Sturt, the real problem with looking at history is that the results were driven by Utah, TCU and BYU to a large extent. The first two are now in P5 conferences and the 3rd is an independent. Just because they are gone doesn't mean that you have other programs that are going to step up and make the investments necessary to have a consistently high ranked program.
So, you're suggesting that we can't know if any schools will fill the void, and since we can't know that, it invalidates using historical information at all.
But what if... historically... we can look at schools leaving their D2 and I-AA and FCS and FBS conferences, and see that there is a pattern of seeing those voids filled? (And you know that we can... do I really have to go there, too?)
Backing up to the very, very big picture, it's just something we routinely accept, but seemingly because it doesn't get you to the conclusions you want to reach, you want to call into question one of the true conventions of the civilized modern world... the most basic premise of scientific method, which is that history is the best predictor of future behaviors. No, it's not 100%, and especially so when we wade into the social world from the natural world, but it's still far... far... better than going without.
The argument that says, essentially, "just because X (independent variable) happened doesn't mean Y (dependent variable) definitely will happen," while correct, ignores the bigger point, which is that the other option--setting aside X, and deciding to always assume that Y has no relationship at all to X--is fraught with opening up to an even larger likelihood of error than had X been taken into account, though perhaps with some additional variables and calculations to better account for Y.
The other problem is that schools in the MAC and CUSA are too inconsistent to know who the top teams are going to be in advance. USM was very good in 2011, would they have been it your top 8 arrangement in 2012 based on that? What about a few years back when Rice won 10 games, would they have been put in the top group the next year? Miami was great with Big Ben, not immediately after his departure.
You've been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this thing, trying to shoot it down from the beginning. For whatever reason, there's been a pattern of general antagonism... seemingly one of those things where I could say the sky is blue and the response would be something like "just because it's been blue doesn't mean it will be tomorrow."
This, though, is the first fair point that you've raised... and it is this...
While there is a progression/relegation mechanism that churns the bottom of the Great 8, ensuring that some of the best of MAC and CUSA rise up and the lesser G8 schools move back to their original status, it's just not possible to know how sufficient that mechanism will be over time to move teams up and down appropriate to the strength of their success.
That's a problem of NCAA regulation... a conference has to maintain at least 6 static schools in any 2-year period.
I think it's something you'd have to re-visit after maybe 5 years to see if one school up and one school down per year is enough. The alternative is to reconfigure from 8 to 9 teams, or maybe 9 to 10 teams. But since 8 is such a clean number, it makes too much sense to start there, and see how experience and.... yes, there's that word again...
history suggests things ought to go.
You can't alter scheduling mid season or even end of season, the impact of that is just too great - season tickets are out, road and home games are set, printing tickets and getting them distributed on short notice is expensive, making travel arrangements (flights, hotel reservations for the team, moving gear around) is a logistical nightmare on short notice.
Aside: It's fine to be the one who always thinks of the problems... the critic. It's better to be the one who, before opening mouth, that person tries to answer his own criticisms with some logical response, so that s/he only offers those criticisms that actually have some merit... in other words, it seems to me that when it comes to critical thought of what I propose, you embrace that role, but when it comes to critical thought of your own criticism, you don't seem to bother. And I end up spending time answering things that you could have answered yourself if you'd only slowed down to think about it.
This is one of those.
How do we handle bowl games?
We handle it by having fixed places and times where the games will be played. We might not know which team will go where, but we do know the where, and we do know the time... and it all somehow comes together and works.
"Yeah, but at least you have a few weeks between the announcement and the actual game."
First round of March Madness, fans and their teams have less than a week--heck, many of them don't even know for sure that they're even going to be playing until they win their tournament a few days before.
THIS, though, doesn't even require that amount of complication.
For this, you simply say there are three weeks of games in the in-season playoff. Week one games in odd years are all in CUSA stadiums... week two, all in MAC stadiums... week three, all in CUSA stadiums... opposite in even years.
Everyone knows when they'll be at home or on the road. The hotels might not know if their guests will be wearing Marshall green or Rice blue or whatever... but they do know they will have guests. And probably more saliently, Marshall and Rice will be able to sell their season tickets knowing when all of the home dates will occur.
As I have said, SOS means little. NIU proved that last year, Boise has proven it multiple times. The way to get to the BCS is to go undefeated. The best way to go undefeated is to limit high risk games and your proposal does just the opposite.
Stare at the data.
We find that very few teams that lose 3 games that finished in the BCS top 25... there are some who lost 2... but the top teams since 2005 have all finished either once-beaten or unbeaten.
Hear me. We agree. You need to have a team that is either once-beaten or unbeaten.
Stare further at the data.
There is only one conference that has perennially delivered a candidate for the top slot. That was the conference that boasted the strongest average ratings.
Conclusion: If the goal is to have a perennial challenger for the top slot, strength of conference is a key variable.
But referencing your point to pretty much DESIRE to play in a weak league, it would help to look at how once-beaten and undefeated teams from lower-rated conferences have fared... were they able to be viable candidates for the top slot?
There is only one.
Ball State 2008: 12-1, BCS finish #24 behind 3 other teams, two of which came from the MWC.
And, importantly, it shouldn't actually be a surprise that there is only one case to look at.
Weaker league teams, by definition, field teams that get beaten more often because when they play out of conference, they're more exposed, and they lose.
One more important point that neither of us cite here, but both of us have probably acknowledged at one time or another... to be that top Go5 school ticketed to a major bowl, you have to hope your schedule ends up featuring a game against at least one top 25 team.
If that one top 25 team can be from your own conference? All the better, since it makes it more likely that someone from your conference, not someone else's, is going to achieve that major bowl slot.
So here's the essentials list to becoming a perennial threat... not just every 3, 4 or 5 seasons... to being the top team in Go5
1. Play in the a strong conference.
The Great 8 would get started at similar strength to the average of what MWC has been... which is significantly greater than any other non-AQ conference, including CUSA 2.0.
2. Do not lose 2 games.The in-season playoff
ensures that the Great 8 champion would be assured of having not lost, at least, their last 3 (since that team, by definition, will have won the playoff).
3. Play at least one top 25 team.While teams can try to schedule top tier teams--and most definitely should try to do so--there are only so many of those teams and only so many openings. So, do that, but also help yourself if you can by playing in a conference where it's more plausible that a top 25 team could emerge.
It's more plausible for that to happen in a Great 8 than it is in any given year for MAC or a CUSA 3.0 where the majority of schools have not even played at a MAC level previously.
Home
Help
Members
View the memberlist
Search For Members
Login
Register