Topic: CUSA/MAC Alliance... new and improved

[_sturt_]

Sturt, while I will not acquiesce to only knowing or understanding your particular outline, I will admit MAC is all it takes for me.

Thank you for being honest about it, carolina.

[IM4DHERD]

There is only one fact/stat I am concerned with:

In 1999, just 3 years out of 1-AA and playing a schedule ranked at 111th in the country, we finished: 

10th in the Coaches Poll
10th in the AP Poll
12th in the BCS (one of only 7 NQ teams to do so since)
13th in the Sagarin ratings.

Just win, that's all it takes.

[_sturt_]

There is only one fact/stat I am concerned with:

In 1999, just 3 years out of 1-AA and playing a schedule ranked at 111th in the country, we finished:  

10th in the Coaches Poll
10th in the AP Poll
12th in the BCS (one of only 7 NQ teams to do so since)
13th in the Sagarin ratings.

Just win, that's all it takes.

First... again... if your point is to have that ONE year of hitting it big... have at it.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about putting your team in contention for being a PERENNIAL contender for the major bowl slot.

If you're interested in THAT, then, sliding those blinders on and saying "all I'm going to pay attention to is this one thing that gets me to the predetermined conclusion I'm trying to get to"... that might make your day a little shinier and happier, but that doesn't mean it gets you to what is legitimately valid and true.

We have to look at everything that's relevant, and a whole lot of that... you can thank me now or thank me later, or just don't look at it and not thank me at all... is indicated by the Excel sheet I put up yesterday.

In 1999, we were able to do 2 of the 3 of these, and achieve a single year of success (ie, defining "success" as being the top non-AQ team, of course). In 2013 and beyond, given the history that has accumulated since, we can be confident that even to achieve a single year of success, the vast majority of the evidence suggests you need to hit on 3 of 3.

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

[IM4DHERD]

My point is simply that winning cures all.  Winning means more exposure, meaning (one would think) more high-profile recruits, more money from media exposure and higher level bowl games, etc.  People notice your record and pollsters vote accordingly.  Look at Kent State, NIU and La Tech last year.  They didn't need an alliance and perhaps such an alliance would hurt their chances more than help them.

Winning the CUSA with 10-2 to 12-0 records will do as much or more for us than partnering with the top of the MAC, in my opinion.  At least it has been proven.

[_sturt_]

My point is simply that winning cures all.  Winning means more exposure, meaning (one would think) more high-profile recruits, more money from media exposure and higher level bowl games, etc.  People notice your record and pollsters vote accordingly.  Look at Kent State, NIU and La Tech last year.  They didn't need an alliance and perhaps such an alliance would hurt their chances more than help them.

Winning the CUSA with 10-2 to 12-0 records will do as much or more for us than partnering with the top of the MAC, in my opinion.  At least it has been proven.

As they say, if you're scared, get a dog.

If you're not actually that good, then you shouldn't get there in the first place. Kent was good, but not that good. Not good enough to be the top dog. NIU was.

Houston was good, but they weren't that good. They didn't deserve it, and when they finally came up against an actual top 25 team... which happened to be So Miss... they demonstrated they didn't deserve it.

I'm not talking about propping up a team that might not actually deserve to be there.

I'm talking about making sure that a team that deserves to be there doesn't get shorted... they get their fullest opportunity to shine.

AND EXHIBIT A FOR THAT?!?

That would be your 1999 Marshall Thundering Herd.

The structure of things didn't allow us to get our full due.

You're talking as-if we should have been satisfied with those rankings... with that bowl and that bowl opponent.

I believe you're dead wrong

THE STRUCTURE of things KEPT US DOWN by probably 3-5 slots in the rankings.

We played in a conference that SUPPRESSED our ratings... that kept us from attaining everything we could have been.

Again... in 2013 and beyond, given the history that has accumulated since, we can be confident that even to achieve a single year of success, the vast majority of the evidence suggests you need to hit on 3 of 3.

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

Those 3 things are the essential ingredients to PERENNIAL success.

[iherdya]

As they say, if you're scared, get a dog.

If you're not actually that good, then you shouldn't get there in the first place. Kent was good, but not that good. Not good enough to be the top dog. NIU was.

Houston was good, but they weren't that good. They didn't deserve it, and when they finally came up against an actual top 25 team... which happened to be So Miss... they demonstrated they didn't deserve it.

I'm not talking about propping up a team that might not actually deserve to be there.

I'm talking about making sure that a team that deserves to be there doesn't get shorted... they get their fullest opportunity to shine.

AND EXHIBIT A FOR THAT?!?

That would be your 1999 Marshall Thundering Herd.

The structure of things didn't allow us to get our full due.

You're talking as-if we should have been satisfied with those rankings... with that bowl and that bowl opponent.

I believe you're dead wrong

THE STRUCTURE of things KEPT US DOWN by probably 3-5 slots in the rankings.

We played in a conference that SUPPRESSED our ratings... that kept us from attaining everything we could have been.

Again... in 2013 and beyond, given the history that has accumulated since, we can be confident that even to achieve a single year of success, the vast majority of the evidence suggests you need to hit on 3 of 3.

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

Those 3 things are the essential ingredients to PERENNIAL success.

If playing in a strong conference is #1, how do you explain Boise State?

[MUther]

MUther, always had some a lot of respect for you, but on this one, my friend, you're just not getting it.

Your point could be valid if only looking at the Sagarin ELO, which is what the BCS used because, for whatever reason, the BCS gods didn't want margin of victory (MoV) as part of anyone's computer equation.

But the fact that the Sagarin Predictor rating does take MoV into account gives sufficient basis that the FCS programs can be included. In fact... surely you know this(?)... some of them score much better than FBS programs.

I know when we were I-AA, the Sagarins reflected us as being better than most or all of the MAC... turned out pretty accurate back then... don't know why it suddenly wouldn't be now, unless we just don't like the conclusions it seems to point to.

I'm not a math guy enough to explain every last variable and every operation, but I do dabble in stats regularly enough to grasp the basic concept. Sagarin and others use scores and mix in their own set of assumptions to produce a matrix of interrelated numbers that end up... and this is where one gains confidence that it's not a bunch of BS... end up being accurate about 75% of the time in predicting winners... and, of course, it's rational that as any given season's pile of numbers grows, with more data, you get more accuracy.

Now, full disclosure, I discovered last night while I was digging for some other information that the Sagarins had an absolutely horrid bowl record this past season, which compels me to... next time I have some time... look into that to see if that's typical or an outlier. Intriguingly, that had followed an absolutely super last week of the season when it was 84% accurate.

Sagarin should be more accurate later in the season.  It's had a full season to make connections.  Bowls have intangibles that Sagarin cannot predict.  Those can be anything from time (a few weeks with no game play), injured impact players recovering before a bowl game with some extra time, conversely impact players getting injured in practice before a bowl game, and some teams just don't get up for bowls against certain opponents.  If team A says I can't believe we got stuck in a bowl playing "those guys" and team B says wow, we get to play "those guys", THIS IS OUR SUPERBOWL, team B could get quite an edge over team A in just morale and heart.  I don't think Sagarin has numbers for that.  It's kind of like a Cinderella team in the NCAA Tourney.  They may lose to the same teams they play in the tournament during regular season, but they make their run in the tourney on adrenaline and emotion.

[banker]

Sturt, your problem is you're a condescending p*ick who thinks you have all the correct answers. Out of all the people who reply in your threads about this subject over 90% see it as, at best, misguided, and, at worst, mildly retarded. Have you given consideration to the fact that it's just really not that good of an idea?  I know you put in a lot of time, but it's a misguided concept.

As for Sagarin and its usefulness in football, yes he is right 76% of the time. Guess what, Las Vegas is also right 76% of the time. Over the last 15 years there have been 10,441 FbS football games. If you picked the favored team to win straight up you would have been correct 76% of the time. Underdogs win 48% when the spread is 3 or less, 35% when it's 3.5-7, 26% when it's 7.5-10, 21% when it's 10.5-14, 13% when it's 14.5-17, 7% when it's 17.5-24, 4% when it's 24.5-31 and 1% when it's 31+.

I play in a league every year where you just pick winners for 25 games each week across all FBS conferences. If you can't hit over 76% you aren't winning jack.

[_sturt_]

If playing in a strong conference is #1, how do you explain Boise State?

[_sturt_]

Sturt, your problem is you're a condescending p*ick who thinks you have all the correct answers.

banker, you were being so adult until now. What happened to make you blow a gasket? That I answered your replies?

If, every time someone gives you coherent responses to your objections, you decide to start the name-calling thing, it becomes easy for anyone you consider to be condescending to just think you're just that much smaller than you were before.

Out of all the people who reply in your threads about this subject over 90% see it as, at best, misguided, and, at worst, mildly retarded. Have you given consideration to the fact that it's just really not that good of an idea?  I know you put in a lot of time, but it's a misguided concept.

banker, I'd think it's a misguided concept except that practically everyone who engages the topic, as it turns out, doesn't know enough about the concept to talk coherently about it. Like someone above said... he saw "MAC," and that was enough to tell him all he wanted to know. So... you think I'm supposed to use these first responses as a measure? Whaddayanuts?

It's an educational process, largely for the same reason... it takes time and picking up bits and pieces over time for people to get the whole of both the concept and the rationale... and those are each their own complex ordeals... once the concept is understood, if they still don't know the rationale, then they remain entrenched until they do... IF they stick around long enough to understand the rationale.  

Good ideas are not proven or disproven by virtue of reaction on a sports message board... at least, not at first.

Good ideas can, though, become better ideas, to the degree that valid criticism is heard and recognized and separated from the silly stuff.

(That happened with this, incidentally. The initial concept was critiqued... took it back to the machine shop and re-worked it to a better fit... and who knows, maybe someone will find yet another way to make it better. We'll see.)

And it's just not a misguided concept because the man holding two tablets of stone says so. To speak of me as being condescending, when I'm the one who has sat and done the math while you pontificate a grandiose rejection of a basic premise of scientific method...? And I'm the one who's misguided?

Um. Yeah.

As for Sagarin and its usefulness in football, yes he is right 76% of the time. Guess what, Las Vegas is also right 76% of the time. Over the last 15 years there have been 10,441 FbS football games. If you picked the favored team to win straight up you would have been correct 76% of the time. Underdogs win 48% when the spread is 3 or less, 35% when it's 3.5-7, 26% when it's 7.5-10, 21% when it's 10.5-14, 13% when it's 14.5-17, 7% when it's 17.5-24, 4% when it's 24.5-31 and 1% when it's 31+.

I play in a league every year where you just pick winners for 25 games each week across all FBS conferences. If you can't hit over 76% you aren't winning jack.

Interesting. Would love to get your source on that... not because I don't believe you... I do... I'd just like to have it.

Diving in deeper, that your stats end up being the same as Sagarin is also interesting because if you don't think much of Sagarin's conclusions, by inference, you must not think much of Vegas' conclusions either... or... if you give Vegas' conclusions some regard, why is it so difficult to give Sagarin's conclusions some regard?

Really, I don't care a whole lot which ratings you want to employ. I just pulled Sagarin off the shelf because they're easy to get at, and we've all seen them for years, and a big plus is that he includes FCS teams--making it particularly helpful as we look at these future, current and recent FCS teams preparing to join our conference.

The larger point is, I don't want to rely on banker or anyone else for a list of best to worst teams and conferences. I want something that is fairly well-regarded--at least well enough regarded that it was used in the BCS formula--and that is based completely on some quantitative data and algorithm... something that doesn't bring pro-or-anti-CUSA bias into it, doesn't bring pro-or-anti-WAC bias into it, doesn't bring pro-or-anti-MAC bias into it, etc.

Doing so allows us to look at things and see them at a less-tainted and birds eye level... and allows us to make some determinations of what has happened, what those implications are for the future, and how we might restructure our circumstances to make ourselves better positioned for success than we would otherwise if we just kept status quo.

Again... in 2013 and beyond, given the history that has accumulated since, we can be confident that even to achieve a single year of success, the vast majority of the evidence suggests you need to hit on 3 of 3.

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

Those 3 things are the essential ingredients to PERENNIAL success.

[_sturt_]

Sagarin should be more accurate later in the season.  It's had a full season to make connections.  Bowls have intangibles that Sagarin cannot predict.  Those can be anything from time (a few weeks with no game play), injured impact players recovering before a bowl game with some extra time, conversely impact players getting injured in practice before a bowl game, and some teams just don't get up for bowls against certain opponents.  If team A says I can't believe we got stuck in a bowl playing "those guys" and team B says wow, we get to play "those guys", THIS IS OUR SUPERBOWL, team B could get quite an edge over team A in just morale and heart.  I don't think Sagarin has numbers for that.  It's kind of like a Cinderella team in the NCAA Tourney.  They may lose to the same teams they play in the tournament during regular season, but they make their run in the tourney on adrenaline and emotion.

I wouldn't be surprised if that all proved true... makes a lot of sense.

[banker]

Sturt, it is from a Phil Steele article late last year. Just google something like - underdogs against the spead that win straight up. On the phone and can't post the link.

[carolinaherdfan]

I am so thankful the leadership of our University over the years didn't rationalize our Universities level to be apart of the can of korn conference.

[IM4DHERD]

As they say, if you're scared, get a dog.

Point is that a '99 MU, a Hawaii, 2 Utah teams, etc. prive the point that we can be the highest ranked team in the Gof5 and make it to the higher level bowl.  I will say that a top 5-10 offense will have even more power to put us there, but only if we win 10-12 games.  There is only one scenario that have been proven and that is this one these teams have enjoyed.  Everything else is simply opinion and conjecture.

[carolinaherdfan]

Personally Sturt, I truly believe as long as we have alumni who believe such as yourself we will never move forward. I.e.., beyond the point we are now.

If the leadership of MU had always thought in these terms we would: either be FCS or no program at all.

[_sturt_]

Point is that a '99 MU, a Hawaii, 2 Utah teams, etc. prive the point that we can be the highest ranked team in the Gof5 and make it to the higher level bowl.  I will say that a top 5-10 offense will have even more power to put us there, but only if we win 10-12 games.  There is only one scenario that have been proven and that is this one these teams have enjoyed.  Everything else is simply opinion and conjecture.

True. And again... this is it... given the history that has accumulated since 2005 (our entrance to CUSA), the evidence says the essential ingredients to PERENNIAL success for 2013 and beyond are... not one of these, not two of these, but you must hit on 3 of 3.

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

2007 Hawaii? Played in the second strongest conference, went undefeated, and beat the one top 25 team they played.

2008 Utah? Played in the strongest conference, went undefeated, and beat all three top 25 teams they played.

What you're proposing is that, in the pursuit of actually winning the right to participate in the major bowl slot--ie, being that top non-AQ/now-Go5 team... "winning takes care of everything"... essentially, 2 only.

The only recent example of that is 2008 Ball State... weak conference, lost one game, played zero top 25 teams. Reached #12 in BCS in final week... notably, right behind a #11 team from the MWC with not one but two losses... before proving they deserved to come in 4th place in the race, in spite of their 12-1 record overall that featured breath-taking out-of-conference wins over Northeastern, Western Kentucky, and Indiana, all of which finished the year with Sun Belt-like Sagarin ratings, none ranked higher than #125 overall... and an 8-5 Navy (71 rating, #51 rank).

What we actually find is... winning DOES get you into the BCS top 25 in a single year.

So, IM4, you can be happy. Congrats.

Those of us looking for something better... carolina, my friend, are you paying attention (re: your absurd idea that being content with the status quo is "moving forward")?... those of us looking for actually achieving that top rank, and putting ourselves in a position to do that year after year after year... are not (happy).

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

THREE of three.

If you're in a conference whose equivalency to the P5 conferences is a step below ACC... as we are... you might be able to have the occasional fortuitous season when you push a team into contention with other G5 schools.

But  the conferences whose equivalecies to the P5 conferences is SEC and Big XII are the ones who are positioned to actually achieve that top slot... they will not merely aspire to push someone into contention, but as long as they continue to not lose 2 games (as they have) and to play at least one top 25 team (as they have)... they will dominate, and the rest will wait patiently in eager anticipation of an outlier year.

[Big Ol' Hillbilly]

Sturt's threads are like a train wreck... I can't not look. It's worth the time reading everyone's responses.

[_sturt_]

Commercial break for BOHillbilly again, I suppose.

Okay, I genuinely... genuinely... don't get this idea of taking the time... even a few seconds as it were... to post something just to insult someone... for no other purpose.

Seriously, I think I stopped doing that in 10th grade... it's like it wasn't necessary anymore, except among real friends when we were just joking--a form of male bonding.

Now, I guess someone could say is it's own form of insult by drawing more attention to BOHillbilly's post, but... really... why does he do it?

I don't go looking for people online to put down. And I directed no specific insult his way before he decided to go off on this pathetic little campaign of his.

Of course, true, he's not the only one... couple of others out there on occasion... but until someone is directly condescending toward me specifically, I don't feel like I'm the policing authority that needs to interject on behalf of anyone else.

What, maybe a domineering boss... a domineering mom... a domineering wife... kids that give no respect.. ??? So these guys come to sports boards to exert a little power and control that they can't get anywhere else? Dunno. Mystery to me.

Why can't we just be adults having conversations about sports?

[backontrack]

Like Sheldon Cooper, _sturt_ apparently can't differentiate sarcasm (humor) in comments such as BOH's...so please, my friend, comment, just like Sheldon would...again...sarcasm (humor)... ::) ::) ::)

[_sturt_]

Like Sheldon Cooper, _sturt_ apparently can't differentiate sarcasm (humor) in comments such as BOH's...so please, my friend, comment, just like Sheldon would...again...sarcasm (humor)... ::) ::) ::)

hmmmmmm....

backontrack, so where you come from, help me understand...

Hillbilly's assertion that "sturt's threads are a train wreck" is just his way of sarcastically saying, "sturt's threads are some of the most intelligent exchanges of sports conversation I can find anywhere"... ?

Oh. In that case... borrowing from another great character...

And thank you, Hillbilly, for the comment. Sorry that I was so dense as to not pick up on the sarcasm that backontrack did.

[_sturt_]

Back to actual content....

Another perspective to this is the fact that Banowsky appears to be very much willing to explore ideas that create opportunities. Below, I've just found that he's been involved in talks that would seemingly involve an in-season playoff as this proposal suggests, and even better that the playoff would be among all Go5 conferences. From the beginning, that was a plan I'd thought was merited, but figured it would be too complicated to get it done politically... not to mention the bigger point that AAC and MWC probably have little incentive to agree to it. But hey, if he can sell his old pal Thompson on it... that would be even better than this current proposal.

I'm encouraged, at least, that Banowsky realizes status quo isn't going to serve his conference very well... to the disappointment of some in this thread who appear to think all is hunky-dory and there's no need to pursue anything "complex and unorthodox" (Banowsky's words).

Banowsky quote from January...

"Our view is, in this world if you're not collaborating with people, you're not performing at your optimum," Banowsky said. "I'm a collaborator. I like to collaborate with television people, I like to collaborate with my conference colleagues and I like to collaborate with bowl folks to try to put us in a place where we can grow our business together."

...and this from December...

We all just have to know that we have a responsibility to our own conferences. Each institution has a responsibility to their institution. But we’re also part of a bigger system. And it’s important for us to occasionally think, “How has the system improved and what can we do to make the system better?”

Banowsky and Benson are interested in bringing back some semblance of order. Separately, they’re exploring the idea of consolidating at least some of the schools in what is being called the “Group of Five” non-power conferences — C-USA, Sun Belt, Big East, MAC and Mountain West — into a mini-playoff structure, with the winner gaining the automatic berth to one of the three “host” bowls (most likely the Fiesta, Cotton and Chick-fil-A) in the new BCS format.

Banowsky’s plan is for four eight- or nine-team leagues grouped geographically, with the champions meeting in semifinal games on Thanksgiving weekend and the winners playing a week later.

There are complications, such as who makes the cut to 32 or 36 teams — more than 60 schools will be in the Group of Five — and whether schools would have to revert to an 11-game regular season, which would mean a loss in revenue. A similar proposal two years ago to merge C-USA and the Mountain West in football failed to materialize.

“It’s pretty complex and unorthodox,” Banowsky said. “And it’s my sense that most folks are more comfortable in approaching things in a more traditional way. But I also think it would bring a pretty interesting package to the marketplace.”