(05-28-2016 09:47 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  So a side by side comparison of Top 50 non-conference teams played is a biased stat. Okay. I got nothing for you because there is nothing more unbiased and unfiltered than that. BTW Nebraska was 9-4 and #28. BYU was 8-5 and #53 go ahead and include them it won't make a difference in your false assertion.


Surely someone with your "analytical" prowess knows the inherit bias of SOS. USM played #3 Alabama and #11 Miss State and was ranked #112 according to your SOS Memphis played #10 UCLA and #17 Ole Miss and was ranked #18 according to your SOS.

Your false assertion of that the AAC played a "dramatically harder" non-conference and that's why CUSA was ranked higher has been proven to be lie. Nothing shows that more than the unbiased and unfiltered side by side list of non-conference games. Good luck with your great analytical mind, I'm out on this one

so at the end of the day you couldn't find not even 1 nonconfernce sos ranking.. i noted that sure 1 computer may have analytic outliers but the gap was huge and every other computer that calculates non conference sos had the AAC with a huge gap above C-usa ( teamrankings, sbnation, college football rpi, Anderson & Hester{bcs computer})
100% of the computers are saying the same thing and with a big gap to booth

Anderson & Hester said the aac played the hardest Non conference schedule of any league in the nation... and c-usa the second worst g5, only second to the mac

and clealry you dont understand bias
"So a side by side comparison of Top 50 non-conference teams played is a biased stat"...
a stat like that allows you to chose the cut of point of what qualifies (top50) where you can manipulate what shows up. then you can use a site that favors your conference especially since you didnt reference when you got the data from..that is the definition of bias

and complete sidenote: while looking at the bcs computers to see which ones ranked non conference SOS, i found this on the massey site even though they didnt have that stat:

this is the average of over a 125 rankings systems on the massey site that they collected together
this is posteason prebowl in the 2014 season (scroll to the bottom). despite the AAC having only about a 35% win percentage in OOC, and C-usa having close to 50% the AAC was ranked higher
http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2014-15.htm

This goes against the very 2 points you have stated from the get go
1) C-usa clearly benefited from the weaker bowl schedule and was the only reason they were ranked higher at seasons end (125 different computers agree)

2) a conference with a 35% non-con win percentage being ranked over a conference with a 50% non-con win percentage for everyone with common sense means the 35% conference played a harder schedule (125 computer back this statement)

ps- im sure you will post some sort of manipulated data that is completely full of bias to prove your point and say what a 125 computers agree with me on is a lie and proven wrong

your c-usa homerism is blinding.. im not even mad at it, if c-usa had more fans like you, this conference would have a bright future. im glad you are willing to look the other way and see the good in your conference (or what you perceive it as)

if a 125 computers cant prove my points to you..neither can i. no need to drag this out

(05-28-2016 07:00 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 01:44 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Side note, Karl Benson said today that CUSA voluntarily chose to back out of the Arizona Bowl.

Not surprised. That bowl was just going to be in the way of us being able to fill a better bowl on a secondary agreement.

Secondary agreements are not guaranteed. It's in SBC Bowl contracts that if a better bowl comes along, our guaranteed bowls would agree to allow their reps out.

In the meantime, the Arizona Bowl at least offers a team like a Texas State, with no bowl history, a chance to go to a bowl if they get eligible. I'm happy for them.

(05-29-2016 05:13 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 07:00 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 01:44 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Side note, Karl Benson said today that CUSA voluntarily chose to back out of the Arizona Bowl.

Not surprised. That bowl was just going to be in the way of us being able to fill a better bowl on a secondary agreement.

Secondary agreements are not guaranteed. It's in SBC Bowl contracts that if a better bowl comes along, our guaranteed bowls would agree to allow their reps out.

In the meantime, the Arizona Bowl at least offers a team like a Texas State, with no bowl history, a chance to go to a bowl if they get eligible. I'm happy for them.

Some people think we have too many bowls these days, but I have no problem whatsoever with every bowl eligible team having a bowl to play in, even if it occasionally means that a 5-7 team will make it into a bowl.