(02-06-2014 09:53 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 08:18 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 08:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There must be a collective comprehension problem going on in this topic because CUSA has nothing well..at most 20% with the SBC retaining the #1 rated spot again next year.

Chiefsfan I think the OOC wins had very little to do with the SBC ranking...beating each other and having a conference full of average (record) schools had more to do with having the better average

OOC has a lot to do with it. In fact almost all to do with it. Your conference wins and losses always even out to the same number regardless how many teams go 0 for 8 and how many go 8-0. League records always even out to .500. CUSA went 56-56 last year in league. SBC 28-28.

Its the OOC games that make or break the bank.

Of course every conference will go .500 once during conference play but it's not like every win = every loss because there is no formula in play . It's the average of every school in the conference and if it was OOC then Western and TXST would have been ahead of UL-L and ASU because both had better and more wins and only one loss.

You're still not getting it. If Georgia State beats WKU...The Sun Belt gets whatever the drop is for having a team lose to Georgia State, but gains back whatever the gain is for beating WKU. The net result is the same. WKU's ranking and SOS would go down, but Georgia State's would go up.

Had Texas State gone 1-4 in OOC Play instead of 4-1, the SBC would not have finished first. We won because several schools did really well in OOC play and won enough games to get eligible and offset the fact that they took a few league losses. Those league losses were going to come regardless whether or not they won or lost their OOC Games.

(02-06-2014 10:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:53 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Of course every conference will go .500 once during conference play but it's not like every win = every loss because there is no formula in play . It's the average of every school in the conference and if it was OOC then Western and TXST would have been ahead of UL-L and ASU because both had better and more wins and only one loss.

Having trouble following your first sentence.

But your 2nd has some meaning. TXST and WKU OOC wins counted toward the total.

Texas State's and WKU's OOC is the reason we won. The point is the ranking system for the NCAA does not take into account who won the league. That point is irrelevant because there is always going to be a champ of every league. What it is taking account is how the league as a whole did in their games this season.

If New Mexico State goes 0-8 in league next year but wins three OOC games...that 0-8 league record is going to mean virtually little, because those 3 OOC victories will give them a higher ranking.

The league that wins the prize will ultimately be the one whose teams produce the most in OOC play.

(02-07-2014 01:12 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 10:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:53 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Of course every conference will go .500 once during conference play but it's not like every win = every loss because there is no formula in play . It's the average of every school in the conference and if it was OOC then Western and TXST would have been ahead of UL-L and ASU because both had better and more wins and only one loss.

Having trouble following your first sentence.

But your 2nd has some meaning. TXST and WKU OOC wins counted toward the total.

Texas State's and WKU's OOC is the reason we won. The point is the ranking system for the NCAA does not take into account who won the league. That point is irrelevant because there is always going to be a champ of every league. What it is taking account is how the league as a whole did in their games this season.

If New Mexico State goes 0-8 in league next year but wins three OOC games...that 0-8 league record is going to mean virtually little, because those 3 OOC victories will give them a higher ranking.

The league that wins the prize will ultimately be the one whose teams produce the most in OOC play.

I don't tink you are getting the total picture that I'm trying to explain...the SBC wasn't the top ranked conference because of OOC winning %. I'm not saying that didn't help but it wasn't the sole reason or even the main reason.

Everyone beating each other up during conference plat isn't very good if you want to get noticed by the polls at the top.

But it's great if you don't want schools at the bottom and that's where the SBC had the advantage over every other conference...

we kicked the crap out of each other and that led to a conference full of average schools with average records.

75% ended up with a winning conference record.
46% for the MAC had winning conference records (61% with .500 or above)
58% for the Mountain West
50% for CUSA

Let me explain it this way it's about like I tried to explain with the RPI in basketball....without the formula. The school losing a game might not fall as much as a school winning and the other way also .

Case in point USA probably gained more points (spots in each poll/ranking) than UL-L loss for winning over UL-L. So in that respect each loss isn't = to each win and vice versa.

Other words it's easier to move the bottom of a conference up by winning in conference than it is to move the top of a conference up by winning...


there's more room to move.

So by the SBC having a competitive conference from top to bottom and less schools with the margin to fail it was the bottom of the SBC that was better than the other 3.

While OOC played a part it was the 4 wins during conference play for 4 out of 8 schools that moved the conference in position to past the MAC with their failure in bowl games.

The MAC was exact opposite of the SBC with a high top of the conference but a "true" bottom that the SBC did not have. Or at least as large because the number of schools in the conference wasn't there.

If I'm not mistaken the ranking was based on the average BCS ranking of the conference members and that's where being average 6-5 helped and that's where beating each other up helped....winning helps period so I'm not dismissing the OOC

(02-06-2014 06:43 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  The AAC and the MWC are still the best of the rest. They will be for the foreseeable future. Most of the Belt programs are still new to FBS and the other programs are basically new as well (stAte & Louisiana) considering that it has only been 4 years since the admin committed to athletics.

The AAC has borderline AQ programs that are now rejects. The MWC has the same on the west coast. The rest of us Belt, CUSA and MAC have really not took that step to the next level, the MAC has ranked teams but the bottom of that league couldn't win the Southland.

The Sun Belt just really needs to continue to win OOC games and pull off an upset or two.

As a MAC guy, I agree with you. The bottom of the MAC is brutal(and they all take turns!)

BTW, the MWC is not that great(based on last year)

(02-07-2014 01:49 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 01:12 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 10:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:53 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Of course every conference will go .500 once during conference play but it's not like every win = every loss because there is no formula in play . It's the average of every school in the conference and if it was OOC then Western and TXST would have been ahead of UL-L and ASU because both had better and more wins and only one loss.

Having trouble following your first sentence.

But your 2nd has some meaning. TXST and WKU OOC wins counted toward the total.

Texas State's and WKU's OOC is the reason we won. The point is the ranking system for the NCAA does not take into account who won the league. That point is irrelevant because there is always going to be a champ of every league. What it is taking account is how the league as a whole did in their games this season.

If New Mexico State goes 0-8 in league next year but wins three OOC games...that 0-8 league record is going to mean virtually little, because those 3 OOC victories will give them a higher ranking.

The league that wins the prize will ultimately be the one whose teams produce the most in OOC play.

I don't tink you are getting the total picture that I'm trying to explain...the SBC wasn't the top ranked conference because of OOC winning %. I'm not saying that didn't help but it wasn't the sole reason or even the main reason.

Everyone beating each other up during conference plat isn't very good if you want to get noticed by the polls at the top.

But it's great if you don't want schools at the bottom and that's where the SBC had the advantage over every other conference...

we kicked the crap out of each other and that led to a conference full of average schools with average records.

75% ended up with a winning conference record.
46% for the MAC had winning conference records (61% with .500 or above)
58% for the Mountain West
50% for CUSA

Let me explain it this way it's about like I tried to explain with the RPI in basketball....without the formula. The school losing a game might not fall as much as a school winning and the other way also .

Case in point USA probably gained more points (spots in each poll/ranking) than UL-L loss for winning over UL-L. So in that respect each loss isn't = to each win and vice versa.

Other words it's easier to move the bottom of a conference up by winning in conference than it is to move the top of a conference up by winning...


there's more room to move.

So by the SBC having a competitive conference from top to bottom and less schools with the margin to fail it was the bottom of the SBC that was better than the other 3.

While OOC played a part it was the 4 wins during conference play for 4 out of 8 schools that moved the conference in position to past the MAC with their failure in bowl games.

The MAC was exact opposite of the SBC with a high top of the conference but a "true" bottom that the SBC did not have. Or at least as large because the number of schools in the conference wasn't there.

If I'm not mistaken the ranking was based on the average BCS ranking of the conference members and that's where being average 6-5 helped and that's where beating each other up helped....winning helps period so I'm not dismissing the OOC

The NCAA uses their own rankings that were separate from the BCS. Next year, they will use their own ranking system again that will be completely separate from the system that determines the top G5 team.

If I remember correctly, we were not near the top conference according to the BCS. The BCS uses polls and rankings from humans and computers alike, meaning human bias entered into the picture and would keep us from ever getting terribly high.

The NCAA's system is very similar to RPI, yes, but its conference RPI, not teams. There may be small fluctuations based on league results. But a large portion of it ends up being based on out of conference results. For instance, if Idaho and NMSU both go 3-1 next year in OOC Play, but go 1-7 and 0-8 in the SBC respectively, they are going to be ranked higher than a 2-10 CUSA team that went 0-4 in league play...why? Because their victories were better.

(02-07-2014 02:33 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 01:49 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 01:12 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 10:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:53 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Of course every conference will go .500 once during conference play but it's not like every win = every loss because there is no formula in play . It's the average of every school in the conference and if it was OOC then Western and TXST would have been ahead of UL-L and ASU because both had better and more wins and only one loss.

Having trouble following your first sentence.

But your 2nd has some meaning. TXST and WKU OOC wins counted toward the total.

Texas State's and WKU's OOC is the reason we won. The point is the ranking system for the NCAA does not take into account who won the league. That point is irrelevant because there is always going to be a champ of every league. What it is taking account is how the league as a whole did in their games this season.

If New Mexico State goes 0-8 in league next year but wins three OOC games...that 0-8 league record is going to mean virtually little, because those 3 OOC victories will give them a higher ranking.

The league that wins the prize will ultimately be the one whose teams produce the most in OOC play.

I don't tink you are getting the total picture that I'm trying to explain...the SBC wasn't the top ranked conference because of OOC winning %. I'm not saying that didn't help but it wasn't the sole reason or even the main reason.

Everyone beating each other up during conference plat isn't very good if you want to get noticed by the polls at the top.

But it's great if you don't want schools at the bottom and that's where the SBC had the advantage over every other conference...

we kicked the crap out of each other and that led to a conference full of average schools with average records.

75% ended up with a winning conference record.
46% for the MAC had winning conference records (61% with .500 or above)
58% for the Mountain West
50% for CUSA

Let me explain it this way it's about like I tried to explain with the RPI in basketball....without the formula. The school losing a game might not fall as much as a school winning and the other way also .

Case in point USA probably gained more points (spots in each poll/ranking) than UL-L loss for winning over UL-L. So in that respect each loss isn't = to each win and vice versa.

Other words it's easier to move the bottom of a conference up by winning in conference than it is to move the top of a conference up by winning...


there's more room to move.

So by the SBC having a competitive conference from top to bottom and less schools with the margin to fail it was the bottom of the SBC that was better than the other 3.

While OOC played a part it was the 4 wins during conference play for 4 out of 8 schools that moved the conference in position to past the MAC with their failure in bowl games.

The MAC was exact opposite of the SBC with a high top of the conference but a "true" bottom that the SBC did not have. Or at least as large because the number of schools in the conference wasn't there.

If I'm not mistaken the ranking was based on the average BCS ranking of the conference members and that's where being average 6-5 helped and that's where beating each other up helped....winning helps period so I'm not dismissing the OOC

The NCAA uses their own rankings that were separate from the BCS. Next year, they will use their own ranking system again that will be completely separate from the system that determines the top G5 team.

If I remember correctly, we were not near the top conference according to the BCS. The BCS uses polls and rankings from humans and computers alike, meaning human bias entered into the picture and would keep us from ever getting terribly high.

The NCAA's system is very similar to RPI, yes, but its conference RPI, not teams. There may be small fluctuations based on league results. But a large portion of it ends up being based on out of conference results. For instance, if Idaho and NMSU both go 3-1 next year in OOC Play, but go 1-7 and 0-8 in the SBC respectively, they are going to be ranked higher than a 2-10 CUSA team that went 0-4 in league play...why? Because their victories were better.

I'm going by the link posted on this board
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/d...ear-of-bcs

below are captures from the link

the total is a average of the 6 polls and the conference total is a average of the members

Being top conference in the rankings is a simple math game.

Last year the WAC finished #1. They had two teams combine for 1-11, a 4-8 and then an 8 game winner, a 9, and two 11 game winners.

We got #1 this year with 7 teams at .500 or better and a winless team. If Georgia State wins at Texas State and at home vs Troy (both 7 point losses), the Sun Belt has 5 teams at .500 or better and three with losing records and probably doesn't win the #1 slot.

The best way to get to the top is have your bad teams be dreadful so your average teams edge over into the winning category rather having the bad team and a couple average team all end up with losing records.

(02-06-2014 11:08 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  You outperformed which conferences now?

You decide.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html

(02-07-2014 10:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Being top conference in the rankings is a simple math game.

Last year the WAC finished #1. They had two teams combine for 1-11, a 4-8 and then an 8 game winner, a 9, and two 11 game winners.

We got #1 this year with 7 teams at .500 or better and a winless team. If Georgia State wins at Texas State and at home vs Troy (both 7 point losses), the Sun Belt has 5 teams at .500 or better and three with losing records and probably doesn't win the #1 slot.

The best way to get to the top is have your bad teams be dreadful so your average teams edge over into the winning category rather having the bad team and a couple average team all end up with losing records.

Winning OOC games help everyone in the conference and pulls other conferences down. I see what you are saying but the best scenario is to have a GaState type team be the worst team in the league with at least two OOC wins not 0. You are not going to rated the top league without one of the best OOC records so it needs to probably be a combination.

(02-10-2014 02:59 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-07-2014 10:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Being top conference in the rankings is a simple math game.

Last year the WAC finished #1. They had two teams combine for 1-11, a 4-8 and then an 8 game winner, a 9, and two 11 game winners.

We got #1 this year with 7 teams at .500 or better and a winless team. If Georgia State wins at Texas State and at home vs Troy (both 7 point losses), the Sun Belt has 5 teams at .500 or better and three with losing records and probably doesn't win the #1 slot.

The best way to get to the top is have your bad teams be dreadful so your average teams edge over into the winning category rather having the bad team and a couple average team all end up with losing records.

Winning OOC games help everyone in the conference and pulls other conferences down. I see what you are saying but the best scenario is to have a GaState type team be the worst team in the league with at least two OOC wins not 0. You are not going to rated the top league without one of the best OOC records so it needs to probably be a combination.

Ideally everyone goes at least .500 in non-conference then someone is just dreadful in conference.

It's going to be hard to build an image as long as conference realignment is going on as well. When you view the Sun Belt through that lens most people feel ASU and UL are itching to leave. That's got a pretty strong effect on conference prestige.

(02-10-2014 02:52 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 11:08 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  You outperformed which conferences now?

You decide.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html

That list is sorted based on 'win percentage'.

The American Athletic Conference played 3 more regular season games in that list than the Sun Belt.

This does not include who we beat in bowl games (Miami (FL), Baylor).

The "vast" majority of fans can't tell the difference between the AAC, MWC, or the ABC. Join a conference with a south eastern footprint. Win OOC games and bowls. Control the controllables. The rest will take care of itself. One game at a time.

Someone will have a breakout year in OOC games. Then we will welcome them back to the conference with a couple of ars whoopins and it's on. This will happen! I just hope it's GS.

(02-10-2014 02:52 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 11:08 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  You outperformed which conferences now?

You decide.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html

the conference look very good among the G5, including the AAC

Once App and GS are established in FBS, the SBC will really become an even better league and solidly ahead of CUSA, MAC etc. You can see this year the impact we made in recruiting and that is before we have had a chance to recruit as an established FBS program with new facilities in place. Both programs are built on a foundation of winning and we both dominated the G5 programs when they were FCS. The SBC will become the "baby SEC" soon. GaSt will at least become a good team. There is too much talent in GA for all three new teams not to succeed.

(02-11-2014 12:15 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 02:52 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 11:08 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  You outperformed which conferences now?

You decide.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.html

That list is sorted based on 'win percentage'.

The American Athletic Conference played 3 more regular season games in that list than the Sun Belt.

This does not include who we beat in bowl games (Miami (FL), Baylor).

Well since not every conference has the same amount of teams and or plays the same amount of OOC games win % is the only thing to compare (stats 101) Also the win % DOES include the bowl games, check again. Bottom line the Sun Belt did just as good as any G5 OOC. Since we did not all play the same teams hard to say who is better but the Sun Belt plays more regular season SEC / Big 12 OOC games than any conference year after year. The ACC passed us with the SEC with the bowl games. The Sun Belt should really play fewer SEC games but the low travel costs and higher payouts are hard to pass up I guess. Next year it is going to drop no doubt. App and GS have to build depth and NMSU, Idaho and Ga State can't get any worse. Like someone else said every conference is going to have a couple of teams at the bottom we just need ours no matter who they are to be a little better than the other conferences bad teams. So hopefully one step back leads to many steps forward in the coming years.

SEC
SB 1-8 AAC 2-3
ACC
SB 1-1 AAC 1-4
Big 12
SB 0-5 AAC 1-2
IND
SB 5-1 AAC 1-4
MWC
SB 1-0 AAC 0-1
COOSA
SB 4-1 AAC 4-2
MAC
SB 3-0 AAC 4-1
FCS
SB 6-4 AAC 6-3
Big 10
SB 0-0 AAC 2-3