c-usa fans like to brag like they are better than the aac because of the bcs distribution system

the sunbelt's commish talks about the system, basically saying it doesn't reward better team/conferences it rewards easier schedules and easier bowl games.
he wants the sunbelt to stop taking so many almost unwinnable pay games for more winnable pay games and home and homes with g5

he says you lose some money in the front end but make it back in the back, plus you get more wins and a better conference reputation

this could explain aresco's desire to add so many crappy bowls, bowls we'd easily win

c-usa from top to bottom had the weakest OOC and their top team was carried of the worst OOC in the nation..we played the hardest OOC top to bottom of all the g5 and then all p5/byu in our bowl games.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...five-games

The system that is set up respects wins. That is why Boise St. is relevant. For one or two season, it may matter who you play, but in the long run if you keep winning that is what counts.

(07-24-2015 02:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  c-usa fans like to brag like they are better than the aac because of the bcs distribution system

the sunbelt's commish talks about the system, basically saying it doesn't reward better team/conferences it rewards easier schedules and easier bowl games.
he wants the sunbelt to stop taking so many almost unwinnable pay games for more winnable pay games and home and homes with g5

he says you lose some money in the front end but make it back in the back, plus you get more wins and a better conference reputation

this could explain aresco's desire to add so many crappy bowls, bowls we'd easily win

c-usa from top to bottom had the weakest OOC and their top team was carried of the worst OOC in the nation..we played the hardest OOC top to bottom of all the g5 and then all p5/byu in our bowl games.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...five-games

All good intelligent comments except bold...as ARESCO had no choice since the P5 Conf locked up almost every good bowl game.

ARESCO wasn't turning down the Orange Bowl or Capital One Bowl or Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl to sign deals with the Miami Bowl.

Please find one upper tier bowl game(s) that offered AAC a deal that Aresco rejected for say a Boca Raton type bowl game.

At the end of the season nobody cares about who you beat or almost beat. 11-2 always looks better than 9-4

(07-24-2015 05:40 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  c-usa fans like to brag like they are better than the aac because of the bcs distribution system

the sunbelt's commish talks about the system, basically saying it doesn't reward better team/conferences it rewards easier schedules and easier bowl games.
he wants the sunbelt to stop taking so many almost unwinnable pay games for more winnable pay games and home and homes with g5

he says you lose some money in the front end but make it back in the back, plus you get more wins and a better conference reputation

this could explain aresco's desire to add so many crappy bowls, bowls we'd easily win

c-usa from top to bottom had the weakest OOC and their top team was carried of the worst OOC in the nation..we played the hardest OOC top to bottom of all the g5 and then all p5/byu in our bowl games.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...five-games

All good intelligent comments except bold...as ARESCO had no choice since the P5 Conf locked up almost every good bowl game.

ARESCO wasn't turning down the Orange Bowl or Capital One Bowl or Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl to sign deals with the Miami Bowl.

Please find one upper tier bowl game(s) that offered AAC a deal that Aresco rejected for say a Boca Raton type bowl game.

I get that but I'm talking backfilling with horrible bowls Instead of getting contracts as back up teams for bigger bowls

He could have even pushed Mac even maybe c-USA but he was doing 5th and 6th sunbelt teams

(07-24-2015 05:43 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  At the end of the season nobody cares about who you beat or almost beat. 11-2 always looks better than 9-4

Tell Marshall that.

(07-24-2015 06:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:43 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  At the end of the season nobody cares about who you beat or almost beat. 11-2 always looks better than 9-4

Tell Marshall that.

You have a point though Marshall's schedule was really weak.....not totally through fault of their own as Louisville cancelled a game with them and they had to backfill with a creampuff. I believe though that their schedule is again pretty weak this year.

As I understood what he's promoting, Benson's talking about scheduling typical mid-range P5's, beatable P5's, as opposed to the cream-of-the-crop for a big payday.....then scheduling cream-of-the crop G5's for help with strength of schedule, and of course, winning.

(07-24-2015 06:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:43 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  At the end of the season nobody cares about who you beat or almost beat. 11-2 always looks better than 9-4

Tell Marshall that.

That's #22 Marshall to you.

(07-24-2015 07:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:43 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  At the end of the season nobody cares about who you beat or almost beat. 11-2 always looks better than 9-4

Tell Marshall that.

That's #22 Marshall to you.

Yeah. Until after week 1.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

(07-24-2015 07:13 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:43 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  At the end of the season nobody cares about who you beat or almost beat. 11-2 always looks better than 9-4

Tell Marshall that.

That's #22 Marshall to you.

until they play a decent P5 or AAC team that is.

Why start this thread. No one cares about the Sunbelt.

(07-24-2015 09:06 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Why start this thread. No one cares about the Sunbelt.

This was about the flaw in the distribution system... The distribution from which the AAC gets half its revenue from

(07-24-2015 02:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  c-usa from top to bottom had the weakest OOC

I'm curious as to what data that assessment is based on.

(07-24-2015 10:48 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  c-usa from top to bottom had the weakest OOC

I'm curious as to what data that assessment is based on.

you played the 2nd most g5 among all the g5 congferences ...barely edgeing out the sunbelt, but the sunbelt had 11 teams and c-usa had 13 teams..on average c-usa had more g5 per team

and almost all of these g5 were bottom or lower tier g5...
utsa had a great ooc but talking about c-usa as a whole...

(07-24-2015 05:43 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  At the end of the season nobody cares about who you beat or almost beat. 11-2 always looks better than 9-4

Tell Marshall that.

Good point. When the playoff system was adopted, strong assurances were given that strength of schedule would be important.

Some of the Sun Belt schools need those buy games to stay afloat and aren't going to drop them in hopes that they get the best G5 distribution bonus.

(07-24-2015 06:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:40 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  

All good intelligent comments except bold...as ARESCO had no choice since the P5 Conf locked up almost every good bowl game.

ARESCO wasn't turning down the Orange Bowl or Capital One Bowl or Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl to sign deals with the Miami Bowl.

Please find one upper tier bowl game(s) that offered AAC a deal that Aresco rejected for say a Boca Raton type bowl game.

I get that but I'm talking backfilling with horrible bowls Instead of getting contracts as back up teams for bigger bowls

He could have even pushed Mac even maybe c-USA but he was doing 5th and 6th sunbelt teams

Exactly how many G5 schools filled a back up spot last year?? My guess 1 or none. There was no back filling to be done. The AAC has more games vs P5 in bowls than any other G5. He didn't run away from those match ups. Hell we couldn't even hold on to the liberty bowl. Bottom line is our lower teams are having to play in lower level bowls...If all the bowls were coming up next year for renewal could AAC do better now we would have a 3 year track record? Probably slightly better, but likely not much.

(07-25-2015 09:36 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:23 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:40 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  

All good intelligent comments except bold...as ARESCO had no choice since the P5 Conf locked up almost every good bowl game.

ARESCO wasn't turning down the Orange Bowl or Capital One Bowl or Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl to sign deals with the Miami Bowl.

Please find one upper tier bowl game(s) that offered AAC a deal that Aresco rejected for say a Boca Raton type bowl game.

I get that but I'm talking backfilling with horrible bowls Instead of getting contracts as back up teams for bigger bowls

He could have even pushed Mac even maybe c-USA but he was doing 5th and 6th sunbelt teams

Exactly how many G5 schools filled a back up spot last year?? My guess 1 or none. There was no back filling to be done. The AAC has more games vs P5 in bowls than any other G5. He didn't run away from those match ups. Hell we couldn't even hold on to the liberty bowl. Bottom line is our lower teams are having to play in lower level bowls...If all the bowls were coming up next year for renewal could AAC do better now we would have a 3 year track record? Probably slightly better, but likely not much.

Our only real chance to land a decent bowl is upgrading the payout of the AAC owned Miami Bowl high enough to attract a significant opponent, otherwise our lineup will look largely the same the next bowl cycle. We might shuffle around a bit (Picking up New Orleans For instance)---but I still don't see us landing even a Liberty/Belk/Music City level bowl---much less anything higher.

(07-25-2015 07:53 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:48 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:50 PM)pesik Wrote:  c-usa from top to bottom had the weakest OOC

I'm curious as to what data that assessment is based on.

you played the 2nd most g5 among all the g5 congferences ...barely edgeing out the sunbelt, but the sunbelt had 11 teams and c-usa had 13 teams..on average c-usa had more g5 per team

and almost all of these g5 were bottom or lower tier g5...
utsa had a great ooc but talking about c-usa as a whole...

I researched it this morning and compiled it into a table, but the formatting shortcomings of CSNbbs won't allow me to make a table here, so I'll provide a link to RowdyTalk, our UTSA discussion forum, for you to look at what I found.

Based on my findings, the MAC, without a doubt, had the weakest OOC schedule because even though they scheduled an ever-so-slightly higher percentage of games against P5 opposition, only 9 of their 25 P5 opponents had winning records, meaning their P5 games were mostly against cellar dwellers. Compare that to C-USA where 18 of our 24 P5 opponents finished with winning records. The MAC also played a higher percentage of their games against FCS opposition, and only 20 of their 44 games overall against FBS programs were against teams with winning records while 28 of our 48 games overall against FBS programs were against teams with winning records.

I found that the AAC scheduled the toughest OOC teams overall, so kudos to you guys on that. But C-USA did not have the weakest schedule. I'll also add that even though only 10 of our 24 G5 opponents had winning records, we were 8-2 in the ten games against winning G5 programs and our 20-4 record overall against G5 was best by far of any conference. At any rate, here's the link so that you can see the table...

http://www.rowdytalk.com/showthread.php/...Comparison