Funslinger
All American
Posts: 3,339
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 39
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
|
RE: New, simpler proposal > re: Gaining equal footing with AAC and MWC for big bowl...
(02-12-2014 10:50 AM)_sturt_ Wrote: Quote: I think what will happen more often than not is a close game by the CUSA and MAC school will end up screwing both teams. The committee my see that as a sign both are weak and take a Cincinnati that didn't have to play a cross-conference game...
...ECU would not have the same sagarin result in the AAC that they had in CUSA. It may have been better. It may have been much worse. It would not have been the same. Numbers derived over 5 years from completely different circumstances are not accurate predictors.
Allow me to back up?
I'd like to address the last point (forgive me, I forget if it was Maclid's or MUther's) first... then the other...
Let's start here. The premise is that... if we look at the data from the last 5-6 years and if we assume that when we take a group of schools, while their individual performances may vary somewhat, their performance as a group will not vary that much... then, more often than not... if not far more often than not... MAC and CUSA aren't even likely to be in the CFP committee's conversation as things stand.
And where Maclid or MUther's assertion is concerned... no, we can't "know" the future technically, but the history isn't quite so cloudy as some seem to want to make it out... there are two sets of teams (7 ex-CUSA and 3 ex-Big East) that, in fact, have played amongst themselves routinely, and even between those sets on some occasions (e.g., UCF/USF), plus Navy and Temple. And those two also have had some occasional play versus their new conference mates (e.g., Navy/SMU).
So, other than some natural shake-out because of the top-heaviness of the conference (i.e., the normal distribution predicts that 1-3 programs probably are destined to lose 1-3 more games on average)... the AAC isn't likely to be that much of a mystery.
You see, the point he has tried to express using ECU is something you can say about any team in any year... you could take the magic time machine and go back 5 years and have accurately said that, and you can go forward 5 years... that is, that one single team might/maybe/could experience things somewhat differently if they had a different environment and played in a different point in the timeline with a different W/L or Sagarin outcome is accurate...
But then... what do you do with that? How does recognizing that help us?
Because you can say that for any team at any time, it's not actually instructive... doesn't help us reach any stronger conclusions about how we should or should not proceed...
(For physicists and Big Bang Theory fans... hehe... it reminds one of the dilemma of Schrodinger's Cat. :) )
When, though, you add 11 others and examine an entire group of schools, that significantly reduces volatility... the expected outcome for the whole is much more predictable than for a single school. And accordingly, you can go back 10 years, and the strength of practically any group of schools that are united as a FBS conference, regardless of their additions and subtractions, is pretty stable.
Coming back to that initial assertion about playing a game that ends up working against us...
Even if one accepts his what-if scenario... the question distills down to, not whether there is a risk... there's always a risk... but which risk is greater?
If one accepts that we're statistically unlikely to be part of the conversation as things currently stand, the risk, of course, lies to the other side of Maclid's scenario.
The odds of a negative outcome are so much greater with doing nothing... why would you choose that, instead of doing something?
Okay, and finally, responding to this...
Quote:Then let's make one modification. If a C-USA or MAC champion is already in a position to garner the invite, then avoid the matchup between conference champs. Give those teams an extra bye week.
Even setting aside the financial consequences of declining to play a scheduled game... even setting aside the rhetorical consequences, as-if the CFP committee members aren't going to ding your team for not answering the bell... the fact is, the only time you'd even want to not play the game is if you are in a Boise situation... in the top 10 and so far above the others that you're virtually untouchable.
I think I'm in the majority when I say, I don't see that happening, and moreover, I don't think you make good policy decisions when you assume the most rosy circumstance as a basis for those decisions.
No.
The reality is that MWC has a history of producing at least one one-loss team, and sometimes even an undefeated one. Add to that that the AAC is poised to be right there with MWC in overall potency as a conference.
Most Marshall fans admit that they believe we'll have to go undefeated in CUSA in 2014 to get considered... and that's not a comfortable place to be, ie, when you go into a season figuring you need one more win than your competition to even merit being part of the discussion.
We don't want that. We don't want it for 2014... or for 2015... or for 2016... we just don't want to have this cloud hanging over us in perpetuity.
So, it stands to reason that we need to figure out an intelligent, workable way to give our schedule a little umph that it otherwise won't.
The idea at the center of this thread is, at least, one option.
To be clear, I'm not in favor of avoiding the inter-conference matchup. I just proposed that as a possibility to win over some who feel there may be more to lose by playing it in some years.
I tend to believe that if one of our champions is in the driver's seat, they should accept the challenge of beating the other champ to bolster their argument for inclusion.
|
|