Give you credit for being stand-up enough to say that.

"Why the hell would (you) want to be?"

Speaking for myself, because I love watching football, and especially when the two teams are presumably evenly matched and playing for something consequential... and, no kidding, what the hell else would I be doing that's so important that I wouldn't when I already paid for the seat?

It actually was a lot of fun. Green blue and red. Three schools' worth of fans there.

(12-03-2018 02:04 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Give you credit for being stand-up enough to say that.

"Why the hell would (you) want to be?"

Speaking for myself, because I love watching football, and especially when the two teams are presumably evenly matched and playing for something consequential... and, no kidding, what the hell else would I be doing that's so important that I wouldn't when I already paid for the seat?

It actually was a lot of fun. Green blue and red. Three schools' worth of fans there.

I guess the reason I didn’t go was that I was so disgusted with Boise State and had such venom for YSU that I just was like, “Meh.”.

As I recall, in addition to the actual football part, I think there was a sense of responsibility to put on a good time and to be good hosts... an "ownership" of the game, and a want for visitors to feel good about Marshall and about the overall experience...

And/but again, pretty sure that can be said that year, and any other year that the Joan hosted a I-AA or MAC championship.

(12-03-2018 02:08 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 02:04 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Give you credit for being stand-up enough to say that.

"Why the hell would (you) want to be?"

Speaking for myself, because I love watching football, and especially when the two teams are presumably evenly matched and playing for something consequential... and, no kidding, what the hell else would I be doing that's so important that I wouldn't when I already paid for the seat?

It actually was a lot of fun. Green blue and red. Three schools' worth of fans there.

I guess the reason I didn’t go was that I was so disgusted with Boise State and had such venom for YSU that I just was like, “Meh.”.

And the increased competition for entertainment today, even in Huntington, is exponential compared to that fateful day in 1994.

12/17/94 as best as I can tell, the FCS title game was literally the only college football game being played, the first bowl game(Las Vegas) had been played two days prior and there wasn't another game scheduled till Christmas day(Aloha).

Compare that to last Saturday, the CUSA CG overlapped with the AAC, Big XII, and SEC(#1 vs #4)...

(12-03-2018 02:12 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  As I recall, in addition to the actual football part, I think there was a sense of responsibility to put on a good time and to be good hosts... an "ownership" of the game, and a want for visitors to feel good about Marshall and about the overall experience...

And/but again, pretty sure that can be said that year, and any other year that the Joan hosted a I-AA or MAC championship.

Just not a CUSA title game you actually played in just a few years ago?

(11-24-2018 03:13 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Content with ours, or do you prefer something different?

Conference USA

Two teams: Head-to-head

Three or more teams:

1. Highest regular season winning percentage based on overall Conference USA play.
2. If tied, head-to-head between tied teams.
3. If still tied, highest winning percentage within division.
4. If still tied, compare records against divisional opponents in descending order of finish.
5. If still tied, compare records with common cross-divisional opponents.
6. If still tied, compare records against cross-divisional opponents in descending order of finish.
7. If still tied, team with highest (College Football Playoff) ranking.
8. If still tied, the representative will be the team that has not participated in the championship game most recently.




My preference is to keep what we have. I could probably be persuaded to replace #8 with a literal coin toss. If neither team has a real shot at a NY6 Bowl, I'd be ok with switching 7 and 8.

Appreciate the on-topic response. So, if I may, help me understand why one would dismiss the self-evident economic self-interest in elevating #7 to #1 (?).



And... how is it fair to make a tiebreaker out of any criterion that inherently doesn't measure the three teams equally. No three teams will ever play the same cross-divisional opponents as long as we have only two cross-divisional games scheduled each season. It's impossible that three teams would even have one common opponent. That's a problem.

(12-03-2018 02:21 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 02:12 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  As I recall, in addition to the actual football part, I think there was a sense of responsibility to put on a good time and to be good hosts... an "ownership" of the game, and a want for visitors to feel good about Marshall and about the overall experience...

And/but again, pretty sure that can be said that year, and any other year that the Joan hosted a I-AA or MAC championship.

Just not a CUSA title game you actually played in just a few years ago?

Yet another comment that disingenuously ignores that the conditions for that 2014 CUSA CG were the same as for the most recent game, whereas the other games (a) were awarded preseason and (b) had ticket sales embedded in the school's season ticket package. But not that that's any surprise at this point.

(I said I'm done with you on this topic, and/but reserve the right to not let you get away with comments like this one, misleading as to whose statements actually avoid engaging in substance.)

(12-03-2018 03:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 02:21 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 02:12 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  As I recall, in addition to the actual football part, I think there was a sense of responsibility to put on a good time and to be good hosts... an "ownership" of the game, and a want for visitors to feel good about Marshall and about the overall experience...

And/but again, pretty sure that can be said that year, and any other year that the Joan hosted a I-AA or MAC championship.

Just not a CUSA title game you actually played in just a few years ago?

Another comment that disingenuously ignores that the conditions for that 2014 CUSA CG were the same as for the most recent game, whereas the other games (a) were awarded preseason and (b) had ticket sales embedded in the school's season ticket package. But not that that's any surprise at this point.

(I said I'm done with you on this topic, and/but reserve the right to not let you get away with comments like this one, misleading as to whose statements actually avoid engaging in substance.)

You've been "getting away" with disingenuous comments all along drawing comparisons to a game played 25 years ago with zero competing games...

(12-03-2018 03:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Appreciate the on-topic response. So, if I may, help me understand why one would dismiss the self-evident economic self-interest in elevating #7 to #1 (?).



And... how is it fair to make a tiebreaker out of any criterion that inherently doesn't measure the three teams equally. No three teams will ever play the same cross-divisional opponents as long as we have only two cross-divisional games scheduled each season. It's impossible that three teams would even have one common opponent. That's a problem.

I dismiss the possible economic gains by considering competitive fairness.

And if the cross-divisional tie-breaker doesn't work (and you're right, it probably wouldn't be of much help just mathematically speaking) then move to the next step (and then the next, etc).

I guess I'd be ok with dropping it altogether and just bumping the coin toss/ranking.

(12-03-2018 03:48 PM)inutech Wrote:  I dismiss the possible economic gains by considering competitive fairness.

Indulge me please. You don't want your conference's team with the best shot at a NY6 bowl to have an advantage in the process? Remember, the committee making those ranking decisions is charged with performing critical analysis of data... the essence of their job, for better or worse, is to consider competitive fairness.

So, I'm both missing why dismissing possible economic gains is something one would consider to be a good thing... and... I'm missing why the committee's ranking, given that it effectively is the mechanism now that ends up defining who can win a national championship, is something one would dismiss as a tool for defining who can win a mere CUSA championship.

(12-04-2018 08:14 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 03:48 PM)inutech Wrote:  I dismiss the possible economic gains by considering competitive fairness.

Indulge me please. You don't want your conference's team with the best shot at a NY6 bowl to have an advantage in the process? Remember, the committee making those ranking decisions is charged with performing critical analysis of data... the essence of their job, for better or worse, is to consider competitive fairness.

So, I'm both missing why dismissing possible economic gains is something one would consider to be a good thing... and... I'm missing why the committee's ranking, given that it effectively is the mechanism now that ends up defining who can win a national championship, is something one would dismiss as a tool for defining who can win a mere CUSA championship.

Well, it's still in there, right? Just 7th or 8th or so. I'm not dismissing it, I'm evaluating it to be of less importance.

In a year where a shot at a NY6 Bowl is on the line, yeah - I'd probably prefer the team with the best shot to get some breaks (like hosting the game). But chances are, any CUSA team good enough to be considered for a NY6 Bowl is going to have the edge on one of the other tie-breakers. And if not, they ought to be good enough to win a conference road game.

And in any year that we don't have a team up for a NY6 bowl (like this year) - I truly don't care. I don't put a lot of stock in their rankings past the top 4 or so (certainly I don't respect the committee's opinion over any random's fan opinion on G5 teams not in the running for the playoff - which is all of them).

So it's a combination of a lack of respect for the committee's opinion on the CUSA division champs and the fact that I think the other tie-breakers (including a coin toss) are more or less just as fair.

And I'm totally opposed to bidding on the game or factoring attendance. Way more than I'd be opposed to bumping up the committee ranking as a tie-breaker (which I don't feel that strongly about).

(12-04-2018 10:16 AM)inutech Wrote:  And I'm totally opposed to bidding on the game or factoring attendance. Way more than I'd be opposed to bumping up the committee ranking as a tie-breaker (which I don't feel that strongly about).

It is beyond laughable to suggest this game should ever be put in a position to possibly not be played in the home stadium of one of the participating schools.

Anyone who believes this game would be embraced by the fanbase of a non participating school is simply living in a fantasy world.

(12-04-2018 10:33 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:16 AM)inutech Wrote:  And I'm totally opposed to bidding on the game or factoring attendance. Way more than I'd be opposed to bumping up the committee ranking as a tie-breaker (which I don't feel that strongly about).

It is beyond laughable to suggest this game should ever be put in a position to possibly not be played in the home stadium of what of the participating schools.

Anyone who believes this game would be embraced by the fanbase of a non participating school is simply living in a fantasy world.

Yep. The MAC CCG looks like hammered ka ka on TV at Ford Field.

(12-04-2018 11:06 AM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:33 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:16 AM)inutech Wrote:  And I'm totally opposed to bidding on the game or factoring attendance. Way more than I'd be opposed to bumping up the committee ranking as a tie-breaker (which I don't feel that strongly about).

It is beyond laughable to suggest this game should ever be put in a position to possibly not be played in the home stadium of what of the participating schools.

Anyone who believes this game would be embraced by the fanbase of a non participating school is simply living in a fantasy world.

Yep. The MAC CCG looks like hammered ka ka on TV at Ford Field.

Bidding the game to a legitimate campus site that might end up not having a participating team would be a better idea than neutral site like the MAC does, but only slightly.

Both are truly and indisputably terrible ideas. Fortunately our decision makers know better.

(12-04-2018 10:16 AM)inutech Wrote:  In a year where a shot at a NY6 Bowl is on the line, yeah - I'd probably prefer the team with the best shot to get some breaks (like hosting the game). But chances are, any CUSA team good enough to be considered for a NY6 Bowl is going to have the edge on one of the other tie-breakers. And if not, they ought to be good enough to win a conference road game.

And in any year that we don't have a team up for a NY6 bowl (like this year) - I truly don't care.

Of course, that's why I'm bringing it up... you have to decide tiebreakers before you know one way or the other, right? So, there is no "in a year where there is a shot" or "isn't a shot"... it's already set-up before the season starts. If there is no shot, then you don't have any team ranked anyhow, so you move on from that first tiebreaker to the next.

But having said that... you're right... indeed, if Team A beat both of the others they tied for first with, ie Team B and Team C, then yeah, even if somehow Team B was still ranked higher by the CFP committee... perhaps Team B defeated a top 10 team or something very significant... it doesn't make sense to elevate Team B, since it is only rational to award head-to-head performance on the field first and foremost. And, certainly, if it makes sense for you to do that with a two-team tie, it still makes sense to do it with a three-team tie.

(12-04-2018 10:16 AM)inutech Wrote:  ...And I'm totally opposed to bidding on the game...

Okay.

So, what's your plan?

Virtually no TV money comes out of doing this thing, and there's virtually no ticket revenue.

What I've advocated has a slight advantage (note the dripping sarcasm) over what we're doing now... that is, it has actually worked.

Can't just wish that point away and say "oh that was then" and fail to see, no, there were actual nuts and bolts elements here that made it work.

(At least, that is, if we're having a genuine conversation... I'm fully aware that it's sometimes, with some people, that's not the case. As I get older, I try to spend more time with the genuine conversations, and the converse is also true.)

If you have another proposal, I for one am all ears/eyes.

(12-04-2018 11:06 AM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  The MAC CCG looks like hammered ka ka on TV at Ford Field.

Yep.

So let's not do that, either.

In fact, let's not do anything has been tried and that has shown it doesn't work.

(12-04-2018 11:18 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:16 AM)inutech Wrote:  In a year where a shot at a NY6 Bowl is on the line, yeah - I'd probably prefer the team with the best shot to get some breaks (like hosting the game). But chances are, any CUSA team good enough to be considered for a NY6 Bowl is going to have the edge on one of the other tie-breakers. And if not, they ought to be good enough to win a conference road game.

And in any year that we don't have a team up for a NY6 bowl (like this year) - I truly don't care.

Of course, that's why I'm bringing it up... you have to decide tiebreakers before you know one way or the other, right? So, there is no "in a year where there is a shot" or "isn't a shot"... it's already set-up before the season starts. If there is no shot, then you don't have any team ranked anyhow, so you move on from that first tiebreaker to the next.

But having said that... you're right... indeed, if Team A beat both of the others they tied for first with, ie Team B and Team C, then yeah, even if somehow Team B was still ranked higher by the CFP committee... perhaps Team B defeated a top 10 team or something very significant... it doesn't make sense to elevate Team B, since it is only rational to award head-to-head performance on the field first and foremost. And, certainly, if it makes sense for you to do that with a two-team tie, it still makes sense to do it with a three-team tie.

(12-04-2018 10:16 AM)inutech Wrote:  ...And I'm totally opposed to bidding on the game...

Okay.

So, what's your plan?

Virtually no TV money comes out of doing this thing, and there's virtually no ticket revenue.

What I've advocated has a slight advantage (note the dripping sarcasm) over what we're doing now... that is, it has actually worked.

Can't just wish that point away and say "oh that was then" and fail to see, no, there were actual nuts and bolts elements here that made it work.

(At least, that is, if we're having a genuine conversation... I'm fully aware that it's sometimes, with some people, that's not the case. As I get older, I try to spend more time with the genuine conversations, and the converse is also true.)

If you have another proposal, I for one am all ears/eyes.

To have a three way tie (or a two way tie for that matter) in a division, that means every team has lost a conference game. You lose a CUSA game, you're not up for a New Year's 6 game.

If we're just picking home field for the championship game and we've got 2 teams undefeated in conference (but one has some OOC losses), wouldn't we fall to #7 anyway?

As to not bidding the title game - since we're too far flung (and don't have the support) for a neutral site game (which would be best from a competitive standpoint if possible) it's got to go to the home field of one of the divisional winners.

I am unconcerned with attendance. What's each conference team getting out of that ticket revenue anyway? I mean one more dollar is one more dollar - if it worked. But in practice while the conference may come out ahead for a year or two of the schools trying something like this, I think the schools that bid risk being torched (and would put a quick stop to this even if you could convince them to try it to begin with).

Maybe it worked for playoffs back in the day. But you'd sell about 10 tickets to a UAB MTSU game in Ruston or Denton or Charlotte. We're all having a hard time getting fans to come to our own home games, we're not going to be able to sell tickets to a division rival vs a conference-mate that we've played once every 7 years that nobody local cares about.

Play it at a school’s IPF (ours seats about 1,000 I think) and then air it over PBS. That way, the venue is loud and looks full and it gets to everyone!

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  As to not bidding the title game - since we're too far flung (and don't have the support) for a neutral site game (which would be best from a competitive standpoint if possible) it's got to go to the home field of one of the divisional winners.

I am unconcerned with attendance. What's each conference team getting out of that ticket revenue anyway? I mean one more dollar is one more dollar - if it worked. But in practice while the conference may come out ahead for a year or two of the schools trying something like this, I think the schools that bid risk being torched (and would put a quick stop to this even if you could convince them to try it to begin with).

Maybe it worked for playoffs back in the day. But you'd sell about 10 tickets to a UAB MTSU game in Ruston or Denton or Charlotte. We're all having a hard time getting fans to come to our own home games, we're not going to be able to sell tickets to a division rival vs a conference-mate that we've played once every 7 years that nobody local cares about.

But see that's why you force people to buy it in their season ticket package, that way they're pissed off they spent the money when they don't make it and more pissed that they can't sell it, because as you said, no one in Ruston will care to go watch MT and UAB and then they call the ticket office and threaten to stop buying season tickets if they ever bid on the CCG again.


The idea that even 10% of any CUSA fanbase wants to pay for and attend a CCG they aren't playing is one of the more remarkably out of touch comments I've seen on this network in more than a decade.