(03-08-2016 12:44 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Football First Conference.
East: App, Ga So, Marshall, MTSU, WKU
West: Ark State, So Miss, La Tech, Louisiana, Troy

That may be a football first conference but historically MTSU, WKU, ULL, LA Tech and to a lesser extent Troy are all quality basketball programs.

Not to mention it would be an above average baseball conference.

(03-02-2016 12:01 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I just ran the numbers using the BCS computer rankings and they are identical to Massey's with one exception... I omitted Troy when I originally ran the numbers (how did I do that?), so for 2015 we would have still been ahead of CUSA but by a slimmer margin:

2015 with NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. CUSA (90.8 average rating)
5. SBC (94.9 average rating)

2015 without NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. SBC (90.6 average rating)
5. CUSA (90.8 average rating)

Isn't the math slighly flawed by just removing Idaho & NMSU and recalculating? I'd imagine most of the remaining teams had wins against both, correct?

(03-09-2016 11:07 AM)RowdyAlumni Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:01 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I just ran the numbers using the BCS computer rankings and they are identical to Massey's with one exception... I omitted Troy when I originally ran the numbers (how did I do that?), so for 2015 we would have still been ahead of CUSA but by a slimmer margin:

2015 with NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. CUSA (90.8 average rating)
5. SBC (94.9 average rating)

2015 without NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. SBC (90.6 average rating)
5. CUSA (90.8 average rating)

Isn't the math slighly flawed by just removing Idaho & NMSU and recalculating? I'd imagine most of the remaining teams had wins against both, correct?

True but, I think it would even out in the end. Those teams lower the rating, replace with any 2 other teams and the ratings go up. I don't know how it works with the schools playing 1 less game than everyone else.

Also worth noting that they both went 3-5 in conference, so it's not like other SBC teams got 7 or 8 wins out of them. For 2015, as has been discussed, it was the OOC across the board that had the biggest impact (acknowledging that my Panthers gave the league its two worst losses of the year).

(03-09-2016 11:07 AM)RowdyAlumni Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:01 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I just ran the numbers using the BCS computer rankings and they are identical to Massey's with one exception... I omitted Troy when I originally ran the numbers (how did I do that?), so for 2015 we would have still been ahead of CUSA but by a slimmer margin:

2015 with NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. CUSA (90.8 average rating)
5. SBC (94.9 average rating)

2015 without NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. SBC (90.6 average rating)
5. CUSA (90.8 average rating)

Isn't the math slighly flawed by just removing Idaho & NMSU and recalculating? I'd imagine most of the remaining teams had wins against both, correct?

In my original post I mentioned it wasn't exact since they still figure into our strength of schedule. But with the out of conference performances of NMSU and Idaho the last two seasons the numbers would probably be better for the Sun Belt if there was a way to make the numbers more accurate.

Didn't the conference have something like four OOC FBS wins.
Typical OOC SBC record 1 FCS win .3 FBS wins 2.7 FBS losses .
Two years is too short of a period of time it means nothing .
Georgia ST went from 0-for FBS to a bowl .
They lost two a start up and Liberty and still went 5-3 in the SBC .
They beat a 3-9 Ball ST who beat three bad teams .

Money was the reason the conference didn't extend us the SBC has the lowest revenue by far.

(03-01-2016 09:29 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I went through to look at the ratings for the past two years. I wanted to look at them with and without NMSU and Idaho. This isn't exact, as NMSU and Idaho would still be figured into strength of schedule, and this is based on the Massey Composite Ratings and not anything from the NCAA. The more I think about it the more I think the presidents had some numbers indicating the financial impact of NMSU/Idaho, which is why they asked both schools to deliver a powerpoint to show their value to the conference. I came up with the following rankings:

2015 with NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. CUSA (90.8 average rating)
5. SBC (94.5 average rating)

2015 without NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. SBC (89.5 average rating)
5. CUSA (90.8 average rating)

SBC gains one spot and is pushing for the #3 spot. The NCAA numbers are undoubtedly different, so they could show us as high as #3 without the two schools.

2014 with NMSU and Idaho
1. MWC (76.4 average rating)
2. AAC (82.3 average rating)
3. CUSA (83.1 average rating)
4. SBC (97.2 average rating)
5. MAC (97.8 average rating)

2014 without NMSU and Idaho
1. MWC (76.4 average rating)
2. AAC (82.3 average rating)
3. CUSA (83.1 average rating)
4. SBC (90.0 average rating)
5. MAC (97.8 average rating)

No change in position for 2014, but we were close to being last. The NCAA could have had us ranked the #5 conference in 2014, which would mean we probably would have gained one position.

I'm not reading this whole topic so you might have addressed this already...

but I bet you left in the wins other SBC school had vs NMST and Idaho. So if those 2 never played in the conference take out 50% of those wins and do the numbers. You cant just remove two schools numbers without the games they won and loss then say this is what it would be. Between both you have 16 SBC games played out of 88

There's a great thread over on the CUSA board going nuts over the TV deal changes. If you need a chuckle go check it out.

twitter.com/DieselOnRadio