AAC to ACC team: 3
mountain west conference: 35
2022+ Sun Belt: 18
MAC: 8
CUSA: 3

They were never a 1-2-3 in viewers or in attendance. Even with on-field successes, they only became 1-2-3 in wins in the middle of their finsl season. The AAC was doing fine when UCF was 0-12 and when Cincinnati had Tubervillitis, and we can do well without them.

I like what the Sun Belt has done. It is a different model, and for me and my program regional is not the objective. But the Sun Belt has a lot of positives, and potential to grow even more. It is somewhat a shame that this is now an almost-zero-sum game

I don't think applying on-field stats from the 2010s is particularly relevant to today. How many AAC and SBC head coaches from 2015 are still in their same position at the same school today? How many players from 2015 are still with the same program today?

College teams change so fast that a team 8 years ago has little-to-no relevance to today's on-field product.

One thing that's clear to me from your post though is that the SBC is hot right now, riding some serious momentum in the last 3-5 years, a time period which is relevant to those programs today.

Wouldn't that be a good justification for why the AAC continues to target schools in large market with larger budgets? That especially at the G5 level winning tradition and history don't matter because you can't retain players and coaches and all that really matters is having the money to be able to either replace good coaches with the next up and comer or quickly fire bad coaches.
04-08-2024 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,549
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1240
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #67
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-07-2024 09:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-07-2024 08:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-06-2024 03:45 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(04-05-2024 07:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(04-04-2024 08:30 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  True, but the general point, Y-181, is that the bulk of the AAC members were not exclusively affiliated with the previous version of C-USA.

Original C-USA members USF (the Big East, the Metro), Memphis (Missouri Valley, the Metro, The Great Midwest), Charlotte (A10), UAB (The Great Midwest), North Texas (MVC), Tulsa (WAC, MVC), Tulane (SEC and the Metro) and Rice (SWC) have league-membership histories that go beyond C-USA. This history helps differentiate these schools (and some would contend in a positive way) from most schools in the Belt and the current C-USA. Obviously, there are exceptions in both the Belt (USM in the Metro, for example) and the new-look C-USA (UTEP in the WAC, for example).

Add to the seven AAC schools I list Navy, Army, Temple, and Wichita State (none of which has a C-USA membership background) — and you get an AAC with a nice diversity of member histories. It's a conference with its own identity.

It's too convenient to paint the current AAC as solely a C-USA-type league. I understand the temptation (particularly for Sun Belt fans who wish the AAC failure). But it just seems a bit misguided to do so.

Rice, Tulsa, and UNT weren’t original C-USA members, unless you’re referencing something else. From the inception of C-USA: Rice ended up in the WAC after the SWC, Tulsa was an Indy then WAC, and UNT went from 1-A Indy to I think the Big West to the Sun Belt.

My fumble, esayem. Good catch.

I think it just goes to show what a great league the original C-USA was.

In its first ten years, the original C-USA garnered 38 Bid Dance bids, and this was before tournament expansion. Pretty much four C-USA programs were expected to Dance every season. Very strong considering conferences were much smaller back then.

Anybody remember how scheduling worked in the 12-team, 3-division format?

The original C-USA (and I'm counting Houston and Army) was of very solid quality.

But I'm not sure I ever viewed it as better than the old Metro. Maybe. Maybe not.

The NCAA tournament viewed C-USA as better as evidenced by the amount of bids it received. Perhaps realignment at the power level influenced some to view it as a "left out" conference considering USC and FSU left.
04-08-2024 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,409
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 196
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #68
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish




04-11-2024 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,652
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 325
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #69
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
The “nothing is off the table” quote from Pernetti can refer to a lot of things, but I wonder about expansion.

I can’t help but wonder if he tries something bold like grabbing four schools at once, bringing the AAC to 18, much like the size of the P conferences.

I do think that, once the Mountain West schools, Oregon State, and Washington State are under one umbrella, any of them will be unattainable. (Well, Air Force, maybe, but I doubt it. Seems they’d already be there if they wanted in.)

What I would explore, if I was the new AAC commissioner, would be to weaken its closest competitor in G5 football, the Sun Belt, by taking a bloc of schools. I’m thinking about App State, Marshall, JMU, and Georgia State. Do those schools all fit the AAC school profile? Georgia State sorta does, but not the others. And that is the point. App, JMU, and Marshall bring passionate, statewide fanbases with strong attendance, while Georgia State and similar schools like Charlotte bring the markets and similar academics to other current members. They would all bring varying strengths that would help cancel out each other’s weaknesses.

Now, I think it would be a hard sell to the Sun Belt schools, who are selling tickets at record rates in the new look Sun Belt. Granted, the AAC pays more for TV money, but not such a big difference to offset the surge in sales.

But Pernetti would be wise to, at the very least, *explore* expansion. (And the Sun Belt would be wise to explore courting a bloc of ECU, USF, Memphis, and Tulane. I mean, they can’t say yes if no one asks.)

Thoughts? Would taking expansion off the table be best for the AAC? Would targeting a bloc of SBC schools be wise? What about from other conferences?
04-13-2024 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,597
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 968
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #70
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-13-2024 05:08 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  The “nothing is off the table” quote from Pernetti can refer to a lot of things, but I wonder about expansion.

I can’t help but wonder if he tries something bold like grabbing four schools at once, bringing the AAC to 18, much like the size of the P conferences.

I do think that, once the Mountain West schools, Oregon State, and Washington State are under one umbrella, any of them will be unattainable. (Well, Air Force, maybe, but I doubt it. Seems they’d already be there if they wanted in.)

What I would explore, if I was the new AAC commissioner, would be to weaken its closest competitor in G5 football, the Sun Belt, by taking a bloc of schools. I’m thinking about App State, Marshall, JMU, and Georgia State. Do those schools all fit the AAC school profile? Georgia State sorta does, but not the others. And that is the point. App, JMU, and Marshall bring passionate, statewide fanbases with strong attendance, while Georgia State and similar schools like Charlotte bring the markets and similar academics to other current members. They would all bring varying strengths that would help cancel out each other’s weaknesses.

Now, I think it would be a hard sell to the Sun Belt schools, who are selling tickets at record rates in the new look Sun Belt. Granted, the AAC pays more for TV money, but not such a big difference to offset the surge in sales.

But Pernetti would be wise to, at the very least, *explore* expansion. (And the Sun Belt would be wise to explore courting a bloc of ECU, USF, Memphis, and Tulane. I mean, they can’t say yes if no one asks.)

Thoughts? Would taking expansion off the table be best for the AAC? Would targeting a bloc of SBC schools be wise? What about from other conferences?

As a Memphis fan, I would be fully fine with that move. Collectively, that is a quality foursome. Brings a nice combo of football, baseball and soccer. And the basketball wouldn't be bad.

To make it work, Pernetti would need to have a "fifth" SBC option in the hole. With that approach in place, let's say your AppState is having doubts about making the switch (in this hypothetical). If App knew (if it declined) the AAC would simply invite, instead, whatever other Belt school, App might (apprehensive about being left behind in a SBC that has lost four schools) pull the trigger.

The four schools you list, MinR, are qualified and deserving of AAC membership. And to be blunt, if I were the man choosing four from the Belt, that would be my foursome (though Old Dominion is very appealing too).

At some point, we could see additional realignment moves. If, for example, the AAC loses USF only (to the ACC), I would think your hypothetical would be very appealing to many in the AAC.
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2024 06:51 PM by bill dazzle.)
04-13-2024 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 6,917
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 517
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #71
RE: AAC Targets Next Commish
(04-07-2024 08:25 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  
(04-06-2024 09:45 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Let me try and do the last five years succinctly. Tells a different story than quo wants to, and doesn't look like what Yosef 181 thinks is clear.

2019-2023 CFP rankings.
AAC (of 2024) - 30 weeks
Sun Belt (of '22 on) - 20 weeks
mwc - 14 weeks
CUSA - 4 weeks.

2023
AAC - 5 weeks (all Tulane)
CUSA - 4 weeks (all Liberty)

2022
AAC - 7 weeks (Tulane 6, UTSA 1)
Sun Belt 1 (Troy)

2021
mwc - 7 weeks (SDSU 6, Fresno State 1)
AAC 3 weeks (UTSA)
Sun Belt - 2 (Louisiana)

2020
Sun Belt 12 weeks (Coastal Carolina 5, Louisiana 4, Marshall 3)
AAC 5 weeks (Tulsa)
mwc 1 (SJSU)
CUSA 1 (Liberty)

2019
AAC 10 weeks (Memphis 6, Navy 4)
mwc 6 (Boise State)
Sun Belt 5 (Appalachian State)

Using one ranking doesn't make it any more clear, and CFP isn't the best metric. You're talking about the opinion of 12 people, only covering a 6-week period per year. In 2022, Troy was ranked in the final AP poll, but since CFP doesn't do a poll after bowl games, you don't count that week for Troy. Same with App State in 2019. JMU spent 7 weeks in the AP poll in 2023, but 0 in the CFP. You can't use one metric and expect a clear picture when it varies so much from others.

For the fun of it, here are the number of current members who have been ranked in the last 5 seasons (AP poll, because that's the easiest to find quickly):

Sun Belt: 6
- Coastal Carolina (3 seasons)
- Appalachian State (2 seasons)
- James Madison (2 seasons)
- Louisiana (2 seasons)
- Marshall (1 season)
- Troy (1 season)

AAC: 5
- Memphis (2 seasons)
- Tulane (2 seasons)
- UTSA (2 seasons)
- Tulsa (1 season)
- Navy (1 season)

Source: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/

Still a "top heavy" metric, but it shows how many programs in each conference have had great success recently. Stuff like Massey is a better indication of overall conference strength, top-to-bottom.

A couple of things here:

1) The CFP ranking definitely matter because they decide who goes to the playoff

2) It wonks up the numbers a little bit to use time in rankings to compare a whole conference to half a conference. During some of the periods under review, the AAC had teams sitting in the standings that took up space, sometimes at the top. If you pulled CCU out of the Sun Belt list, then App likely ends up with more time in the rankings because they are a slot higher in the SBC standings.

The same thing happens when people try to make list of how strong the Big 10 will be with all the PAC add-ons. Only a handful of teams at any given time can be in contention. One or more teams records has to get worse by throwing them all together. The same thing is true in reverse for the AAC.
04-15-2024 08:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.