(12-04-2019 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (10-16-2019 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote: I think it's fair to say that the MW has performed *at least* as well vs the P5 so far as has the AAC, and probably better.
The reason the AAC is so much stronger in the computers is because they have performed far better against other G5 teams, including 3-0 vs the MW.
That is ironic, in that AAC fans are claiming a separation from the G5 and towards the P5, when this separation is in fact based on dominance of the G5, not on having more success vs the P5, which is what association with the P5 should be based on.
Actually---thats patently incorrect. Half (or more) of the P5 regularly have losing records against the rest of the P5. When it comes to "on the field" comparisons the trait the P5 universally shares is having a dominant record against the G5.
"Patently"? You have a point but a partial one. Because just mathematically, the sum of all P5 vs P5 OOC games must equal a .500 record, that means that it's impossible for all P5 conferences to have winning records vs other P5 conferences. If the SEC is 3-1 vs the B1G, then the B1G is 1-3 vs the SEC, etc. So there can't be an expectation that to be a P5 conference you have to have a winning record vs other P5. On the other hand, you are right that dominance over G5 is a P5 hallmark. Point taken.
But still, I think it's different for a G5 conference trying to prove it belongs in the "P" range. To me, that conference has to meet a higher standard, it does need to win a substantial number of games vs P5, it can't just do what other P5 do, which is dominate the G5.
E.g., the ACC doesn't need to have a winning record vs other P5 this year to still be a "P" conference, because "P" status is something earned over time, not based on a year's results, and it has done so in the past. But a G5 trying enter the "P" ranks has to establish major success vs existing P5 to build its case.
In essence, i submit that if a particular conference were to develop a legacy of (a) dominating other G5, but (b) also consistently having a bad losing record vs P5, then © it would come to be regarded as a "tweener", not a "P" conference.