(04-27-2013 08:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 06:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 07:09 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I'd like to see the bowl eligibility raised to 7 wins. Probably not a popular opinion, but other than the premier bowls, the remainder of the CFB bowl system is meaningless.

I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Yup. Beating AQ teams is the only way for a non-AQ conference to build a reputation that can allow it to become more respected by the general public and among potential recruits.

Not a 6-6 team though. Only exception is if the non-AQ team was also 6-6 or 7-5. Having a 10-2 non-AQ team beating a 6-6 AQ means nothing and no perception is gained because you beat a lowly #8 conference team. Tulsa has never gain any perception gain from beating 6-6 Big 12 teams.

Doesnt matter. You still beat an AQ team. What doesn't matter one single bit is beating a non-AQ. Think about it. You play a full conference schedule of non-Aqs. If beating nonAQs meant anything the AAC, CUSA, MAC, Sunbelt, and MW wouldn't be in the situation that they are in. Bottom line, your record against the AQs is all that matters.

Sorry, but I beg to differ and yes its my opinion. There are so many examples of ranked non-aqs beating 6-6 AQ teams in bowl games that it didn't really helped the perception of the winning non-AQ team.
For instance, BSU blowing out Ariz. St didn't give Kellen Moore's team any higher perception because ASU was 6-6. Another, Tulsa blowing out a 6-6 Iowa St team didn't give it any better perception.
Where as on the other hand, TCU beating BSU in the Poisettia Bowl gave TCU a higher perception because BSU was ranked #9. If TCU was playing a 6-6 team AQ team, there wouldn't be a higher perception of beating a lowly AQ team.

Bottom line is beating 6-6 lowly AQ doesn't matter (because you didn't beat an AQ team with a meaningful record). Beating 9-3 AQ teams yes. Beating non-aq teams ranked in the top 25 yes. Having a MWC vs AAC teams play in a bowl where both are ranked in the top 25 is more meaningful than beating a AQ team who barely qualified for a bowl.

Maybe I'm in the minority thinking, but I don't like to think small time as a majority do.

(04-28-2013 05:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 08:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 06:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I have never seen a single UCF fan say beating 6-6 Georgia was meaningless.

Yup. Beating AQ teams is the only way for a non-AQ conference to build a reputation that can allow it to become more respected by the general public and among potential recruits.

Not a 6-6 team though. Only exception is if the non-AQ team was also 6-6 or 7-5. Having a 10-2 non-AQ team beating a 6-6 AQ means nothing and no perception is gained because you beat a lowly #8 conference team. Tulsa has never gain any perception gain from beating 6-6 Big 12 teams.

Doesnt matter. You still beat an AQ team. What doesn't matter one single bit is beating a non-AQ. Think about it. You play a full conference schedule of non-Aqs. If beating nonAQs meant anything the AAC, CUSA, MAC, Sunbelt, and MW wouldn't be in the situation that they are in. Bottom line, your record against the AQs is all that matters.

Sorry, but I beg to differ and yes its my opinion. There are so many examples of ranked non-aqs beating 6-6 AQ teams in bowl games that it didn't really helped the perception of the winning non-AQ team.
For instance, BSU blowing out Ariz. St didn't give Kellen Moore's team any higher perception because ASU was 6-6. Another, Tulsa blowing out a 6-6 Iowa St team didn't give it any better perception.
Where as on the other hand, TCU beating BSU in the Poisettia Bowl gave TCU a higher perception because BSU was ranked #9. If TCU was playing a 6-6 team AQ team, there wouldn't be a higher perception of beating a lowly AQ team.

Bottom line is beating 6-6 lowly AQ doesn't matter (because you didn't beat an AQ team with a meaningful record). Beating 9-3 AQ teams yes. Beating non-aq teams ranked in the top 25 yes. Having a MWC vs AAC teams play in a bowl where both are ranked in the top 25 is more meaningful than beating a AQ team who barely qualified for a bowl.

Maybe I'm in the minority thinking, but I don't like to think small time as a majority do.

I understand how you can have that opinion, but the proof that your opinion is not widely held is contained in your own post. Why were undefeated nonAQ teams ranked at #9? It's because, nobody cares if you beat a bunch of nonAQs. Besides, your whole argument is a bit of a straw man argument. I don't think the opponent for the AAC #1 (or the MW #1) will be a 6-6 team (basically the bottom qualifier from a power conference). If it is, Aresco and Thompson both wiffed badly. Even then, I'd personally prefer a 6-6 SEC team to some random non-AQ that had a once in a generation season. The idea of a MW vs ACC matchup sounds halfway interesting until you realize that its pain in the butt travel proposition for somebody and its very unlikely that a true #1 vs #1 matchup will ever occur (and when it does, it by default means neither made the BCS non-AQ game because likley neither is ranked---so there isnt much to get excited about either way).

(04-28-2013 05:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sorry, but I beg to differ and yes its my opinion. There are so many examples of ranked non-aqs beating 6-6 AQ teams in bowl games that it didn't really helped the perception of the winning non-AQ team.

For instance, BSU blowing out Ariz. St didn't give Kellen Moore's team any higher perception because ASU was 6-6. Another, Tulsa blowing out a 6-6 Iowa St team didn't give it any better perception.

Yes, its true that beating any random AQ school doesn't carry much bragging rights. It has to be a marquee school.