Many rivalry games are cross-conference, so the action picked up this week, almost like a mini-bowl week. ACC misery continued, as the conference went 1-3 in its rivalry games vs the SEC, with only Clemson besting South Carolina. But, this actually raised their win rate from .15 to .17 for the season. The SEC goes 3-1 in the same games, raising their win rate to .700 on the year.

The only other result is that the PAC suffers a loss, as USC falls to Notre Dame.

Rankings for November 25, 2018


@ 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 and Army 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).

Updated for 9/15 results.

(09-16-2018 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Updated for 9/15 results.

Arkansas has accounted for half of our loss credits. They're killing us! It may sound odd but I have to be proud of Vanderbilt even with their loss they accounted for themselves quite well at South Bend.

It will be interesting to see if they can pluck a chicken this coming weekend!

(09-17-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Updated for 9/15 results.

Arkansas has accounted for half of our loss credits. They're killing us! It may sound odd but I have to be proud of Vanderbilt even with their loss they accounted for themselves quite well at South Bend.

It will be interesting to see if they can pluck a chicken this coming weekend!

Yes, Arkansas and UCLA need to stop playing G5 opponents, they are sinking their conferences, LOL.

Updated for 9/23

If losses to Buffalo (Rutgers) and Old Dominion (Virginia Tech) don't qualify as awful losses, the bar is set too high.

(09-23-2018 08:29 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  If losses to Buffalo (Rutgers) and Old Dominion (Virginia Tech) don't qualify as awful losses, the bar is set too high.

I agree that VT losing to ODU is in many respects a historic loss of epochal proportions. But, they are an FBS program so that's how i categorize it.

(09-23-2018 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:29 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  If losses to Buffalo (Rutgers) and Old Dominion (Virginia Tech) don't qualify as awful losses, the bar is set too high.

I agree that VT losing to ODU is in many respects a historic loss of epochal proportions. But, they are an FBS program so that's how i categorize it.

A few takeaways and a question.

1. Maybe Buffalo to the Big 10 should have been considered!?

2. Now Virginia Tech should have a better understanding of why Alabama won't play U.A.B., Troy, or South Alabama. The upside is zilch and the downside is epic.

3. How does the ACC's rating stack up with what the AAC's rating might be?

4. The ACC is still tied with the SEC for the most remaining unbeaten schools (4). The PAC and the AAC have the next most (3). It's the Big 10 and the Big 12 that are down to 2 each and both conferences will have those two meet. Penn State and Ohio State are in the same division and the Big 12 plays a round Robin. It actually sets up well however for the Big 12 in that Oklahoma plays West Virginia near the end of the season, but that could backfire now that they have CCG. And the AAC has all 3 remaining unbeatens in the same division.

(09-23-2018 11:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:29 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  If losses to Buffalo (Rutgers) and Old Dominion (Virginia Tech) don't qualify as awful losses, the bar is set too high.

I agree that VT losing to ODU is in many respects a historic loss of epochal proportions. But, they are an FBS program so that's how i categorize it.

A few takeaways and a question.

1. Maybe Buffalo to the Big 10 should have been considered!?

2. Now Virginia Tech should have a better understanding of why Alabama won't play U.A.B., Troy, or South Alabama. The upside is zilch and the downside is epic.

3. How does the ACC's rating stack up with what the AAC's rating might be?

4. The ACC is still tied with the SEC for the most remaining unbeaten schools (4). The PAC and the AAC have the next most (3). It's the Big 10 and the Big 12 that are down to 2 each and both conferences will have those two meet. Penn State and Ohio State are in the same division and the Big 12 plays a round Robin. It actually sets up well however for the Big 12 in that Oklahoma plays West Virginia near the end of the season, but that could backfire now that they have CCG. And the AAC has all 3 remaining unbeatens in the same division.

I am curious about AAC's ranking as well. Use the same parameters and pretend there is a true P6 and G4...... I am curious where they would rank.

(09-23-2018 11:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:29 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  If losses to Buffalo (Rutgers) and Old Dominion (Virginia Tech) don't qualify as awful losses, the bar is set too high.

I agree that VT losing to ODU is in many respects a historic loss of epochal proportions. But, they are an FBS program so that's how i categorize it.

A few takeaways and a question.

1. Maybe Buffalo to the Big 10 should have been considered!?

2. Now Virginia Tech should have a better understanding of why Alabama won't play U.A.B., Troy, or South Alabama. The upside is zilch and the downside is epic.

3. How does the ACC's rating stack up with what the AAC's rating might be?

4. The ACC is still tied with the SEC for the most remaining unbeaten schools (4). The PAC and the AAC have the next most (3). It's the Big 10 and the Big 12 that are down to 2 each and both conferences will have those two meet. Penn State and Ohio State are in the same division and the Big 12 plays a round Robin. It actually sets up well however for the Big 12 in that Oklahoma plays West Virginia near the end of the season, but that could backfire now that they have CCG. And the AAC has all 3 remaining unbeatens in the same division.

Big 12 would have some questions if Army did pull off an upset in Norman if they made the 3 points to win over Oklahoma? The OP seems not to cover how some P5 schools won.

For those who asked, the AAC would be 6 - 19.5, a win rate of .235, which would be 4th ahead of the PAC and ACC.

The MWC would be 5 - 21.5, a win rate of .189.

(09-23-2018 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  For those who asked, the AAC would be 6 - 19.5, a win rate of .235, which would be 4th ahead of the PAC and ACC.

The MWC would be 5 - 21.5, a win rate of .189.

So, by your comparative rankings this is the order:

P1. SEC
P2. B12
P3. B1G
P4. AAC
P5. PAC
P6. ACC

So shouldn't we be debating the ACC's bowl access and tie ins instead of the AAC's?

JR--I think Buffalo to the Big Ten is getting a bit ahead of ourselves but I certainly think if they have sustained success and become the dominant team in the MAC East we need to at least entertain the idea of AAC membership.

Overall this has been a season of great, oftentimes mind boggling parity. There are 3 G5s that have both P5 wins and FCS losses for heaven's sake.

(09-23-2018 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR--I think Buffalo to the Big Ten is getting a bit ahead of ourselves but I certainly think if they have sustained success and become the dominant team in the MAC East we need to at least entertain the idea of AAC membership.

Overall this has been a season of great, oftentimes mind boggling parity. There are 3 G5s that have both P5 wins and FCS losses for heaven's sake.

Litotes Muskie. Have a little sense of humor here. They just destroyed your last addition.

(09-23-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR--I think Buffalo to the Big Ten is getting a bit ahead of ourselves but I certainly think if they have sustained success and become the dominant team in the MAC East we need to at least entertain the idea of AAC membership.

Overall this has been a season of great, oftentimes mind boggling parity. There are 3 G5s that have both P5 wins and FCS losses for heaven's sake.

Litotes Muskie. Have a little sense of humor here. They just destroyed your last addition.

Which makes it all the more painful that the Big Ten wasted two precious spots on two geographic and cultural outliers that are football cellar dwellers. I wish the last round of expansion on consolidating the old Big 8. The Big Ten would seriously be better off with 12 schools and room for expansion than saddled with the Scarlet Knights and Terps.

Big Ten lament aside, I seriously think that if Buffalo could get their crap together they deserve a future look from the AAC. They've got attractive academics and could become Western NY's "other" team.

(09-23-2018 03:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR--I think Buffalo to the Big Ten is getting a bit ahead of ourselves but I certainly think if they have sustained success and become the dominant team in the MAC East we need to at least entertain the idea of AAC membership.

Overall this has been a season of great, oftentimes mind boggling parity. There are 3 G5s that have both P5 wins and FCS losses for heaven's sake.

Litotes Muskie. Have a little sense of humor here. They just destroyed your last addition.

Which makes it all the more painful that the Big Ten wasted two precious spots on two geographic and cultural outliers that are football cellar dwellers. I wish the last round of expansion on consolidating the old Big 8. The Big Ten would seriously be better off with 12 schools and room for expansion than saddled with the Scarlet Knights and Terps.

Big Ten lament aside, I seriously think that if Buffalo could get their crap together they deserve a future look from the AAC. They've got attractive academics and could become Western NY's "other" team.

I wrote some blogs in 2009 suggesting that the market model would be a huge regret if used for a rationale to expand. It was an inefficient model for both the networks and the conferences because it enticed additions with little content value and intentionally remote to the locus of the conferences involved. Content will always be the premium attractant of higher revenues. Schools from large markets that can't preform are not. But, if the cable subscription model can hold for conference networks it does give the most schools the most value for their T3 rights.

What makes the SECN successful are the SEC Storied documentaries which are well watched and well received, and original programming that attracts viewers ancillary to alumni, like the Finebaum Show. I think the draw of those could be even higher if they offered a regional news show that featured regional weather and sports. We'll see.

Buffalo & Conn end up in B-12

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Buffalo & Conn end up in B-12

In the year 2150?

(09-23-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  For those who asked, the AAC would be 6 - 19.5, a win rate of .235, which would be 4th ahead of the PAC and ACC.

The MWC would be 5 - 21.5, a win rate of .189.

So, by your comparative rankings this is the order:

P1. SEC
P2. B12
P3. B1G
P4. AAC
P5. PAC
P6. ACC

So shouldn't we be debating the ACC's bowl access and tie ins instead of the AAC's?

Well, if this became a 3-4 year trend, then i would say yes.

(09-09-2018 06:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

I see two flaws here:

-- Treating all wins over unranked teams the same doesn't make sense. A win over a really bad team that ends up 1-8 or 0-9 in its conference should not be worth anywhere near as much as a win over a good team that is 6-3 in its conference but unranked.

-- A "quality win" or a "super win" should be based on where a team is ranked right now, today, not on where they were ranked before. Basing it only on where a team was ranked at game time in week 1 or 2 means that a team gets credit for beating a team that was mistakenly ranked but turns out to be bad, while a team gets no credit for beating a team that was unranked in week 1 or 2 but in the top 25 later in the year.