https://bellyupsports.com/2019/01/defini...ranking/#1

The internal links are pretty good too.

Also germane is this guy does the math behind what a solid sixth P conference might look like for those of you enamored of that concept.

(01-19-2019 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://bellyupsports.com/2019/01/defini...ranking/#1

The internal links are pretty good too.

Also germane is this guy does the math behind what a solid sixth P conference might look like for those of you enamored of that concept.

The next realignment, if Texas and OU leave, will adjust the American back down to the G5 pile by raiding their top maybe 3 programs.

It's a pretty solid argument for nothing happening for quite some time.

(01-19-2019 02:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://bellyupsports.com/2019/01/defini...ranking/#1

The internal links are pretty good too.

Also germane is this guy does the math behind what a solid sixth P conference might look like for those of you enamored of that concept.

The next realignment, if Texas and OU leave, will adjust the American back down to the G5 pile by raiding their top maybe 3 programs.

While that is quite possible, the data and discussion in this article is centered around what exists currently and it averages the data over various areas for the past 5 years.

For those who don’t want to click the link, here’s the mathematical alignment for the best combination of non-power schools. It still lags quite a bit behind the other power conferences but would be better than the AAC.

West: San Diego St, Boise St, BYU, Colorado St, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane
East: Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Cincinnati, Navy, Temple, Connecticut

The P6 conference looks a lot like the original Big East "western wing" plan.

(01-19-2019 03:26 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  For those who don’t want to click the link, here’s the mathematical alignment for the best combination of non-power schools. It still lags quite a bit behind the other power conferences but would be better than the AAC.

West: San Diego St, Boise St, BYU, Colorado St, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane
East: Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Cincinnati, Navy, Temple, Connecticut

I would get rid of Tulsa, Tulane and U.Conn.

UNR and La. Tech, Arkansas State or UTSA replace Tulsa and Tulane.
Appalachian State, Troy or Georgia Southern replace UConn.

The schools that I mentioned above have better fan support, better football product and better ratings. UNR would help bridge California to Utah, Idaho and Colorado. Air Force might be the better grab than Colorado State right. Grabbing Army for the east would get all three service academy in 1 conference.

(01-19-2019 02:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The next realignment, if Texas and OU leave, will adjust the American back down to the G5 pile by raiding their top maybe 3 programs.

IMO, UT and OU aren't going anywhere, but if they did, the Big 12 would become the "tweener" conference by bringing in the AAC's top football programs.

(01-19-2019 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://bellyupsports.com/2019/01/defini...ranking/#1

The internal links are pretty good too.

Also germane is this guy does the math behind what a solid sixth P conference might look like for those of you enamored of that concept.

The best I can figure JR is that each of the P4 should have an average score of about 21 in order to have a balanced situation.
Without actually assigning a point value to each school let me just spitball a first attempt.

To get the ACC down to 21 we'll start by moving Penn State the the ACC.

To get the PAC as low as possible, move Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC.

The hard part is to get the SEC all the way up to 21 from 11.
A&M goes to the PAC with Texas and Oklahoma.
Missouri is placed in limbo.

The sec ends up as a 12 team league.

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina , Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Alabama, Auburn, Miss State, Ole Miss, LSU and Arkansas.

Phew.......I'm going to have to take a break.

(01-19-2019 04:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 03:26 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  For those who don’t want to click the link, here’s the mathematical alignment for the best combination of non-power schools. It still lags quite a bit behind the other power conferences but would be better than the AAC.

West: San Diego St, Boise St, BYU, Colorado St, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane
East: Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Cincinnati, Navy, Temple, Connecticut

I would get rid of Tulsa, Tulane and U.Conn.

UNR and La. Tech, Arkansas State or UTSA replace Tulsa and Tulane.
Appalachian State, Troy or Georgia Southern replace UConn.

The schools that I mentioned above have better fan support, better football product and better ratings. UNR would help bridge California to Utah, Idaho and Colorado. Air Force might be the better grab than Colorado State right. Grabbing Army for the east would get all three service academy in 1 conference.

I would nix Tulsa and Tulane too. And stop at 14. I'm not really sure what those two schools give you. Other than two more mouths to feed. And if the P5 conferences haven't yet gone to 16, why should the 6th conference do so?

West
Boise State
BYU
San Diego St
Colorado St
Houston
SMU
Memphis

East
Cincinnati
Central Florida
South Florida
East Carolina
Temple
Navy
UConn

If we don't get another round of P5 expansion soon then I would strongly advocate adding 4 western schools to the AAC and cementing their status as the rulers of the G5.

(01-19-2019 06:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If we don't get another round of P5 expansion soon then I would strongly advocate adding 4 western schools to the AAC and cementing their status as the rulers of the G5.

What does that "rulers of the G5" get you that you don't pretty much have already with fewer mouths to feed?

The equal P4

PAC
Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Ariz., ASU, Colorado, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Texas

SEC
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, Miss. State, Ole Miss, Vandy or Louisville, Arkansas, LSU

ACC
Penn State, VT, UVa, NC State, Carolina, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami, Syracuse, (two of Pitt/West Virginia/Maryland)

B1G
Ohio State, MSU, Mich, Purdue, Indiana, Ill, Iowa, Wisc, Minn, Neb, Kansas, Missouri

(01-19-2019 08:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 06:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If we don't get another round of P5 expansion soon then I would strongly advocate adding 4 western schools to the AAC and cementing their status as the rulers of the G5.

What does that "rulers of the G5" get you that you don't pretty much have already with fewer mouths to feed?

Nothing.

And it would be a terrible idea for any western schools. If UConn's annual travel expenses are $8 million/year, how much would Boise's annual travel expenses be in that league? Maybe twice that amount. It's nuts to spend that much for travel alone out of a G5 revenue base.

Adding the western schools would give the AAC a lock on the G5 NY6 bid. This would be sound decision if the P5 stay static. If a change does occur then the top AAC schools will be contending for P5 spots and spreading the AAC footprint would not be wise.

How do Colo St, Tulane, and Tulsa add anything into that conference? Bad in both major revenue sports, flagging attendance, low number of draft picks. Seems like he added those just to sink the attendance average.

Why is Fresno State not in this alignment?

(01-20-2019 12:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding the western schools would give the AAC a lock on the G5 NY6 bid. This would be sound decision if the P5 stay static. If a change does occur then the top AAC schools will be contending for P5 spots and spreading the AAC footprint would not be wise.

Except it wouldn’t do that, at all. Perhaps if the AAC really were playing by cartel conference rules, it would, but they aren’t. What it would really do is make it easier for a Western Michigan (circa 2016) or a one loss Sun Belt team (Appalachian State pulling out a win versus Penn State this past year) to sneak past the AAC champ and into the access slot, assuming a loss for the AAC champ due to playing a tougher schedule.

You can’t equate the last few years of the AAC to the Bowden era ACC, Pete Carroll era Pac 10, or Swinney era ACC. Those conferences had media partners readily looking amongst their members for a challenger to emerge and take on the champion.

Being from Mississippi, this is the best way I can explain the paradox in thinking:

No one really takes note of when Southern Miss beats an SEC team (36 times and counting btw), except to point out that said SEC team must not be very good this year.

But the two schools up north are but a single win away against the right team, and they play eight of them every year, from being on the cover of sports illustrated.

The AAC and MW schools are stuck in the same paradox. “UCF played a weak schedule last year because Pitt and Georgia Tech were bad” is the prevailing reasoning, and it doesn’t matter to the committee whether that’s accurate.

(01-19-2019 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://bellyupsports.com/2019/01/defini...ranking/#1

The internal links are pretty good too.

Also germane is this guy does the math behind what a solid sixth P conference might look like for those of you enamored of that concept.

Conference Rankings

Seems pretty fair to me. It tries to encompass several of the factors that could/should be considered in order to determine the rankings. I have no issues.

Realignment

Here's the question. Why is is that folks sometimes think that the it will be SUCH a hassle from a logistics viewpoint to expand their footprint not to mention the additional costs involved yet somehow a coast 2 coast AAC conference will somehow work? If the SEC or B1G have issues with the amount of $$$ they make, how can the AAC make it work with probably 1/10 that amount?

(01-21-2019 02:36 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 12:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding the western schools would give the AAC a lock on the G5 NY6 bid. This would be sound decision if the P5 stay static. If a change does occur then the top AAC schools will be contending for P5 spots and spreading the AAC footprint would not be wise.

Except it wouldn’t do that, at all. Perhaps if the AAC really were playing by cartel conference rules, it would, but they aren’t. What it would really do is make it easier for a Western Michigan (circa 2016) or a one loss Sun Belt team (Appalachian State pulling out a win versus Penn State this past year) to sneak past the AAC champ and into the access slot, assuming a loss for the AAC champ due to playing a tougher schedule.

You can’t equate the last few years of the AAC to the Bowden era ACC, Pete Carroll era Pac 10, or Swinney era ACC. Those conferences had media partners readily looking amongst their members for a challenger to emerge and take on the champion.

Being from Mississippi, this is the best way I can explain the paradox in thinking:

No one really takes note of when Southern Miss beats an SEC team (36 times and counting btw), except to point out that said SEC team must not be very good this year.

But the two schools up north are but a single win away against the right team, and they play eight of them every year, from being on the cover of sports illustrated.

The AAC and MW schools are stuck in the same paradox. “UCF played a weak schedule last year because Pitt and Georgia Tech were bad” is the prevailing reasoning, and it doesn’t matter to the committee whether that’s accurate.

Yep. Cincinnati plays Ohio State next year. If we beat Ohio State it will be because they are "having a down year". If we lose to them and otherwise run the table we are not as good as 4-5 loss team in a P5 according to the voters in the polls.

For those wanting to dump Tulsa and Tulane, I'm sure if the legislation to hold a conference game with 10 members was still in place the AAC/Big East wouldn't have added them.

BE FB would be:

UConn
Temple
Cincy
Memphis
UCF
USF
Houston
SMU
ECU (FB only)
Navy (FB only)

The Catholic 7 might have been able to stomach that arrangement, added a 16th member to balance things out.