(10-29-2019 08:43 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: (10-29-2019 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-29-2019 04:49 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: (10-29-2019 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The Massey Composite is probably the best, and they have the AAC sixth, but yes, barely behind the fifth place ACC. That puts the AAC clearly in P6 territory this year.
But, the AAC has largely built this record by beating other G5 teams. The AAC has the BEST record against G5 teams of ANY conference. They are 17-1 against G5.
By comparison, the SEC is 16-6, 15-5 if you subtract out games vs the AAC, which obviously the AAC doesn't play. Only the B1G, at 20-2, is comparable to the AAC vs G5 teams.
But the AAC hasn't been that great vs P5 teams. They are 6-12 vs P5. That's actually slightly worse than last year, when the AAC went 8-13, or 2017, when the AAC went 7-11. Neither year the AAC was anywhere close to "P" level overall.
So it will be interesting to see if this is just a G5 dynasty, or whether they can beat P5 in bowl games.
In 2017, in the final Massey Composite ranking, the AAC was closer to the #5 contract-bowl-conference than it was to the #7 mwc. In 2017 the AAC was closer to the #1 conference than it was to #9-10.
That year, and this year (as of this week, the AAC is closer to #2 than to #7 mwc) are not unusual.
At the end of 2016 season AAC was also #6, but the mwc was actually within sight - the gap from AAC to the mwc was 58% of the gap from the AAC to BigXII, but AAC was closer to the BigXII than to conferences #8-10.
At the end of the 2015 season, the AAC was #6 and closer to the #5 ACC than to the mwc or the others #7-10.
Where do you get those numbers from? I go to the Massey archives link and it doesn't have conference data?
Yeah, his new format is tough.
Thanks! Yes, your links seem to be working, though it's not clear how they are connected to his website, LOL.
Alright, with your data, I can address your point in the previous post. You contested my claim that in 2017 and 2018, neither year for the AAC was anywhere close to "P" level.
In 2018 ... I think we can dispense with that outright, as the AAC was actually ranked behind the MW, so unless you are saying the MW was close to "P" level, the AAC was pure "G".
In 2017 ... Among the P5, the worst was a 52. The AAC was at 67. The next closest "G" was at 84. To me, that also means "nowwhere near" Power level, as 15 is a big gap. The entire range of the P5 was just 11. But the 17 gap to the closest G5 also means the AAC was nowhere near a G either. Verdict: The AAC was a "tweener" on the field that year albeit slightly closer to P than G.
In 2016 .... the worst P5 was a 52, the AAC was at 69, the next closest G was at 78. Again, clear tweener, this time closer to G.
In 2015 .... the worst P5 was 55, the AAC was at 69, the next closest G was at 83. Tweener, right smack in the middle.
In 2014 ..... the worst P5 was 49, AAC finished 3rd among the Gs so obviously pure "G".
So looking at the AAC in the CFP era, I see two pure "G" years and three "tweener" years. Nothing ever resembling a "P".