(06-27-2018 09:49 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

We are nation that enshrined in our foundational law, the Constitution that there is to be no nobility or titles recognized. You don't get to be the Count of Chapel Hill based on winning the genetic lottery.

But in intercollegiate athletics the idea of royalty and bloodline is alive and well.

Merely holding membership in a P5 conference does not mean you are better than all of the G5 or even half of G5. Being a G5 does not confer upon you superiority over FCS schools and being FCS does not automatically mean you field better teams than Division II schools.

The idea of enshrining the superiority of a team simply because they were considered worthy of joining what became a power conference 80 years ago is about as damned un-American as it gets.

It is hard to climb a level in intercollegiate athletics but a school can certainly choose courses of action that put them on that path.

Imagine Utah, Louisville, and TCU having to climb up when they are 3/4ths of a "real" football program in addition to the other obstacles they had to overcome.

They got the chance to play high quality games because their opponents knew that those schools wouldn't hurt their reputation because of their established quality. Making them 3/4ths they would have played weaker schedules and not have been as highly regarded.

Damn stupid idea.

In TCU's case, they were already nobility, then pushed down and out, then had to come back.

So by that logic UConn, Cincinnati, USF, Temple, Houston, SMU and Tulane are in the same boat since they were once nobility.

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

What makes it weird is pretending that college sports are exactly analogous to pro sports leagues. They are not. College sports are messy and often more disorganized than organized. No college sport is a "league" in the way that the NFL or NBA are.
Some people want a "scientific" answer to questions like, "Is an 11-1 MAC team as good as a 11-1 Big Ten team. or only as good as a 7-5 Big Ten team?" but there are no such answers, all we really have are fans and sportswriters arguing their opinions.

This proposal is aimed at top teams who take the easy way out in scheduling, and it's a crude way of arguing that contenders for the playoff should schedule fewer cupcakes or be penalized for every cupcake on their schedule. I agree that the games would be more entertaining to watch if the best teams scheduled more challenging non-conference opponents, but there's no "scientific" way to penalize them for not doing that.

(06-27-2018 10:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 09:49 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

We are nation that enshrined in our foundational law, the Constitution that there is to be no nobility or titles recognized. You don't get to be the Count of Chapel Hill based on winning the genetic lottery.

But in intercollegiate athletics the idea of royalty and bloodline is alive and well.

Merely holding membership in a P5 conference does not mean you are better than all of the G5 or even half of G5. Being a G5 does not confer upon you superiority over FCS schools and being FCS does not automatically mean you field better teams than Division II schools.

The idea of enshrining the superiority of a team simply because they were considered worthy of joining what became a power conference 80 years ago is about as damned un-American as it gets.

It is hard to climb a level in intercollegiate athletics but a school can certainly choose courses of action that put them on that path.

Imagine Utah, Louisville, and TCU having to climb up when they are 3/4ths of a "real" football program in addition to the other obstacles they had to overcome.

They got the chance to play high quality games because their opponents knew that those schools wouldn't hurt their reputation because of their established quality. Making them 3/4ths they would have played weaker schedules and not have been as highly regarded.

Damn stupid idea.

In TCU's case, they were already nobility, then pushed down and out, then had to come back.

So by that logic UConn, Cincinnati, USF, Temple, Houston, SMU and Tulane are in the same boat since they were once nobility.

He isn't wrong though, although you both forgot about Rice. This idea is bad because it lumps all of the G5 together into one cohesive unit of also-rans instead of looking at the programs within these G5 conferences. There are about 85 or so Div. 1 worthy programs in my opinion that play at more or less the same level when taking into account pedigree, resources, etc. Most of these programs are in the P5, AAC, MWC, or are independents. With a few notable exceptions among the other G5 programs, the rest is chaff. There are also a few programs in the MWC/AAC that drag the rest down. Generally though, the real commitment drop off lies between the MWC/AAC and the rest of those conferences. That is where the floor should be raised, if it ever does.

The A5-G5 chasm is a resource chasm.

5 years ago the conferences decided at that moment it was in the best interest of college football to move to the CFP format to maximize revenue.

Who then knows what they will decide in the future? They could decide to split the money more evenly with the G5.

A change of heart is always possible. Different generation of administrators who want to see fair play happen instead of a money grab.

(06-27-2018 09:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  I didn't like the notion that some Americans should count as 3/5 of a citizen, and I don't care for this.

Boy, you are old if you were around then :)

On a side note, I am not sure if this is well understood, but ironicaly if the founders would have counted slaves as 5/5 of a person, it would have given the slave states even more power since they would have gotten even more representatives in congress compared to the free states.

(06-27-2018 10:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

What makes it weird is pretending that college sports are exactly analogous to pro sports leagues. They are not. College sports are messy and often more disorganized than organized. No college sport is a "league" in the way that the NFL or NBA are.
Some people want a "scientific" answer to questions like, "Is an 11-1 MAC team as good as a 11-1 Big Ten team. or only as good as a 7-5 Big Ten team?" but there are no such answers, all we really have are fans and sportswriters arguing their opinions.

This proposal is aimed at top teams who take the easy way out in scheduling, and it's a crude way of arguing that contenders for the playoff should schedule fewer cupcakes or be penalized for every cupcake on their schedule. I agree that the games would be more entertaining to watch if the best teams scheduled more challenging non-conference opponents, but there's no "scientific" way to penalize them for not doing that.

And not only that, teams vary from year to year. If you played Southern Miss in 2011, you faced a team that went 12-2 and lost those two games by a combined 9 points. Play Southern Miss in 2012 and you faced a team that went 0-12 and played their opponent within 7 points only 3 times.

Really unfair to "punish" a school for scheduling a team that by history was a good G5, just because by the time the game rolled around they were awful.

This has got to be the dumbest idea that I have ever heard.

Does any idiot TRULY believe that a win vs. Kansas (for example), is worth MORE than a win over Boise St., USF, UCF, Houston, Memphis, San Diego State, etc.

All of those teams would beat Kansas (for example) 50-0. Maybe a slight exaggeration, but barely.

(06-27-2018 12:39 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  She admits it has flaws, but it could push for more schedule equity in P5, forcing the SEC and ACC to add an additional power opponent to be on par with the B1G , P12 and B12. Of course the ACC and SEC schools with built in P5 rivals like Georgia (GT) and Clemson (So Car) get that 10th P5 opponent.

While I believe Alabama is ridiculously loaded and hard to keep out of a Playoff, and would get in by any rules they have to play by, it's clear that Saban sets up the most minimum path to get there, so he has to be forced by rules to play on a level playing field.

Sigh .... here are Alabama's Sagarin SOS ratings during the title winning Saban years:

2009 ... 2*
2010 ... 14
2011 ... 15*
2012 ... 19*
2013 ... 39
2014 ... 2
2015 ... 2*
2016 ... 1
2017 ... 27*

Overall, that's an average SOS of ... 13.4 over those nine years. That's playing tough schedules. In four of those nine years they've had a *top two* schedule, in seven a top 20 schedule, and in only one year in nine was their schedule outside the top 30 - and they didn't win the title that year.

The problem with the author's analysis is it (a) treats every P5 as better than every G5, which is silly (e.g., compare UCF to Vanderbilt last year), and (b) it discounts the strength of conference.

(06-27-2018 10:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 09:49 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

We are nation that enshrined in our foundational law, the Constitution that there is to be no nobility or titles recognized. You don't get to be the Count of Chapel Hill based on winning the genetic lottery.

But in intercollegiate athletics the idea of royalty and bloodline is alive and well.

Merely holding membership in a P5 conference does not mean you are better than all of the G5 or even half of G5. Being a G5 does not confer upon you superiority over FCS schools and being FCS does not automatically mean you field better teams than Division II schools.

The idea of enshrining the superiority of a team simply because they were considered worthy of joining what became a power conference 80 years ago is about as damned un-American as it gets.

It is hard to climb a level in intercollegiate athletics but a school can certainly choose courses of action that put them on that path.

Imagine Utah, Louisville, and TCU having to climb up when they are 3/4ths of a "real" football program in addition to the other obstacles they had to overcome.

They got the chance to play high quality games because their opponents knew that those schools wouldn't hurt their reputation because of their established quality. Making them 3/4ths they would have played weaker schedules and not have been as highly regarded.

Damn stupid idea.

In TCU's case, they were already nobility, then pushed down and out, then had to come back.

So by that logic UConn, Cincinnati, USF, Temple, Houston, SMU and Tulane are in the same boat since they were once nobility.

TCU is the only one who went down for the count and came all the way back. No one else qualifies in that category.

(06-27-2018 12:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 12:39 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  She admits it has flaws, but it could push for more schedule equity in P5, forcing the SEC and ACC to add an additional power opponent to be on par with the B1G , P12 and B12. Of course the ACC and SEC schools with built in P5 rivals like Georgia (GT) and Clemson (So Car) get that 10th P5 opponent.

While I believe Alabama is ridiculously loaded and hard to keep out of a Playoff, and would get in by any rules they have to play by, it's clear that Saban sets up the most minimum path to get there, so he has to be forced by rules to play on a level playing field.

Sigh .... here are Alabama's Sagarin SOS ratings during the title winning Saban years:

2009 ... 2*
2010 ... 14
2011 ... 15*
2012 ... 19*
2013 ... 39
2014 ... 2
2015 ... 2*
2016 ... 1
2017 ... 27*

Overall, that's an average SOS of ... 13.4 over those nine years. That's playing tough schedules. In four of those nine years they've had a *top two* schedule, in seven a top 20 schedule, and in only one year in nine was their schedule outside the top 30 - and they didn't win the title that year.

The problem with the author's analysis is it (a) treats every P5 as better than every G5, which is silly (e.g., compare UCF to Vanderbilt last year), and (b) it discounts the strength of conference.

Hum, do they pad their big games with byes and FCS schools in November? Let look at the record:

2019: Nov 23 Western Carolina
2018: Oct 27 bye, next week LSU Nov 3; Nov 17 the Citadel; Nov 24 Auburn (TWO PADDINGS!!!)
SEC unlike P12 and ACC, makes it fair, giving LSU a bye on Oct 27, Auburn plays Liberty (just up from FCS) on Nov 17
but the padding is there for big games unlike P12
2017: Oct 28 bye before LSU, Nov 18 Mercer before Auburn
2016: bye before LSU, Chattanooga before Auburn
2015: bye before LSU, Charleston Southern before Auburn
2014: bye before Ole Miss, bye before LSU, Western Carolina before Auburn (also USM before Florida ... this was a super padded year)
2013: bye before A&M, bye before LSU, Chattanooga before Auburn
2012: Western Carolina before Auburn (this was by far the least padded season)

Yeah, the SEC (CCG helps that ranking alot)and their Kickoff game are solid opponents. But Saban pads his big games more than anyone, and has lot's of rest & recuperation time built into his October and November schedules you just don't see in other programs. This is also a program that play 7 home games and a friendly neutral site kickoff (lots of prep time). Only 4 true road games, and by usual random draw only 2 are probably against winning season SEC teams (by draw 2 are likely losing, just the way it goes with that).

So yes, Saban builds in every advantage he can. The SEC allowing post-September FCS opponents is a crime against the playoff system. If they had to play a 9th conference game, the advantage over a Washington who will get back to back road games (the 2nd only 6 days off) against likely ranked opponents is a path Alabama never faces. This is the unfairness that has to be addressed, the SEC advantage.

(06-27-2018 11:31 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 09:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  I didn't like the notion that some Americans should count as 3/5 of a citizen, and I don't care for this.

Boy, you are old if you were around then :)

On a side note, I am not sure if this is well understood, but ironicaly if the founders would have counted slaves as 5/5 of a person, it would have given the slave states even more power since they would have gotten even more representatives in congress compared to the free states.

It wasn't really ironic. Pro-slavery people wanted slaves to count as full persons for representation purposes, despite their inability to vote. Anti-slavery people wanted them not to count as long as they were unable to vote. Hence the 3/5 Compromise.

(06-27-2018 11:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 10:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

What makes it weird is pretending that college sports are exactly analogous to pro sports leagues. They are not. College sports are messy and often more disorganized than organized. No college sport is a "league" in the way that the NFL or NBA are.
Some people want a "scientific" answer to questions like, "Is an 11-1 MAC team as good as a 11-1 Big Ten team. or only as good as a 7-5 Big Ten team?" but there are no such answers, all we really have are fans and sportswriters arguing their opinions.

This proposal is aimed at top teams who take the easy way out in scheduling, and it's a crude way of arguing that contenders for the playoff should schedule fewer cupcakes or be penalized for every cupcake on their schedule. I agree that the games would be more entertaining to watch if the best teams scheduled more challenging non-conference opponents, but there's no "scientific" way to penalize them for not doing that.

And not only that, teams vary from year to year. If you played Southern Miss in 2011, you faced a team that went 12-2 and lost those two games by a combined 9 points. Play Southern Miss in 2012 and you faced a team that went 0-12 and played their opponent within 7 points only 3 times.

Really unfair to "punish" a school for scheduling a team that by history was a good G5, just because by the time the game rolled around they were awful.

We were friends upto the moment you mentioned Southern Miss 2012 season.

(06-27-2018 09:49 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

We are nation that enshrined in our foundational law, the Constitution that there is to be no nobility or titles recognized. You don't get to be the Count of Chapel Hill based on winning the genetic lottery.

But in intercollegiate athletics the idea of royalty and bloodline is alive and well.

Merely holding membership in a P5 conference does not mean you are better than all of the G5 or even half of G5. Being a G5 does not confer upon you superiority over FCS schools and being FCS does not automatically mean you field better teams than Division II schools.

The idea of enshrining the superiority of a team simply because they were considered worthy of joining what became a power conference 80 years ago is about as damned un-American as it gets.

It is hard to climb a level in intercollegiate athletics but a school can certainly choose courses of action that put them on that path.

Imagine Utah, Louisville, and TCU having to climb up when they are 3/4ths of a "real" football program in addition to the other obstacles they had to overcome.

They got the chance to play high quality games because their opponents knew that those schools wouldn't hurt their reputation because of their established quality. Making them 3/4ths they would have played weaker schedules and not have been as highly regarded.

Damn stupid idea.

In TCU's case, they were already nobility, then pushed down and out, then had to come back.

Sort of like USF, UConn, and Cincy.... Except for the last part.

(06-27-2018 02:36 PM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 10:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 08:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It simply reflects the weirdness of American sports, especially in intercollegiate athletics.

What makes it weird is pretending that college sports are exactly analogous to pro sports leagues. They are not. College sports are messy and often more disorganized than organized. No college sport is a "league" in the way that the NFL or NBA are.
Some people want a "scientific" answer to questions like, "Is an 11-1 MAC team as good as a 11-1 Big Ten team. or only as good as a 7-5 Big Ten team?" but there are no such answers, all we really have are fans and sportswriters arguing their opinions.

This proposal is aimed at top teams who take the easy way out in scheduling, and it's a crude way of arguing that contenders for the playoff should schedule fewer cupcakes or be penalized for every cupcake on their schedule. I agree that the games would be more entertaining to watch if the best teams scheduled more challenging non-conference opponents, but there's no "scientific" way to penalize them for not doing that.

And not only that, teams vary from year to year. If you played Southern Miss in 2011, you faced a team that went 12-2 and lost those two games by a combined 9 points. Play Southern Miss in 2012 and you faced a team that went 0-12 and played their opponent within 7 points only 3 times.

Really unfair to "punish" a school for scheduling a team that by history was a good G5, just because by the time the game rolled around they were awful.

We were friends upto the moment you mentioned Southern Miss 2012 season.

A-State is on a 7 year bowl streak. 2012 USM is always on mind to remind me how fast an AD can derail the train.

Y'all need to come up US 49 and play us again some time.

(06-27-2018 01:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The SEC allowing post-September FCS opponents is a crime against the playoff system.

All the committee has to do is evaluate the wins and losses on the merits. It's no different than what Big Ten teams used to do by punting the entire month of September.

A better idea would be for the P5 czars to sit down and create some standardized scheduling guidelines:

10 P5 opponents minimum (Not counting CCG)
0 FCS (unless it's a 13th game as a result of the @Hawaii Rule)

(06-27-2018 02:23 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:31 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 09:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  I didn't like the notion that some Americans should count as 3/5 of a citizen, and I don't care for this.

Boy, you are old if you were around then :)

On a side note, I am not sure if this is well understood, but ironicaly if the founders would have counted slaves as 5/5 of a person, it would have given the slave states even more power since they would have gotten even more representatives in congress compared to the free states.

It wasn't really ironic. Pro-slavery people wanted slaves to count as full persons for representation purposes, despite their inability to vote. Anti-slavery people wanted them not to count as long as they were unable to vote. Hence the 3/5 Compromise.

Yup, I was using the word ironic in the sense that many modern day people think it was so awful that slaves were only counted as 3/5 of a person instead of as a whole person. When in reality it would have been better for the slaves themselves to not be counted at all.

(06-27-2018 01:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So yes, Saban builds in every advantage he can. The SEC allowing post-September FCS opponents is a crime against the playoff system. If they had to play a 9th conference game, the advantage over a Washington who will get back to back road games (the 2nd only 6 days off) against likely ranked opponents is a path Alabama never faces. This is the unfairness that has to be addressed, the SEC advantage.

What part of "Alabama's Sagarin SOS is 13 over the past 9 years" didn't sink in?

Does Alabama play some FCS cupcakes? Some G5 cupcakes? Yes they do. They don't play the New England Patriots ever week. But, nobody else does either. You complain about playing a cupcake in November? Well, they also usually play LSU and Auburn in November as well.

So you have to consider the whole schedule, and for Alabama, it's an SOS of 13.

And that's a TOUGH average schedule. It just is.

Using the same logic, P5's should also get 1 1/2 losses when they get beat.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using CSNbbs mobile app

no, its not fair to put the entire g5 in that category, beating memphis is way different than beating akron...also kansas shouldn't count for anything if we are heading in that direction