(02-02-2013 12:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Let's see...
Texas has teams in Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt
Louisiana has teams in Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt
Alabama has CUSA and Sun Belt
Tennessee Big East and CUSA (and there is a Sun Belt 70 miles from the Big East and another Sun Belt 100 miles from the CUSA)
Florida has Big East and CUSA
North Carolina has Big East and CUSA and odds are decent will add a Sun Belt.

MWC has no overlap with a non-contract league. MAC shares one state with a non-contract league.
Big East shares five states with other non-contract leagues
CUSA shares six states with other non-contract leagues
Sun Belt shares three, potentially four states with other non-contract leagues.

Regionalism is in play in MWC and MAC but Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt are far from it.


The Southwest to Southeast region is loaded with overlap between the three leagues.

But there is no regionalization solution to that. You won't convince ECU, UCF, and USF to give up the Big East branding to move into a league with ODU, Charlotte, Georgia State, FAU, and FIU. (Nor would that be a league with the football appeal of, say, the Mountain West.) The possibility of Cincinnati embracing regionalism by joining the MAC is about the same as the possibility of Ohio State joining the MAC. Etc., etc.

Also, CUSA and SBC have been in the same "footprint" since SBC football began, so it's not a new issue.

And CUSA for years has had guys like Terry Holland and Mike Hamrick agitating to take the league to 16 teams so they can remain in their region with little to no interaction with their dearly loved conference mates.

(02-02-2013 12:15 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Does anyone actually read these strings? At least, do they read anything other than their own posts?

In bcs era there have been 7 non aq teams in a bcs bowl. 4, and maybe 5, of those teams in the cartel bowl games came from a conference that was not the top rated non aq conference for that season.

While there MIGHT be a few dollars difference in television contracts (and if it's based on what the b/e says it's based on there won't be much difference in the contracts once C-USA is revisited), there is historical precedence saying being in the best non aq (now non contract bowl) conference from top to bottom will not give you the best shot in gaining an invite to a bcs (now contract) bowl game.
Thus, in on the field provable measures, MWC=SBC=CUSA=NBE=MAC.

Saying "I'm better than you, just because yada yada yada" is akin to saying I'm a fat slob who can't get a date (nbe) but at least I'm not a fat slob who can't get a date (anyone else not in a contract league).

You are looking at what worked in the old system and assuming that it will work with the new system. It has already been discussed that the new BCS system will be using a selection committee and an RPI like system to judge teams. SOS is going to be a MAJOR factor. For non-AQ's, the 12-0 tomato can season may get you a trip to your conferences top bowl and little else in the new era. Assuming that the old Boise formula will work in the future is a reach. Every conference is scrambling for ways to upgrade thier schedule. Why would they do that if all that is needed is to go 12-0? It would be better to line up easy games. But thats not what is happening. Conferences are looking to beef up thier OOC schedules--not make them easier. What does that tell you about how the role of SOS in the future ranking process is shaping up behind closed doors?

(02-02-2013 01:40 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 12:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Let's see...
Texas has teams in Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt
Louisiana has teams in Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt
Alabama has CUSA and Sun Belt
Tennessee Big East and CUSA (and there is a Sun Belt 70 miles from the Big East and another Sun Belt 100 miles from the CUSA)
Florida has Big East and CUSA
North Carolina has Big East and CUSA and odds are decent will add a Sun Belt.

MWC has no overlap with a non-contract league. MAC shares one state with a non-contract league.
Big East shares five states with other non-contract leagues
CUSA shares six states with other non-contract leagues
Sun Belt shares three, potentially four states with other non-contract leagues.

Regionalism is in play in MWC and MAC but Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt are far from it.


The Southwest to Southeast region is loaded with overlap between the three leagues.

But there is no regionalization solution to that. You won't convince ECU, UCF, and USF to give up the Big East branding to move into a league with ODU, Charlotte, Georgia State, FAU, and FIU. (Nor would that be a league with the football appeal of, say, the Mountain West.) The possibility of Cincinnati embracing regionalism by joining the MAC is about the same as the possibility of Ohio State joining the MAC. Etc., etc.

Also, CUSA and SBC have been in the same "footprint" since SBC football began, so it's not a new issue.

And CUSA for years has had guys like Terry Holland and Mike Hamrick agitating to take the league to 16 teams so they can remain in their region with little to no interaction with their dearly loved conference mates.

The decision to agressively expand and embrace a very regional model rather than merging with the Mountain West will be one day looked upon by CUSA fans in hindsight as a huge mistake for the conference. It will be seen in much the same way that Big East fans look at the decision to reject Penn States application to the Big East. Both decisions severely limited the up side future potential for each conference.

(02-01-2013 03:16 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  The MAC has the lowest FBS attendance period and quite proud of it.

(02-02-2013 02:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 01:40 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 12:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 11:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Let's see...
Texas has teams in Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt
Louisiana has teams in Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt
Alabama has CUSA and Sun Belt
Tennessee Big East and CUSA (and there is a Sun Belt 70 miles from the Big East and another Sun Belt 100 miles from the CUSA)
Florida has Big East and CUSA
North Carolina has Big East and CUSA and odds are decent will add a Sun Belt.

MWC has no overlap with a non-contract league. MAC shares one state with a non-contract league.
Big East shares five states with other non-contract leagues
CUSA shares six states with other non-contract leagues
Sun Belt shares three, potentially four states with other non-contract leagues.

Regionalism is in play in MWC and MAC but Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt are far from it.


The Southwest to Southeast region is loaded with overlap between the three leagues.

But there is no regionalization solution to that. You won't convince ECU, UCF, and USF to give up the Big East branding to move into a league with ODU, Charlotte, Georgia State, FAU, and FIU. (Nor would that be a league with the football appeal of, say, the Mountain West.) The possibility of Cincinnati embracing regionalism by joining the MAC is about the same as the possibility of Ohio State joining the MAC. Etc., etc.

Also, CUSA and SBC have been in the same "footprint" since SBC football began, so it's not a new issue.

And CUSA for years has had guys like Terry Holland and Mike Hamrick agitating to take the league to 16 teams so they can remain in their region with little to no interaction with their dearly loved conference mates.

The decision to agressively expand and embrace a very regional model rather than merging with the Mountain West will be one day looked upon by CUSA fans in hindsight as a huge mistake for the conference. It will be seen in much the same way that Big East fans look at the decision to reject Penn States application to the Big East. Both decisions severely limited the up side future potential for each conference.

I seriously doubt that.

The Alliance was a stupid idea.
First it was about gaining AQ status. That went away and it suddenly became about having a four team playoff to determine a champion, NCAA Manual be damned.
And of course it was supposed to be a great TV draw. Well MWC with a contract that is nearly 10 years old produces $12 million while the year old CUSA deal produces $14 million.

All that was going to be accomplished was taking a few good teams from each side and add them with a lot of not good teams and give them a harder road to post-season in all sports.

There is simply no way MWC was going to consider merging once CUSA lost its value teams. Now over-expanding certainly changed the playing field.

If they had waited, they might have been able to do like MWC and lured some or all back.

Even if they had failed at that, by waiting they probably wouldn't have chased so many move-ups to try to balance the east, probably gutted the western side of the Sun Belt and left the eastern schools with either an untenable travel scenario or led to the formation of a southeastern league that would have put the Sun Belt out of business.

(02-02-2013 02:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 12:15 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Does anyone actually read these strings? At least, do they read anything other than their own posts?

In bcs era there have been 7 non aq teams in a bcs bowl. 4, and maybe 5, of those teams in the cartel bowl games came from a conference that was not the top rated non aq conference for that season.

While there MIGHT be a few dollars difference in television contracts (and if it's based on what the b/e says it's based on there won't be much difference in the contracts once C-USA is revisited), there is historical precedence saying being in the best non aq (now non contract bowl) conference from top to bottom will not give you the best shot in gaining an invite to a bcs (now contract) bowl game.
Thus, in on the field provable measures, MWC=SBC=CUSA=NBE=MAC.

Saying "I'm better than you, just because yada yada yada" is akin to saying I'm a fat slob who can't get a date (nbe) but at least I'm not a fat slob who can't get a date (anyone else not in a contract league).

You are looking at what worked in the old system and assuming that it will work with the new system. It has already been discussed that the new BCS system will be using a selection committee and an RPI like system to judge teams. SOS is going to be a MAJOR factor. For non-AQ's, the 12-0 tomato can season may get you a trip to your conferences top bowl and little else in the new era. Assuming that the old Boise formula will work in the future is a reach. Every conference is scrambling for ways to upgrade thier schedule. Why would they do that if all that is needed is to go 12-0? It would be better to line up easy games. But thats not what is happening. Conferences are looking to beef up thier OOC schedules--not make them easier. What does that tell you about how the role of SOS in the future ranking process is shaping up behind closed doors?

The committee isn't going to take a 10-2 Big East over a 12-1 or 12-0 unless the AP poll gives them the cover to do it.

The committee's role is to convince the rubes that system is fair. Last thing they want is for the sportswriters asking what else is Northern Illinois, or Arkansas State or Southern Miss supposed to do if they run the table and a 10-2 UConn or 10-2 Boise State is selected. That sort of press is a big reason why we are getting the new system.

Thought quality of schedule entered into it with the new arrangement even more.

(02-02-2013 03:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I seriously doubt that.

The Alliance was a stupid idea.
First it was about gaining AQ status. That went away and it suddenly became about having a four team playoff to determine a champion, NCAA Manual be damned.
And of course it was supposed to be a great TV draw. Well MWC with a contract that is nearly 10 years old produces $12 million while the year old CUSA deal produces $14 million.

I think it was also about prestige. Keeping the WAC(Big West)/Sun Belt/FCS riffraff away from the Wyomings and New Mexicos and USMs and Tulanes as much as possible.

Quote:There is simply no way MWC was going to consider merging once CUSA lost its value teams. Now over-expanding certainly changed the playing field.

I think they could have if the TV money they thought would be there was actually there. But the TV value of lower-FBS football didn't seem to skyrocket the way power-conference football did.

Quote:If they had waited, they might have been able to do like MWC and lured some or all back.

Well, they'd have had UTEP, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, USM, UAB, Marshall and ECU. They'd be sitting at 8 and hoping that none of the 6 AQ conferences made a move. That's not a good spot to be in. Do you take Louisiana Tech? 9 is better than 8, anyway.

I think that, once the alliance with the MWC fell through (no new TV money, no AQ = no point), the new long-term C-USA plan is to go small and regional. That could mean a Big East-style split, that could mean just two divisions who barely play each other, or it could mean, if there's no more TV money after 2016, getting together with the Sun Belt and just re-shuffling the deck.

[qutoe]Even if they had failed at that, by waiting they probably wouldn't have chased so many move-ups to try to balance the east, probably gutted the western side of the Sun Belt and left the eastern schools with either an untenable travel scenario or led to the formation of a southeastern league that would have put the Sun Belt out of business.
[/quote]

Well, if C-USA hadn't moved ODU and/or Charlotte up, the Sun Belt probably would have. Could the Sun Belt have taken in Texas State and Georgia State plus UTSA, Charlotte and ODU? Why not?

Sun Belt West would look something like TxSt, UTSA, UNT, ULL, ULM, and stAte, plus UALR and UT-Arlington. Sun Belt East WKU, MTSU, Troy, USA, FIU, FAU, G-State, Charlotte, and ODU.

I don't know that C-USA is in a better position at that point. The schools with 30,000 butts in seats (USF, UCF, UConn, usually Cincy) are still going to want to limit their contact with ones that don't. Those five plus Houston, SMU, Memphis and Temple aren't coming back to C-USA barring a real earthquake, and probably not even then. (Even if their TV deal is terrible enough to send UConn and Cincy running to the C-7, and even if the C-7 take Cincy, the C-7 and Conference USF are still better off making a deal over the assets rather than dissolving and seeing the exit fees and tournament credits from Syracuse, Louisville etc evaporate. Houston and SMU may jump to the MWC, but Conference USF sends out some invites to get up to 8-9-10 schools. Southern Miss would come, joining USF, UCF, Memphis, Temple, Tulane, ECU, and 1-3 others.)

(02-02-2013 09:27 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Thought quality of schedule entered into it with the new arrangement even more.

Quality of schedule is going to mean whatever the committee wants it to mean. It could very well mean different things for the semifinals vs the Access Bowl.

i.e. a 12-1 power-conference team with 3 OOC wins over an FCS team, and two lower-FBS 2-10 squads gets left out of the semis for a 10-2 power conference team with better quality wins.

At the Access Bowl level, "strength of schedule" probably means "what power conference teams did you beat"? If ODU upsets Virginia Tech and VT still goes 8-4, then maybe an 10-3 ODU goes instead of an 11-2 Boise State who lost their power-conference game to open the season and lost a regular season game.

(02-02-2013 03:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 02:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 12:15 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Does anyone actually read these strings? At least, do they read anything other than their own posts?

In bcs era there have been 7 non aq teams in a bcs bowl. 4, and maybe 5, of those teams in the cartel bowl games came from a conference that was not the top rated non aq conference for that season.

While there MIGHT be a few dollars difference in television contracts (and if it's based on what the b/e says it's based on there won't be much difference in the contracts once C-USA is revisited), there is historical precedence saying being in the best non aq (now non contract bowl) conference from top to bottom will not give you the best shot in gaining an invite to a bcs (now contract) bowl game.
Thus, in on the field provable measures, MWC=SBC=CUSA=NBE=MAC.

Saying "I'm better than you, just because yada yada yada" is akin to saying I'm a fat slob who can't get a date (nbe) but at least I'm not a fat slob who can't get a date (anyone else not in a contract league).

You are looking at what worked in the old system and assuming that it will work with the new system. It has already been discussed that the new BCS system will be using a selection committee and an RPI like system to judge teams. SOS is going to be a MAJOR factor. For non-AQ's, the 12-0 tomato can season may get you a trip to your conferences top bowl and little else in the new era. Assuming that the old Boise formula will work in the future is a reach. Every conference is scrambling for ways to upgrade thier schedule. Why would they do that if all that is needed is to go 12-0? It would be better to line up easy games. But thats not what is happening. Conferences are looking to beef up thier OOC schedules--not make them easier. What does that tell you about how the role of SOS in the future ranking process is shaping up behind closed doors?

The committee isn't going to take a 10-2 Big East over a 12-1 or 12-0 unless the AP poll gives them the cover to do it.

The committee's role is to convince the rubes that system is fair. Last thing they want is for the sportswriters asking what else is Northern Illinois, or Arkansas State or Southern Miss supposed to do if they run the table and a 10-2 UConn or 10-2 Boise State is selected. That sort of press is a big reason why we are getting the new system.

Of course they will select a 10-2 Boise--if the RPI says its a far better pick than a 12-0 NIU. A selection committee is going to be WAY different. How do you think the Big East can put 9 teams in the tournament when the second place team in many leagues with much better records don't make it? The selection committee with an RPI componment will be safe from criticism just like the basketball selection committee is. Besides, with the RPIs being public, the national polls will start to reflect the BCS rankings--not the other way around. That's not to say that a 12-0 NIU can't make the BCS--it's just that it's not going to be automatic. If a 10-2 Cinci is there with an impressive AQ win and a close AQ loss and just one close loss in the season (to say, USF)---the Cinci RPI may beat out the 12-0 NIU record. Plus, even if it's close to even, the bowls might be whispering in the ear of the committee, saying we want Cinci cuz they travel better.

Btw-- That same RPI component will also likely put a glass ceiling on non-AQ playoff hopes---which is the real reason behind it in my opinion.

(02-02-2013 02:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 12:15 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Does anyone actually read these strings? At least, do they read anything other than their own posts?

In bcs era there have been 7 non aq teams in a bcs bowl. 4, and maybe 5, of those teams in the cartel bowl games came from a conference that was not the top rated non aq conference for that season.

While there MIGHT be a few dollars difference in television contracts (and if it's based on what the b/e says it's based on there won't be much difference in the contracts once C-USA is revisited), there is historical precedence saying being in the best non aq (now non contract bowl) conference from top to bottom will not give you the best shot in gaining an invite to a bcs (now contract) bowl game.
Thus, in on the field provable measures, MWC=SBC=CUSA=NBE=MAC.

Saying "I'm better than you, just because yada yada yada" is akin to saying I'm a fat slob who can't get a date (nbe) but at least I'm not a fat slob who can't get a date (anyone else not in a contract league).

You are looking at what worked in the old system and assuming that it will work with the new system. It has already been discussed that the new BCS system will be using a selection committee and an RPI like system to judge teams. SOS is going to be a MAJOR factor. For non-AQ's, the 12-0 tomato can season may get you a trip to your conferences top bowl and little else in the new era. Assuming that the old Boise formula will work in the future is a reach. Every conference is scrambling for ways to upgrade thier schedule. Why would they do that if all that is needed is to go 12-0? It would be better to line up easy games. But thats not what is happening. Conferences are looking to beef up thier OOC schedules--not make them easier. What does that tell you about how the role of SOS in the future ranking process is shaping up behind closed doors?

The selection committee is for the playoff games. The highest ranked non cartel gets the contract bowl. The five ugly sisters are not realistically playing for a playoff spot - only the contract bowl slot. Those slots are not decided on by the committee. The Boise model will work just fine up to the contract bowl level.....though I will agree not for the playoff (top four). We're not getting in that unless 12-0 with 4 wins over each of 4 different cartel conference champions.

You are entirely wrong about "everyone scrambling" to get the strongest teams in their conference.....sec did fine but rutgers and maryland to the b1g does not translate into the b1g going after power teams. rumors of nc, ncstate, duke and uva being targets in no way, form or fashion gives added football strength to any of the conferences they are rumored to be targets of.

SDSU and Boise fought over.....that's for television only. Even the n/be has not shown they are going after "football power" at all - zero indication of that.....in fact it's been widely and openly stated by nbe officials that their criteria is market size of the city where a team is located. tulane? memphis? together they have maybe 4 winning seasons over the last twenty years. Yep, they represent an obvious "football power" power grab.

My comments stand and you've even inadvertently made them stronger. NOW - would I prefer to move to the nbe? Of course. I'd prefer to remain with schools my team has a history of playing. I do think it's about the same path or maybe slightly easier in CUSA to a contract bowl but I'd prefer to face the devil I know than the devil I don't.

Attack, the evidence says you are wrong.

First there will be no RPI. Everyone involved has said an RPI-like formula won't work because the sample is too small.

In 2007 went 10-2 in the best non-AQ league. They beat Arizona, lost at UCLA and lost a barn-burner to 10-3 in regular season Tulsa. They then won the remainder of their games.

The computers had BYU 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 10 based on that superior SOS

The same year Hawaii went 12-0 defeating two FCS schools and 4-9 Washington.

Hawaii was 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 18 in the computers.

The human polls had Hawaii 10 and BYU 18 and 19.

Hawaii went to the BCS in 2007 and in that same scenario in 2014 they would go again. Computers be damned the committee isn't going to cause people to question the system by taking a team rated in human polls worse than the team they select.

(02-02-2013 11:37 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 02:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 12:15 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Does anyone actually read these strings? At least, do they read anything other than their own posts?

In bcs era there have been 7 non aq teams in a bcs bowl. 4, and maybe 5, of those teams in the cartel bowl games came from a conference that was not the top rated non aq conference for that season.

While there MIGHT be a few dollars difference in television contracts (and if it's based on what the b/e says it's based on there won't be much difference in the contracts once C-USA is revisited), there is historical precedence saying being in the best non aq (now non contract bowl) conference from top to bottom will not give you the best shot in gaining an invite to a bcs (now contract) bowl game.
Thus, in on the field provable measures, MWC=SBC=CUSA=NBE=MAC.

Saying "I'm better than you, just because yada yada yada" is akin to saying I'm a fat slob who can't get a date (nbe) but at least I'm not a fat slob who can't get a date (anyone else not in a contract league).

You are looking at what worked in the old system and assuming that it will work with the new system. It has already been discussed that the new BCS system will be using a selection committee and an RPI like system to judge teams. SOS is going to be a MAJOR factor. For non-AQ's, the 12-0 tomato can season may get you a trip to your conferences top bowl and little else in the new era. Assuming that the old Boise formula will work in the future is a reach. Every conference is scrambling for ways to upgrade thier schedule. Why would they do that if all that is needed is to go 12-0? It would be better to line up easy games. But thats not what is happening. Conferences are looking to beef up thier OOC schedules--not make them easier. What does that tell you about how the role of SOS in the future ranking process is shaping up behind closed doors?

The selection committee is for the playoff games. The highest ranked non cartel gets the contract bowl. The five ugly sisters are not realistically playing for a playoff spot - only the contract bowl slot. Those slots are not decided on by the committee. The Boise model will work just fine up to the contract bowl level.....though I will agree not for the playoff (top four). We're not getting in that unless 12-0 with 4 wins over each of 4 different cartel conference champions.

You are entirely wrong about "everyone scrambling" to get the strongest teams in their conference.....sec did fine but rutgers and maryland to the b1g does not translate into the b1g going after power teams. rumors of nc, ncstate, duke and uva being targets in no way, form or fashion gives added football strength to any of the conferences they are rumored to be targets of.

SDSU and Boise fought over.....that's for television only. Even the n/be has not shown they are going after "football power" at all - zero indication of that.....in fact it's been widely and openly stated by nbe officials that their criteria is market size of the city where a team is located. tulane? memphis? together they have maybe 4 winning seasons over the last twenty years. Yep, they represent an obvious "football power" power grab.

My comments stand and you've even inadvertently made them stronger. NOW - would I prefer to move to the nbe? Of course. I'd prefer to remain with schools my team has a history of playing. I do think it's about the same path or maybe slightly easier in CUSA to a contract bowl but I'd prefer to face the devil I know than the devil I don't.

Actually your premise is incorrect. The selection committee will select the non-AQ BCS representative. The highest ranked nonAQ schools gets the nod. Who do think is going to rank them? The current BCS polls are going bye-bye. They are being replaced by rankings created by a selection committee--so yes, the selection committee will decide who the top ranking non-AQ is. An RPI factor of some sort will be a MAJOR factor in these discussions.

The current talk of scheduling agreements is being made entirely with the idea upgrading OOC schedules. I agree, not every nBE addition has been a football power. Most of the selections were made prior to knowing what the new system would be exactly. These selections were made with tv in mind--as well as creating a balance of football and basketball power. Tulane was a unique situation created by the C7, so that addition isn't part of any strategic plan. Tulsa makes sense on an academic, athletic, and television market basis. S Miss is in the conversation now---certainly not due to thier market. They are being considered mainly because of thier on field football success. Personally, I wish we had added S Miss rather than Tulane, but, it is what it is--that's water under the bridge at this point. At this point I just have to hope Tulanes new found commitment to athletics allows them to become far more successful than they have been in the recent past.

(02-02-2013 11:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Of course they will select a 10-2 Boise--if the RPI says its a far better pick than a 12-0 NIU.

If Boise is higher in the polls, which is likely, since they're known and will start higher. If SMU starts unranked, though, in 2014, and goes 10-2 with 2 OOC wins out of Baylor, TCU and A&M (peeking at fbschedules.com), and loses an overtime game in conference, does an 12-1 Boise who loses their opener to Ole Miss and then cruises through a soft MWC schedule get the nod? A weak 12-1 probably beats a strong 10-2 or 11-2.

I believe the guy who said if he was a committee member, he'd talk about all kinds of factors and SOS and RPI and conference strength and injuries and phases of the moon and then go into the room and follow the AP poll. And the AP poll voters tend to not pay that much attention to schedule strength for lower-FBS teams.

Quote: If a 10-2 Cinci is there with an impressive AQ win and a close AQ loss and just one close loss in the season (to say, USF)---the Cinci RPI may beat out the 12-0 NIU record. Plus, even if it's close to even, the bowls might be whispering in the ear of the committee, saying we want Cinci cuz they travel better.

I think the MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt votes will go for the undefeated team every time. The power-conference votes might do the same, since if one of their teams get "stuck" in the Access Bowl, they'd rather it be against an undefeated creampuff than a tougher 11-2 squad--compare nearly-undefeated NIU to Louisville. Yes, Louisville would sell more tickets, but that's not the committee's problem. The Bearcats would lose out.

Quote:Btw-- That same RPI component will also likely put a glass ceiling on non-AQ playoff hopes---which is the real reason behind it in my opinion.

Mmmm, I think a 13-0 AP No. 6 Cincinnati will have 5 out of 10 votes for a semifinal spot. Again, MAC/Sun Belt/CUSA have a big incentive to weight undefeated teams heavily. I don't see the Mountain West voting to block an undefeated lower-FBS team from the playoffs.

Being undefeated is still going to matter more than SOS or RPI. Being undefeated with a weak SOS maybe puts you at No. 10 in the polls and in the Access Bowl compared to being undefeated with a strong SOS and going to the semifinals as AP No 5 or 6. But having one loss, if someone else is unbeaten, probably means that you're locked out of the major bowls.

Thought you (nBEJ) were adding Southern Miss and Tulsa to the mix.

(02-02-2013 11:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Attack, the evidence says you are wrong.

First there will be no RPI. Everyone involved has said an RPI-like formula won't work because the sample is too small.

In 2007 went 10-2 in the best non-AQ league. They beat Arizona, lost at UCLA and lost a barn-burner to 10-3 in regular season Tulsa. They then won the remainder of their games.

The computers had BYU 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 10 based on that superior SOS

The same year Hawaii went 12-0 defeating two FCS schools and 4-9 Washington.

Hawaii was 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 18 in the computers.

The human polls had Hawaii 10 and BYU 18 and 19.

Hawaii went to the BCS in 2007 and in that same scenario in 2014 they would go again. Computers be damned the committee isn't going to cause people to question the system by taking a team rated in human polls worse than the team they select.

I actually agree with the idea that the the committee would not want to be too different than the the polls. Heres where I think you may be missing something very important. Its not like the selection committee will swoop in at the last minute and make these decisions like is done in basketball. The propsed football selection committee will begin meeting and publishing rankings well in advance of the the end to the season taking the place of the current BCS computer rankings. I dont know the exact week, but lets say they start putting out rankings after the season mid-point in week 6. That gives the polls a month and half to digest the opinion and reasoning of the committee. My guess is that by the seasons end, the traditional polls will slowly move to be largely in line with the committee polls.

Remember--the members of the committees will have people who have watched far more games than the the writers or coaches. Who is likley to be more accurate? If there is a descrepency--who is more likley to viewed as right or wrong? They have already indicated that something like the RPI will be used (the sample size is the sample size, 12-0 is nothing more than another type of sample that is just as small---would that team be undefeated if it played 13 games?). Using an RPI method, despite the sample size, is more likley to be viewed as adding some form of unbiased legitimacy to the process. Plus the big conferneces are pretty much insisting on some form of ts use. Thus an RPI factor of some sort is going to firgure prominately in future rankings.

Finally, voting blocks will not be able to swing the committee. Each conference will be represented, but there will also be 8-10 extra members chosen. The conference representative with a team being debated will not have a vote if I understand the process correctly. I actually think the committee will likely do a fair job of putting the best non-AQ champ in the BCS game. I think they want the best team there. Thats not my real problem with the selection committee system. I have serious doubts about the committee ever placing a qualified non-AQ in the playoff. Thats where I think there is an issue with bias.

The committee's job is to convince people the system is legit.

Look at 2006 for another example.
BYU 10-2 played all FBS opponents. Boise State coming out of the WAC 12-0.

The BCS system picked Boise and a committee would almost certainly done the same despite the softer schedule for Boise.

This isn't like the NCAA Tournament where you can quibble over who should be the 37th at-large or over seeding but when you get to that point few people really care if you take candidate A or B. You aren't arguing over ranked teams in picking the 37th at-large.

There are only five slots being seriously considered. The four playoff teams and who is the group of five representative. More often than not the committee will be looking at 2 if not 3 ranked teams for the G5 slot and remaining credible in the face of ignoring the AP and USA Today polls is a dangerous proposition when people already don't trust the system.

(02-02-2013 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The committee's job is to convince people the system is legit.
Look at 2006 for another example.
BYU 10-2 played all FBS opponents. Boise State coming out of the WAC 12-0.

The BCS system picked Boise and a committee would almost certainly done the same despite the softer schedule for Boise.

This isn't like the NCAA Tournament where you can quibble over who should be the 37th at-large or over seeding but when you get to that point few people really care if you take candidate A or B. You aren't arguing over ranked teams in picking the 37th at-large.

There are only five slots being seriously considered. The four playoff teams and who is the group of five representative. More often than not the committee will be looking at 2 if not 3 ranked teams for the G5 slot and remaining credible in the face of ignoring the AP and USA Today polls is a dangerous proposition when people already don't trust the system.

Actually thier job is to pick the best team. When judging between non-AQ teams, I think they will do an excellent job. As Ive mentioned several times, they will have published ranking for a month to a month and a half prior to the end of the season. The logic and reasoning behind those rankings will likely influence AP/USA voters. By the end of the season, I doubt theres much difference between the poll rankings. Keep in mind, the current BCS rankings doesnt even include margin of victory as a factor. Plus, SOS was reduced as a factor several years ago. Sounds like the big boys want to move closer to the way it was early on.

Bottom line--A 8-4 UConn was about as competetive against Oklahoma as NIU was against Florida State. Both were halfway watchable games until late in the 3rd quarter.

Given those fiascos Im certain a 2 loss MW or Bg East champ will get a VERY hard look over an undefeated or one loss MAC school. It will come down to the schedules each played, the margins of difference, and the old "eye" test. These guys want the best match up possible. They dont want the non-AQ bowl to be a laugher disaster every year.

To me, it comes down to what these people keep saying. They keep insisting that SOS will be a MAJOR factor in the decision. If so, then I think I'll be right. If not, then you are probably going to be correct as the system would operate much as it has in the past.

A friend of mine today reminded me that there are a lot of "undrafted free agents," who anchor big league ball clubs in the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. . . . just saying . . . wonder if any of those kind of universities are getting any serious vetting by Aresco & Co.?

(02-02-2013 10:41 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  A friend of mine today reminded me that there are a lot of "undrafted free agents," who anchor big league ball clubs in the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. . . . just saying . . . wonder if any of those kind of universities are getting any serious vetting by Aresco & Co.?

I doubt it.The Big East is most likely going after the orginal CUSA members.CUSA is going after the remaining Sun Belt members.and Sun Belt is going after FCS call-ups and leftovers.