(02-11-2014 06:07 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  IMO, it is a bit naive to think the committee will consider all G5s the same or equal considering what has been leaked...

... FYI, last year A 1 loss AAC team was rated higher than an undefeated MAC team by week 12 in the human polls...only, the computers pushed them ahead. IMO, late season "good" wins are compelling and central to this discussion.

You're a Memphis fan?

I've had one fan of an AAC school respond that he wishes they would do something along these lines with the MWC.

Thing is, I don't think it works to their advantage like it would for MAC and CUSA... assuming they have a worthy candidate every year, there is almost no question that that candidate will be in the mix... and in that case, the "playing-a-game-that-is-just-as-likely-to-work-against-us" theory proposed above actually would be spot on.

It's those of us who are now in the awkward position of having slightly-inferior schedules... typically because of the comparative strength of the middle and bottom of our conferences... who need to think more strategically about how we can configure things to leverage that problem.

(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.

Understood, Funslinger...

Giving some second thought to the play-in game, in the pursuit of trying to avoid having two teams meet each other twice.

The primary benefit of the play-in game is that it adds a fer-sure additional quality late season win to the eventual CUSA champion's record.

Any ideas?

So far, my next best thought is to abandon the play-in game as a seventh conference game, and instead, employ seeding in how the regular season schedule is constructed... the Sunday after all OOC play is completed, a third party panel would seed teams 1 through 7, and the #1 team would be scheduled to play #7, then #6, and so on through the last Saturday when seed #2 visits #1.

It isn't the same thing nor does it have the precise same benefit, but it at least raises the likelihood that the two best teams in the division are playing each other the last Saturday prior to the Championship Game.

The other benefit would be simply the addition of a 5th OOC game that ADs could exploit.

(02-12-2014 11:18 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 06:07 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  IMO, it is a bit naive to think the committee will consider all G5s the same or equal considering what has been leaked...

... FYI, last year A 1 loss AAC team was rated higher than an undefeated MAC team by week 12 in the human polls...only, the computers pushed them ahead. IMO, late season "good" wins are compelling and central to this discussion.

You're a Memphis fan?

I've had one fan of an AAC school respond that he wishes they would do something along these lines with the MWC.

Thing is, I don't think it works to their advantage like it would for MAC and CUSA... assuming they have a worthy candidate every year, there is almost no question that that candidate will be in the mix... and in that case, the "playing-a-game-that-is-just-as-likely-to-work-against-us" theory proposed above actually would be spot on.

It's those of us who are now in the awkward position of having slightly-inferior schedules... typically because of the comparative strength of the middle and bottom of our conferences... who need to think more strategically about how we can configure things to leverage that problem.

Bandwagon...I graduated from a B1G school and took a job in Memphis. Actually, the first time I spotted hubby was in a skybox at the Liberty Bowl...and the rest is history. Poor guy never knew what hit him.

I don't understand the whole "banwagon fans are bad" stance. I'd think most urban schools would want to capture this market. Anyway, we've been to more USM and Tulane games than Memphis over the last half dozen years or so. I work with several USM donors and hear more scoop about them than I do the Tigers.

Here is the rub, If they truly wanted to setup a fair system the could
have just went to a 16 team playoff with each conference champ and 6 at large. But no......

They could have selected the field for the playoffs after the bowl games. So that the rose, fiesta, cotton, chickfilet, sugar, and orange had
the 12 top teams in the nation

6 winners would have emerged and you could have had a 6 team playoff
with the 2 highest ranked having byes.

But just as they came up with a goofy playoff system that starts next year.

As far as your proposal OP it has a lot of merit and would result in a higher ranking but you are never going
to get 2 conferences to agree on it.
Conferences members can hardly agree on things within their own conference.

FBS football is the only sport at all levels that has this dumb system. Every other sport high school, college and pros if you tell a player if you
win all your games you will be the champion, Not FBS football.

And how is it that FCS, Div 2, Div 3 and NAIA football can all have a true playoff....And all the excuses that
are given to limit teams in the FBS playoffs don't matter at the lower levels as they have expanded the number of teams included in their playoffs.

It's all Just Greed... Because if they had set it up fairly and the G5 teams had the same access to the championship some of those 5 star players may start attending other schools not named Alabama.

This is also why you did not see big mergers in realignment, Every school that moved was voted on and extended an offer independently
for membership...

So the best any of the G5 teams can do is schedule wisely and win all your games and hope.

(02-14-2014 10:05 AM)Hilltop 75 Wrote:  So the best any of the G5 teams can do is schedule wisely and win all your games and hope.

Glass half-full, some of us predicted a day when we would have better standing with the big money conferences. And improvement has, indeed, occurred. In 1999, us Marshall fans were thrilled to get to play BYU... didn't even think twice about the idea of being invited to one of the major bowls. If that same 1999 team were time-machined into 2014, Marshall fans would be pizzed if their team didn't get a major bowl bid... and rightfully so, given the caliber of that team that finished #10, but arguably should have been given some consideration as high as #5.

So... I see all things as possible, where many don't, especially given some time...

And, where the topic of this thread is concerned... consistent with that anything-that is-reasonable-is-also-possible attitude... I take a more pro-active approach than seemingly most do...

I believe there are some things we can do to, at least, even the playing field so that, when we do have a team that legitimately deserves strong consideration for the one major bowl slot that's been allocated to the non-contract conferences, we don't get by-passed because of a slightly-inferior conference schedule.

I recently posted on a Marshall board that I liken it to having to cross an 10-foot fence to be considered...

CUSA is one of two 6-0 guys (the other being MAC), and our primary competition is two 6-8 guys (AAC and MWC)... we can (a) both just watch the other two vault over top of us time after time, keeping the candidacy between them...

or...

We can (b) use a little ingenuity and create a competition between us 6-footers that grants the winner the ability to stand on the other's shoulders to climb over the barrier... ensuring that, at least, one of us is going to land on the other side, and attain due consideration from the CFP committee.

Not surprisingly, I vote "b."

(02-13-2014 11:47 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Bandwagon...I graduated from a B1G school and took a job in Memphis. Actually, the first time I spotted hubby was in a skybox at the Liberty Bowl...and the rest is history. Poor guy never knew what hit him.

I don't understand the whole "banwagon fans are bad" stance. I'd think most urban schools would want to capture this market. Anyway, we've been to more USM and Tulane games than Memphis over the last half dozen years or so. I work with several USM donors and hear more scoop about them than I do the Tigers.

Not sure what prompted the bandwagon comment(?). Indeed, bandwagon fans are casual fans, and while the invested fans are the lifeblood of an affinity business... which all sports operations are... it's the capacity to capture those casual fans that has to happen, not only for expanding short-term profits, but indeed, those casual fans represent a pool of potential converts who could evolve into succeeding seasons' invested fans.

I'm going to make this quick because I feel like a bad Mom posting while my kids are on the court, and hubby is coaching... sorry for the tangent. I've read enough vitriol across these boards re: t-shirt fans that I sometimes take offense when I shouldn't. I almost feel as if I have to justify liking the teams I do. What makes it even more ludicrous is that these "adopted" schools don't seem to have any problems cashing my checks.

Carry on...just thought your idea could help CUSA. I'm not pro/anti CUSA/AAC and don't think in those terms.

(02-22-2014 04:48 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Carry on...just thought your idea could help CUSA.

Clearly, you're an extremely intelligent "gal"... ... good to see an independent voice chime in with her voice of reason.