This is the 11th year of the BCS/A5 Conference Comparison! I originall started this in 2009 to compare BCS conferences. Results are often surprising (see the B1G below) but in the end comport very closely with Massey computer standings.

Let's see how the A5 conferences did in week zero and one (see methodology below for how results are calculated). If you spot any errors, please let me know.

The Big 12 is #1 after the first round! The Big 12 has a perfect record, as it suffered no losses but notched two countable wins thanks to OK State beating Oregon State, and Oklahoma beating ranked (see method) Houston. The SEC is #2, with the most extreme week. The SEC had the most wins, and the only "quality win" (see method), but also suffered two "bad losses" to unranked G5. In third place is the ACC, which suffered tough losses to highly-ranked SEC teams, but also scored wins by North Carolina and Wake Forest. In fourth place is the PAC, which took a bad loss thanks to Arizona losing to G5 Hawaii, but scored wins by USC and Stanford. Finally, the B1G is in last place, scoring no wins while suffering a bad loss by Purdue to Nevada, and Northwestern losing to Stanford. The B1G was lauded by the media as having a good week, but their wins came against unranked G5, which gain no credit here.

On to Cincinnati! (I mean next week).

Rankings for September 3, 2019


@ 2 win credit for "super win" (see Method)

* 1.5 win credit for "quality win"

# 1.5 loss credit for "bad loss"

& 2 loss credit for "awful loss"

METHOD

1) Only OOC games count.

2) Notre Dame is always regarded as a A5 opponent, including for ACC teams. BYU, Army and other FBS independents are regarded as G5 opponents excepted as noted below.

3) All references to "rankings" are to at the time the game was played.

4) How losses are assessed:

a) A conference is docked 1 loss for losing to any A5 opponent.

b) A conference is docked 1 loss for losing to any FCS or G5 opponent that is ranked in the Coaches or AP poll, including "others receiving votes".

c) A conference is docked 1.5 losses for losing to any unranked G5 opponent. This is a penalty for a "bad loss".

d) A conference is docked 2 losses for losing to any unranked FCS opponent, a penalty for an "awful loss".


5) How wins are earned:

a) A conference is credited with 1 win for any win against an unranked A5 opponent.

b) A conference gets credit for 1 win against an FCS or G5 opponent if the FCS or G5 opponent is ranked in the "others receiving votes" of both the AP and Coaches polls.

c) A conference earns 1.5 wins for beating any team ranked between 11-25 in the AP or Coaches top 25. This is a bonus for a "quality win".

d) A conference earns 2 wins if the win is against any team ranked in the top 10 in either poll. This is a bonus for a "super" win.

6) Wins against unranked FCS or G5 earn no credit.

7) For bowl season, the following modifications apply:

- Rankings of bowl game opponents are based on CFP rankings only, save for rules that refer to "others receiving votes" above. For bowl games pitting A5 vs G5, all win and loss credit is earned according to rules 4b-c and 5c-d and 6 above, with CFP substituted for AP/Coaches. So for example, beating a CFP unranked G5 team still earns no credit for the A5 conference, but losing to an unranked G5 in a bowl game does mean it suffers the "bad" loss penalty. But, if the G5 bowl opponent is ranked in the "others receiving votes" of either the AP or Coaches poll, the P5 conference would get credit for 1 win (if they win the bowl game) or just 1 loss (if they lose the bowl game).

why is BYU not considered P5

(09-03-2018 09:45 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  why is BYU not considered P5

The main reason is that they are not in an A5 conference.

Now, that also applies to Notre Dame. But, Notre Dame has several things that IMO qualify it as being regarded as an A5 team that BYU does not:

1) ND's undeniable history as an elite blue-blood program.

2) ND is an official founder of the CFP with a seat on the Executive Committee equal to that of an A5 conference.

3) ND has a media deal that pays it A5 level money.

4) ND has a scheduling arrangement with an A5 conference that gives it access to an A5 bowl hierarchy.

5) ND has a deal that allows it to play in a contract bowl, the Orange Bowl.

In the end, it's a judgment call, but in my view Notre Dame is clearly an A5 program whereas BYU and Army do not make the grade.

(09-03-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 09:45 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  why is BYU not considered P5

The main reason is that they are not in an A5 conference.

Now, that also applies to Notre Dame. But, Notre Dame has several things that IMO qualify it as being regarded as an A5 team that BYU does not:

1) ND's undeniable history as an elite blue-blood program.

2) ND is an official founder of the CFP with a seat on the Executive Committee equal to that of an A5 conference.

3) ND has a media deal that pays it A5 level money.

4) ND has a scheduling arrangement with an A5 conference that gives it access to an A5 bowl hierarchy.

5) ND has a deal that allows it to play in a contract bowl, the Orange Bowl.

In the end, it's a judgment call, but in my view Notre Dame is clearly an A5 program whereas BYU and Army do not make the grade.

Regarding #2, Notre Dame's athletic director sits at the same level with the other conference commissioners. Notre Dame is definitely part of the group, with a seat at the proverbial and actual table.

For assessing points for the A5/P5 comparison, it's silly to give credit for a win over Kansas, Illinois, or Wake Forest, but not over BYU or Army or Houston, Cincinnati, or Wyoming (if that G5 team isn't receiving poll votes).

It's one thing to compare Army and BYU, and other G5, to the P5 elite, like Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio St., Oklahoma, Florida St., USC, etc. Clearly a material difference. But, it's quite another comparison when you lineup BYU and Army, and the others, to the P5 dregs like Rutgers, Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, etc.

You can also argue that the B1G, SEC, and ACC consider Army and BYU as P5 opponents for OOC scheduling purposes - as well as a few others. The OOC results are the very data you are evaluating in the comparison. If the very conferences you are comparing consider certain schools to be part of that group, why exclude them?

(09-03-2018 11:11 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 09:45 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  why is BYU not considered P5

The main reason is that they are not in an A5 conference.

Now, that also applies to Notre Dame. But, Notre Dame has several things that IMO qualify it as being regarded as an A5 team that BYU does not:

1) ND's undeniable history as an elite blue-blood program.

2) ND is an official founder of the CFP with a seat on the Executive Committee equal to that of an A5 conference.

3) ND has a media deal that pays it A5 level money.

4) ND has a scheduling arrangement with an A5 conference that gives it access to an A5 bowl hierarchy.

5) ND has a deal that allows it to play in a contract bowl, the Orange Bowl.

In the end, it's a judgment call, but in my view Notre Dame is clearly an A5 program whereas BYU and Army do not make the grade.

Regarding #2, Notre Dame's athletic director sits at the same level with the other conference commissioners. Notre Dame is definitely part of the group, with a seat at the proverbial and actual table.

For assessing points for the A5/P5 comparison, it's silly to give credit for a win over Kansas, Illinois, or Wake Forest, but not over BYU or Army or Houston, Cincinnati, or Wyoming (if that G5 team isn't receiving poll votes).

It's one thing to compare Army and BYU, and other G5, to the P5 elite, like Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio St., Oklahoma, Florida St., USC, etc. Clearly a material difference. But, it's quite another comparison when you lineup BYU and Army, and the others, to the P5 dregs like Rutgers, Kansas, Wake Forest, Illinois, etc.

You can also argue that the B1G, SEC, and ACC consider Army and BYU as P5 opponents for OOC scheduling purposes - as well as a few others. The OOC results are the very data you are evaluating in the comparison. If the very conferences you are comparing consider certain schools to be part of that group, why exclude them?

Because IMO those are self-serving judgments by the conferences. E.g., Army clearly isn't as good a program as say USF or UCF or Boise or Houston or other G5, but the A5 conferences can't call those schools "P5" because they obviously are in G5 conferences. They can do so for Army because they are independent, and doing so allows them to be lax about their scheduling arrangements, claiming to play more A5 than they actually are.

Of course you are correct that the best G5 programs are better than the dregs of the A5. Beating UCF or BYU is more of an achievement than beating Kansas or Illinois. But this is a "A5 conference comparison" so seems obvious that all games vs A5 have to count no matter how bad the A5 team is, and regarding G5 lines have to be drawn somewhere. I'm not paid to do this and have real work to do, so my system errs on the side of being "quick and dirty", something I don't have to spend hours on with complex calculations and constant judgments about the G5/A5 border. I try to capture some of that by counting wins vs G5 if the G5 is ranked in the top 25 or in the "others receiving votes" category of the polls. So if BYU continues to win, you will climb in to that area and be treated like a A5.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, the validity of the final rankings. FWIW, my rankings tend to track very closely to the Massey Composite.

(09-03-2018 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  24) How losses are assessed:

a) A conference is docked 1 loss for losing to any A5 opponent.

b) A conference is docked 1 loss for losing to any FCS or G5 opponent that is ranked in the Coaches or AP poll, including "others receiving votes".

c) A conference is docked 1.5 losses for losing to any unranked G5 opponent. This is a penalty for a "bad loss".

d) A conference is docked 2 losses for losing to any unranked FCS opponent, a penalty for an "awful loss".

Losing to a lower level Autonomous team should also be worth 1.5. You're telling me a loss vs. Kansas, for example, should be worth only 1 point?

I would just say, losing to ANY top 25 team or receiving votes is worth 1 point, and a loss to ANY team, not receiving votes is worth 1.5 points. This seems much more fair.

(09-03-2018 12:27 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 09:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  24) How losses are assessed:

a) A conference is docked 1 loss for losing to any A5 opponent.

b) A conference is docked 1 loss for losing to any FCS or G5 opponent that is ranked in the Coaches or AP poll, including "others receiving votes".

c) A conference is docked 1.5 losses for losing to any unranked G5 opponent. This is a penalty for a "bad loss".

d) A conference is docked 2 losses for losing to any unranked FCS opponent, a penalty for an "awful loss".

Losing to a lower level Autonomous team should also be worth 1.5. You're telling me a loss vs. Kansas, for example, should be worth only 1 point?

I would just say, losing to ANY top 25 team or receiving votes is worth 1 point, and a loss to ANY team, not receiving votes is worth 1.5 points. This seems much more fair.

You're probably right (boy, Kansas has come up twice so far in this thread, LOL, maybe they merit a category of their own). But, what if the opponent is Illinois, who is just about as bad? Should the B1G be docked 1.5 points because their really bad team lost to the Big 12's really bad team? Or vice-versa? Point is, sure, for most other A5, losing to Kansas is bad, probably worth 1.5 points. But for about 10 of them, it's a fair matchup.

I guess I could do a game by game weighting based say on point spreads. If a team is between 1 and 7 point favorite and loses, dock 1 point; 8 - 15 points say 2 points, and over 15 points 3 a point dock. But, using that criteria, if Alabama loses to anybody other than say a Clemson or Ohio State, that should dock the SEC 2 or more points, because they are going to be a strong favorite versus even other top 10 teams.

That might be more accurate but too complicated for me.