Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Another sad year for the AAC
Author Message
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,232
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
yeah really sad for the AAC. Their addition of Wichita looks like it could be a golden move- they just beat Marquette by 15 w/o their leading scorer and rebounder from last year.

This year has been by far the best year for the AAC- and even with basketball- starting to see stuff like Tulane has started 4-0 in 2nd year for Dunleavy. If they get going- that's just going to make them in hoops much tougher.
11-21-2017 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #62
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 03:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Conference Seasons are remembered by what the top teams did. AAC is having a great year.

Funny thing is, all the top AAC teams have done so far is beat a bunch of other G5 teams, and each other. Here are the P5 skins captured by UCF, USF, and Memphis so far:

Maryland, UCLA, Illinois.

Maryland and Illinois are the two last - place teams in the two B1G divisions. To drive the point home, Rutgers is their usual 4-7 terrible self, and yet two of their wins are against Maryland and Illinois.

UCLA is clearly better than those two, and yet they aren't any good either, 5-6 and still not bowl eligible.

And no, it's not like they have OOC wins over credible G5 either. UCF has wins over Austin Peay and FIU. AP is FCS, and FIU is in 6th place in C-USA.

USF? We've beaten mighty San Jose State (7th place in MWC), and Stony Brook (FCS).

Memphis? They've beaten LA-Monroe (6th in the Sun Belt) and mighty Southern Illinois, 8th place in the MVC.

That's it. Basically, Memphis, UCF, and USF are ranked because they've beaten a whole bunch of AAC schools that themselves haven't beaten any OOC competition worth mentioning.

The three AAC schools allegedly having 'great years' have lived in an AAC-bubble. Any three year old can tell you that if you have two teams in a conference, and they play each other 10 times, if one of them goes 10-0 and the other 0-10 that doesn't make the conference any better or weaker than if they go 5-5 against each other, and yet the rankers - AP, Coaches, CFP - have rewarded the AAC teams at the top basically for that.
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2017 03:46 PM by quo vadis.)
11-21-2017 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,232
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
FAU- Bethune Cookman
UNT- Lamar, Army
Akron- Arkansas-Pine Bluff(holds head to head with Ohio)
Toledo- Elon, Nevada, Tulsa(holds head to head with NIU)
Boise- Troy, BYU
Fresno- Incarnate Word, BYU
that's the list of all the teams going to CCG from the G5 conferences. As you can see none of the others have even done what the AAC has done. 11 wins by the 6 teams- with 5 of those 11 being FCS wins.

And would say-
Houston beat Arizona
Navy killed FAU
SMU killed North Texas and Arkansas St
Tulane beat Army

Also, it's just overall OOC record..
AAC 25-18
MWC/MAC 21-27
CUSA 23-31
SBC 13-32
11-21-2017 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 03:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Conference Seasons are remembered by what the top teams did. AAC is having a great year.

Funny thing is, all the top AAC teams have done so far is beat a bunch of other G5 teams, and each other. Here are the P5 skins captured by UCF, USF, and Memphis so far:

Maryland, UCLA, Illinois.

Maryland and Illinois are the two last - place teams in the two B1G divisions. To drive the point home, Rutgers is their usual 4-7 terrible self, and yet two of their wins are against Maryland and Illinois.

UCLA is clearly better than those two, and yet they aren't any good either, 5-6 and still not bowl eligible.

And no, it's not like they have OOC wins over credible G5 either. UCF has wins over Austin Peay and FIU. AP is FCS, and FIU is in 6th place in C-USA.

USF? We've beaten mighty San Jose State (7th place in MWC), and Stony Brook (FCS).

Memphis? They've beaten LA-Monroe (6th in the Sun Belt) and mighty Southern Illinois, 8th place in the MVC.

That's it. Basically, Memphis, UCF, and USF are ranked because they've beaten a whole bunch of AAC schools that themselves haven't beaten any OOC competition worth mentioning.

The three AAC schools allegedly having 'great years' have lived in an AAC-bubble. Any three year old can tell you that if you have two teams in a conference, and they play each other 10 times, if one of them goes 10-0 and the other 0-10 that doesn't make the conference any better or weaker than if they go 5-5 against each other, and yet the rankers - AP, Coaches, CFP - have rewarded the AAC teams at the top basically for that.

I give the voters and rankers more credit and assume that they have watched a football game or two and base their rankings on the perception of the viewed performances - and the fact that certain teams actually won games that were played, while others did not.
11-21-2017 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #65
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 03:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  FAU- Bethune Cookman
UNT- Lamar, Army
Akron- Arkansas-Pine Bluff(holds head to head with Ohio)
Toledo- Elon, Nevada, Tulsa(holds head to head with NIU)
Boise- Troy, BYU
Fresno- Incarnate Word, BYU
that's the list of all the teams going to CCG from the G5 conferences. As you can see none of the others have even done what the AAC has done. 11 wins by the 6 teams- with 5 of those 11 being FCS wins.

And would say-
Houston beat Arizona
Navy killed FAU
SMU killed North Texas and Arkansas St
Tulane beat Army

Also, it's just overall OOC record..
AAC 25-18
MWC/MAC 21-27
CUSA 23-31
SBC 13-32

I wasn't comparing the AAC vs other G5, the AAC has clearly been the best G5 conference. My comments were aimed at the notion that the Memphis, UCF, and USF results indicate AAC strength vs the P5, and their worthiness to be highly ranked among P5 teams, which is basically what the CFP is.
11-21-2017 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Chappy Offline
Resident Goonie
*

Posts: 18,888
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 899
I Root For: ECU
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #66
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
Well, they can only beat the teams on the schedule.
11-21-2017 06:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #67
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 06:38 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Well, they can only beat the teams on the schedule.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we - and the CFP - have to regard them as beating good teams when they didn't.
11-21-2017 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 06:38 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Well, they can only beat the teams on the schedule.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we - and the CFP - have to regard them as beating good teams when they didn't.

It wouldnt matter if they played 4 P5 conference champs in OOC play. Thats the real purpose of the CFP. As long as 2, 3, and 4 loss teams are in front of undefeated G5's, the CFP is a joke. Sure, I get that some one-loss teams might should be there--but 2 loss teams---thats getting ridiculous. lol..that committee put a 4-loss team in front of an undefeated G5---that says it all. BTW--where the rubber meets the road, the committee has been horribly wrong 3 and out 4 times (with the lower ranked G5 beating the top 10 P5 in 2013, 2014, and 2015). And interestingly, the 3 most recent G5 NYD bowl winners all each had at least one loss (one had 2 losses. Stangely, the only undefeated G5 actually lost in its CFP appearance. So its clear the CFP substantially under ranks the G5, likely due to the made up criteria like the "eye test" (which is a meaningless term that literally means whatever the person using the imaginary "test" wants it to mean on that day).
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2017 08:22 PM by Attackcoog.)
11-21-2017 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
penguino Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 280
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 31
I Root For: rutgers
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 03:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Conference Seasons are remembered by what the top teams did. AAC is having a great year.

Funny thing is, all the top AAC teams have done so far is beat a bunch of other G5 teams, and each other. Here are the P5 skins captured by UCF, USF, and Memphis so far:

Maryland, UCLA, Illinois.

Maryland and Illinois are the two last - place teams in the two B1G divisions. To drive the point home, Rutgers is their usual 4-7 terrible self, and yet two of their wins are against Maryland and Illinois.

UCLA is clearly better than those two, and yet they aren't any good either, 5-6 and still not bowl eligible.

And no, it's not like they have OOC wins over credible G5 either. UCF has wins over Austin Peay and FIU. AP is FCS, and FIU is in 6th place in C-USA.

USF? We've beaten mighty San Jose State (7th place in MWC), and Stony Brook (FCS).

Memphis? They've beaten LA-Monroe (6th in the Sun Belt) and mighty Southern Illinois, 8th place in the MVC.

That's it. Basically, Memphis, UCF, and USF are ranked because they've beaten a whole bunch of AAC schools that themselves haven't beaten any OOC competition worth mentioning.

The three AAC schools allegedly having 'great years' have lived in an AAC-bubble. Any three year old can tell you that if you have two teams in a conference, and they play each other 10 times, if one of them goes 10-0 and the other 0-10 that doesn't make the conference any better or weaker than if they go 5-5 against each other, and yet the rankers - AP, Coaches, CFP - have rewarded the AAC teams at the top basically for that.

Yep, Rutgers is it's usual terrible self, yet is 7-2 all time vs USF......We ain't world beaters, but come on, we aren't as horrible as some of you make us out to be....



South Florida is (2-7) against Rutgers

Average score: South Florida 19.1 - Rutgers 29.3

Per decade
W L T PFPG PAPG
2010's 1 3 0 16.0 25.3
2000's 1 4 0 21.6 32.6

All games
2013/12/07 South Florida 6 - Rutgers 31 L
2012/09/13 South Florida 13 - Rutgers 23 L
2011/11/05 South Florida 17 - Rutgers 20 L OT
2010/11/03 South Florida 28 - Rutgers 27 W
2009/11/12 South Florida 0 - Rutgers 31 L
2008/11/15 South Florida 16 - Rutgers 49 L
2007/10/18 South Florida 27 - Rutgers 30 L
2006/09/29 South Florida 20 - Rutgers 22 L
2005/11/05 South Florida 45 - Rutgers 31 W
11-22-2017 08:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
megadrone Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,306
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 46
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NJ
Post: #70
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Maryland and Illinois are the two last - place teams in the two B1G divisions. To drive the point home, Rutgers is their usual 4-7 terrible self, and yet two of their wins are against Maryland and Illinois.

UCLA is clearly better than those two, and yet they aren't any good either, 5-6 and still not bowl eligible.

And no, it's not like they have OOC wins over credible G5 either. UCF has wins over Austin Peay and FIU. AP is FCS, and FIU is in 6th place in C-USA.

USF? We've beaten mighty San Jose State (7th place in MWC), and Stony Brook (FCS).

Memphis? They've beaten LA-Monroe (6th in the Sun Belt) and mighty Southern Illinois, 8th place in the MVC.

That's it. Basically, Memphis, UCF, and USF are ranked because they've beaten a whole bunch of AAC schools that themselves haven't beaten any OOC competition worth mentioning.

The three AAC schools allegedly having 'great years' have lived in an AAC-bubble. Any three year old can tell you that if you have two teams in a conference, and they play each other 10 times, if one of them goes 10-0 and the other 0-10 that doesn't make the conference any better or weaker than if they go 5-5 against each other, and yet the rankers - AP, Coaches, CFP - have rewarded the AAC teams at the top basically for that.

Rutgers is their usual 4-7 terrible self,

Come in ranked, go home spanked! Rutgers 30 -- #2 USF 27.

At least this year USF is winning games in November.

All kidding aside -- one would hope that the playoff committee can somewhat judge the quality of the team by their games played over the course of the entire season, and rank appropriately.

But until all the conference champions are in a true playoff, it will never be decided on the field. The best you can do is beat the teams on your schedule. Even a playoff system allows for a team to get hot at the right time and take home the crown even if they aren't the best team on the field (did you see either of the Giants last super bowl wins?). But that still gives equal access and at the start of the season any team has the opportunity to be national champion.

A "G" conference school has to completely dominate everyone on their schedule to have any shot at the playoff or have the great fortune to schedule like Houston did last year. A 12 team playoff could work -- the 10 conference champions, the highest ranked independent and the highest ranked non-champion. Win your conference and you're in -- that gives the conference races meaning. Yes there could be flukes but that's a tradeoff for equal access and a very good team in a weak conference could prove they are the best team in the country.

I would love to see a true playoff but that would take a major restructuring of the FBS post season system. When it's profitable for either the NCAA, Fox Sports and ESPN to do so it will happen.
11-22-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rtaylor Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,137
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 222
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 06:38 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Well, they can only beat the teams on the schedule.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we - and the CFP - have to regard them as beating good teams when they didn't.

It wouldnt matter if they played 4 P5 conference champs in OOC play. Thats the real purpose of the CFP. As long as 2, 3, and 4 loss teams are in front of undefeated G5's, the CFP is a joke. Sure, I get that some one-loss teams might should be there--but 2 loss teams---thats getting ridiculous. lol..that committee put a 4-loss team in front of an undefeated G5---that says it all. BTW--where the rubber meets the road, the committee has been horribly wrong 3 and out 4 times (with the lower ranked G5 beating the top 10 P5 in 2013, 2014, and 2015). And interestingly, the 3 most recent G5 NYD bowl winners all each had at least one loss (one had 2 losses. Stangely, the only undefeated G5 actually lost in its CFP appearance. So its clear the CFP substantially under ranks the G5, likely due to the made up criteria like the "eye test" (which is a meaningless term that literally means whatever the person using the imaginary "test" wants it to mean on that day).

Please do not hit Quo with facts. That is just 07-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee3
11-24-2017 12:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,232
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
what a sad day for the AAC today. Only went 3-0 and beat the #2 team in the country.
11-24-2017 12:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pony94 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,650
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1177
I Root For: SMU
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Post: #73
Another sad year for the AAC
(11-24-2017 12:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  what a sad day for the AAC today. Only went 3-0 and beat the #2 team in the country.


I must say, that was kind of nice
11-24-2017 12:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #74
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-24-2017 12:25 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 06:38 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Well, they can only beat the teams on the schedule.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we - and the CFP - have to regard them as beating good teams when they didn't.

It wouldnt matter if they played 4 P5 conference champs in OOC play. Thats the real purpose of the CFP. As long as 2, 3, and 4 loss teams are in front of undefeated G5's, the CFP is a joke. Sure, I get that some one-loss teams might should be there--but 2 loss teams---thats getting ridiculous. lol..that committee put a 4-loss team in front of an undefeated G5---that says it all. BTW--where the rubber meets the road, the committee has been horribly wrong 3 and out 4 times (with the lower ranked G5 beating the top 10 P5 in 2013, 2014, and 2015). And interestingly, the 3 most recent G5 NYD bowl winners all each had at least one loss (one had 2 losses. Stangely, the only undefeated G5 actually lost in its CFP appearance. So its clear the CFP substantially under ranks the G5, likely due to the made up criteria like the "eye test" (which is a meaningless term that literally means whatever the person using the imaginary "test" wants it to mean on that day).

Please do not hit Quo with facts. That is just 07-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee3

Are AAC fans really this dumb? I was 'hit' with opinions, not facts:

First, he asserts that a G5 wouldn't make the playoffs even if they played 4 P5 conference champs OOC. That's not a fact, it's pure opinion, and IMO, very insensible.

Then, he says that as long as 2, 3, and 4 loss P5 are ranked ahead of unbeaten G5, the rankings are a joke. That's also an opinion, and again, not a very useful one. E.g., if team X plays Alabama 12 times and goes 6-6, and team Y plays Tulane 12 times and goes 12-0, it's very likely that team X is way better than team Y, because maybe only one or two teams in the country could go 6-6 vs Alabama, but many could go 12-0 vs Tulane. But by AC's logic, it would be "insane" to rank X over Y.

Finally, he says that during the CFP era, the CFP has been "horribly wrong" about where it ranked the G5 team three of the four times, because the G5 team beat the P5 team in three of the four games. But, that makes no sense. E.g., if a #15 team beats a #11 team, that doesn't mean the #15 team should have been #11. It just suggests* that #15 should have been ranked ahead of the team ranked #11, but if the team ranked #11 was really only the 18th best team, it doesn't mean #15 should have been ranked any higher than they were. IOW's, when #18 Houston beat #9 FSU, it didn't necessarily mean Houston should have been #9, it didn't even mean that Houston should have been ranked higher than the #18 that they were ranked. FSU could have been badly overrated, not Houston underrated.

In short, AC's post was filled with opinions, and opinions with gaping holes in them. But a desperate AAC fanboy like yourself was impressed anyway. Pretty sad. 07-coffee3

* suggests, not proves. Because the best team doesn't always win a game. E.g., nobody can say that this year Syracuse is a better team than Clemson, but Syracuse nevertheless beat Clemson in a football game. Sometimes, the worse team wins.
(This post was last modified: 11-24-2017 01:38 AM by quo vadis.)
11-24-2017 01:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-24-2017 01:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-24-2017 12:25 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 06:38 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Well, they can only beat the teams on the schedule.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we - and the CFP - have to regard them as beating good teams when they didn't.

It wouldnt matter if they played 4 P5 conference champs in OOC play. Thats the real purpose of the CFP. As long as 2, 3, and 4 loss teams are in front of undefeated G5's, the CFP is a joke. Sure, I get that some one-loss teams might should be there--but 2 loss teams---thats getting ridiculous. lol..that committee put a 4-loss team in front of an undefeated G5---that says it all. BTW--where the rubber meets the road, the committee has been horribly wrong 3 and out 4 times (with the lower ranked G5 beating the top 10 P5 in 2013, 2014, and 2015). And interestingly, the 3 most recent G5 NYD bowl winners all each had at least one loss (one had 2 losses. Stangely, the only undefeated G5 actually lost in its CFP appearance. So its clear the CFP substantially under ranks the G5, likely due to the made up criteria like the "eye test" (which is a meaningless term that literally means whatever the person using the imaginary "test" wants it to mean on that day).

Please do not hit Quo with facts. That is just 07-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee3

Are AAC fans really this dumb? I was 'hit' with opinions, not facts:

First, he asserts that a G5 wouldn't make the playoffs even if they played 4 P5 conference champs OOC. That's not a fact, it's pure opinion, and IMO, very insensible.

Then, he says that as long as 2, 3, and 4 loss P5 are ranked ahead of unbeaten G5, the rankings are a joke. That's also an opinion, and again, not a very useful one. E.g., if team X plays Alabama 12 times and goes 6-6, and team Y plays Tulane 12 times and goes 12-0, it's very likely that team X is way better than team Y, because maybe only one or two teams in the country could go 6-6 vs Alabama, but many could go 12-0 vs Tulane. But by AC's logic, it would be "insane" to rank X over Y.

Finally, he says that during the CFP era, the CFP has been "horribly wrong" about where it ranked the G5 team three of the four times, because the G5 team beat the P5 team in three of the four games. But, that makes no sense. E.g., if a #15 team beats a #11 team, that doesn't mean the #15 team should have been #11. It just suggests* that #15 should have been ranked ahead of the team ranked #11, but if the team ranked #11 was really only the 18th best team, it doesn't mean #15 should have been ranked any higher than they were. IOW's, when #18 Houston beat #9 FSU, it didn't necessarily mean Houston should have been #9, it didn't even mean that Houston should have been ranked higher than the #18 that they were ranked. FSU could have been badly overrated, not Houston underrated.

In short, AC's post was filled with opinions, and opinions with gaping holes in them. But a desperate AAC fanboy like yourself was impressed anyway. Pretty sad. 07-coffee3

* suggests, not proves. Because the best team doesn't always win a game. E.g., nobody can say that this year Syracuse is a better team than Clemson, but Syracuse nevertheless beat Clemson in a football game. Sometimes, the worse team wins.

You keep saying silly things and making extreme arguments. For instance, no G5 team plays Prairie View 12 Times. By definition, all G5 teams play in a G5 conference and all play a CCG. Within a conference, wins and losses are a zero sum game. Thus, you literally can’t win a conference without beating a team with a bunch of wins (likely it will require beating several such teams).

In terms of my opinions—yes, it’s an opinion. But given that no G5 has ever even sniffed the top ten and several have been undefeated with P5 wins—there is no reason to assume that the general extreme level of bias would disappear because the G5 team beat 4 champs. Penn St beat Ohio St head to head and won thier conference—and even that didn’t get them in. The Committee knows who they want and the logic will be formulated to reach the desired outcome. If they can screw Penn St—they will certainly do it to a G5.

Besides, it’s irrelevant. First, it’s a sign of a ridiculous level of bias that we are even suggesting that wins over 4 P5 champs is the standard for a G5 to even be realistically considered. Second, it’s almost impossible that a G5 would just happen to stumble into such a schedule in the same year they happened to have a team capable of an undefeated season. It’s like getting hit by lighting and an asteroid at the same exact time.
(This post was last modified: 11-24-2017 02:33 AM by Attackcoog.)
11-24-2017 02:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,013
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #76
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-24-2017 02:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-24-2017 01:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-24-2017 12:25 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 08:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, but that doesn't mean we - and the CFP - have to regard them as beating good teams when they didn't.

It wouldnt matter if they played 4 P5 conference champs in OOC play. Thats the real purpose of the CFP. As long as 2, 3, and 4 loss teams are in front of undefeated G5's, the CFP is a joke. Sure, I get that some one-loss teams might should be there--but 2 loss teams---thats getting ridiculous. lol..that committee put a 4-loss team in front of an undefeated G5---that says it all. BTW--where the rubber meets the road, the committee has been horribly wrong 3 and out 4 times (with the lower ranked G5 beating the top 10 P5 in 2013, 2014, and 2015). And interestingly, the 3 most recent G5 NYD bowl winners all each had at least one loss (one had 2 losses. Stangely, the only undefeated G5 actually lost in its CFP appearance. So its clear the CFP substantially under ranks the G5, likely due to the made up criteria like the "eye test" (which is a meaningless term that literally means whatever the person using the imaginary "test" wants it to mean on that day).

Please do not hit Quo with facts. That is just 07-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee307-coffee3

Are AAC fans really this dumb? I was 'hit' with opinions, not facts:

First, he asserts that a G5 wouldn't make the playoffs even if they played 4 P5 conference champs OOC. That's not a fact, it's pure opinion, and IMO, very insensible.

Then, he says that as long as 2, 3, and 4 loss P5 are ranked ahead of unbeaten G5, the rankings are a joke. That's also an opinion, and again, not a very useful one. E.g., if team X plays Alabama 12 times and goes 6-6, and team Y plays Tulane 12 times and goes 12-0, it's very likely that team X is way better than team Y, because maybe only one or two teams in the country could go 6-6 vs Alabama, but many could go 12-0 vs Tulane. But by AC's logic, it would be "insane" to rank X over Y.

Finally, he says that during the CFP era, the CFP has been "horribly wrong" about where it ranked the G5 team three of the four times, because the G5 team beat the P5 team in three of the four games. But, that makes no sense. E.g., if a #15 team beats a #11 team, that doesn't mean the #15 team should have been #11. It just suggests* that #15 should have been ranked ahead of the team ranked #11, but if the team ranked #11 was really only the 18th best team, it doesn't mean #15 should have been ranked any higher than they were. IOW's, when #18 Houston beat #9 FSU, it didn't necessarily mean Houston should have been #9, it didn't even mean that Houston should have been ranked higher than the #18 that they were ranked. FSU could have been badly overrated, not Houston underrated.

In short, AC's post was filled with opinions, and opinions with gaping holes in them. But a desperate AAC fanboy like yourself was impressed anyway. Pretty sad. 07-coffee3

* suggests, not proves. Because the best team doesn't always win a game. E.g., nobody can say that this year Syracuse is a better team than Clemson, but Syracuse nevertheless beat Clemson in a football game. Sometimes, the worse team wins.

You keep saying silly things and making extreme arguments. For instance, no G5 team plays Prairie View 12 Times. By definition, all G5 teams play in a G5 conference and all play a CCG. Within a conference, wins and losses are a zero sum game. Thus, you literally can’t win a conference without beating a team with a bunch of wins (likely it will require beating several such teams).

In terms of my opinions—yes, it’s an opinion. But given that no G5 has ever even sniffed the top ten and several have been undefeated with P5 wins—there is no reason to assume that the general extreme level of bias would disappear because the G5 team beat 4 champs. Penn St beat Ohio St head to head and won thier conference—and even that didn’t get them in. The Committee knows who they want and the logic will be formulated to reach the desired outcome. If they can screw Penn St—they will certainly do it to a G5.

Besides, it’s irrelevant. First, it’s a sign of a ridiculous level of bias that we are even suggesting that wins over 4 P5 champs is the standard for a G5 to even be realistically considered. Second, it’s almost impossible that a G5 would just happen to stumble into such a schedule in the same year they happened to have a team capable of an undefeated season. It’s like getting hit by lighting and an asteroid at the same exact time.

"Silly things"? You're now stooping to the "o-town" level of "when unable to refute with logic or facts, resort to elementary school adjectives". Just because my arguments are inconvenient doesn't make them silly, they are spot-on. Extreme cases are useful precisely because they stress-test a position. Yours fail pretty badly.

Of course nobody plays PR (actually, in this example i said Tulane) or Alabama 12 times, that's not the point. Point is, the analogy shows it is by no means necessarily crazy to rank a team with 2, 3, even 4 losses ahead of a team with no losses. Heck, it's so extreme that it shows that in that situation, it would be very rational to rank a team with 6 losses ahead of one with zero losses. In all cases, we just have to look at the respective schedules because it could be justified. In this case, UCF vs MSST, before last night we did have an 'asteroid' type scenario where (a) UCF has played a soft schedule and (b) MSST had lost to the #1, #6, and #7 teams.

As for G5 not making it to to the Top 10, it's easy to argue that no G5 ever has deserved to be top 10, at least not during the weeks being ranked. UCF doesn't deserve it, they haven't beaten anyone of note other than Memphis, who is barely of note. Even MC has them at #11, outside the top 10. Also, Penn State wasn't screwed last year either. They did have H2H and conference champ over OSU, but they also played a softer schedule and had one more loss. Heck, again, Massey Comp had Ohio State at #2, Penn State #6 at the time the CFP decision was made, indicating that it wasn't just the committee that thought OSU was more deserving.

Finally, only you were suggesting it would take beating four P5 champs to get a G5 into the playoffs. I don't think it would take nearly that much. E.g., I do firmly believe that had Houston gone unbeaten last year and had Louisville lost only 1 or 2 games and was themselves in the top 10, that Houston would have gotten the playoff spot over Washington. Can't prove it but that's my opinion. I'm a lot less pessimistic about that.

A G5 needs to prove itself OOC against top-level P5 competition to merit the top four. UCF sadly didn't do that this year.
(This post was last modified: 11-24-2017 11:29 AM by quo vadis.)
11-24-2017 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
westwolf Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 825
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 8
I Root For: CFB
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
Nobody is denigrating AAC basketball - just football
11-24-2017 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Another sad year for the AAC
(11-21-2017 02:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 02:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 01:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(11-21-2017 11:52 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  That's what I used to tell MWC fans ten years ago and that's what I tell AAC fans today. The cartel will cherry pick the school(s) they want and leave the rest behind.

Here is the thing--at this point, with rising P5 values, you'd need to be worth almost 50 million to prevent the dilution of the per team pay out in the Big10. Probably would need to be worth 30 million in the SECt ot be added without creating dilution (close to that in the other P5 conferences). So today, the threshold at which poaching a team from a developing conference makes sense is much different than it was in the past. Just look no further than the Big12 non-expansion decision last year.

So, in a conference like the AAC where there is almost a parity among the value of most of the schools, you can get to the 40-50K average attendance range with a 15-20 million per team media value range and still not offer any attractive P5 poaching targets.

I'd say by most any definition, a conference with an average attendance of 40K and with a per team payout of 15-20 million would be viewed as a low end power conference and certainly would be considered as something other than a run of the mill G5. Obviously, the AAC isnt anywhere near that yet--but it is a plausible avenue that really hasn't existed in the past simply due to the massive separation in earnings that has slowly developed between the P5 and non-power conferences. Basically, there isnt much risk of high performing AAC schools being poached with the P5 payouts at thier current levels.

That's a lot of ifs.

The MWC met the criteria to become the 7th AQ league. It didn't happen. And no, you're not getting $15-20 million per school. That's wishful thinking. Best case scenario, you'll get a good raise, probably an extra $1 million per school, still way better than the other G5s though. If history has shown us is if you're labeled as a power league, you'll get paid. If you're not, you'll get the leftovers. It's been going on since the Alliance days which was the precursor to the BCS and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I just feel like I'm in a time machine saying exactly the same thing to MWC fans.

Not true. The MW never completely met all three BCS criteria required to become AQ. They only able to meet 2 of the 3 criteria in their applications. So they only qualified if the BCS gave them a waiver--which the BCS never chose to do.

As for there being a lot of "ifs'" in my statement--I agree. Again, I dont think the "P6" thing is anything more than a clever marketing campaign designed to differentiate the AAC from the other G5's and create more viewer interest in the product. I was simply pointing out that the with the power conferences essentially "full" with very high payouts---poaching G5's is far less attractive and the dynamic of stability is now in place for a conference to actually "develop" into something more than a feeder conference. I mean, just getting to an average of 40K in football attendance would take a decade of steady growth at the very least (probably longer). So, what I described would be a very slow process.

True. They met two of three criteria with the possibility of an exemption for the third one and if I'm not mistaken, they were going to try but at that point Utah, TCU and BYU were leaving and the BCS was going away plus Boise State alone was not enough.

The question is, would schools like UConn, Cincinnati and Houston wait ten or twenty years for this steady growth to happen? My gut tells me no. I don't have anything against the AAC, I think it's the best of the rest and its basketball is solid but only time will tell if any of this will materialize. At worst you'll be the WAC of the 80's and early 90's, C-USA 1.0 or the MWC from 2005-11. Not a bad place to be.

With the AAC almost the entire conference is a P5 candidate.

If they lose more than 1 school its going to seriously impact their growth trajectory.
11-24-2017 11:20 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.