Topic: HZ: Herd Fans Should Embrace `New' C-USA

[_sturt_]

Irregardless of what anyone says, the name of the game is winning. It doesn't matter who you play, just win. The late 90's Marshall is an example of that, Boise State is an example of that, last year's NIU team is an example of that. You don't have to play in a tough conference, you don't have to play a tough non conference schedule, you just have to win the games on the schedule and you'll get your due...

Okay. Let's line 'em up and test that... (as we've done a few times by now...)

1999 Marshall: First, it's one year. If you want a single year of success in every 20 or so, we're not even barely speaking about the same thing. Second, that was an era when there was annually only one Go5-type school ascending to any national recognition. Today? There's been at least 3 Go5-level teams in the BCS top 25 for the last six seasons... in two of those, there were five or more.

Boise State: Yes... exactly... now, you're talking... that's what we want to be. And Boise has played in what has basically been the equivalent of CUSA 2.0 over the years. You won't like this, given your dislike for numbers, but that's what the numbers say.

2013 NIU: See 1999 Marshall #1... but moreover, also note that last year was an outlier year in comparison to any of the years since 2005 when CUSA 2.0 was formed... that is, ALL of the Go5 conferences were within two points of each other in the Sagarins...uniquely, MAC was competitive with everyone else. Is that a trend? Who knows. Could be. But we won't know that for a few years... or, at minimum, we should at least wait to see how 2013 shakes out before we throw out the other 8 data points before it.

As said earlier...

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.

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, iherdya, you can be happy. Congrats.

Those of us looking for something better... 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 are SEC (AAC) and Big XII (MWC) 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.

[Herd 90]

All I can say is that I'm not excited about playing in the new Sun Belt Conference.  We have slid back to being in a crappy conference that not many people give hoot about.

We're part of the weak sauce that none of the other bigger and better conferences wanted.  Sad & pathetic IMO.

[BHFIOHIO]

when we've actually won for a couple yrs, thats when I might start looking down my nose but we aint dont $hit since heck was a pup. We're right where we belong as far as present company goes. And besides I really like the new schools collectively....their upside  in some instances and location  etc in others. Just to pick one: La Tech hits the top 25 last yr. Been double digit yrs since we did it. Herd love I dig....big feelin bull$hit not so much.

[MarshallGrad]

when we've actually won for a couple yrs, thats when I might start looking down my nose but we aint dont $hit since heck was a pup. We're right where we belong as far as present company goes. And besides I really like the new schools collectively....their upside  in some instances and location  etc in others. Just to pick one: La Tech hits the top 25 last yr. Been double digit yrs since we did it. Herd love I dig....big feelin bull$hit not so much.

Once again, have to agree with BHFIOHIO. We drove ourselves right to the front door to where we are now. When the day comes that we dominate this SunBelt II like we did the MAC, that will be the day that "we are too good for this" may start sounding reasonable.

[lovetheherd2]

Moderators, just wondering if a new forum category where stuart can debate with stuart or GB60 and fill the space with charts, graphs and holier than thou arguments or pontifications to the max?

That would free up valuable real estate for HERDFANS to get aboard the HERD train for 2013/2014

The on going ad nauseum point -- counter point series of one ups is getting a little too much.

[Thundering In MD]

Just watched a program on H2 on Jonestown.  Everyone better believe what the Administration puts out on Herdzone before they wheel out the punch and armed enforcers.  Just sayin...

(Actually, I shouldn't complain: since the Administration started their spin, I have moved down 18 rows in the Chairbacks.  On second thought, keep it rolling Herdzone.  I want to be front row!!!)

[HerdnClt]

(Once again, have to agree with BHFIOHIO. We drove ourselves right to the front door to where we are now. When the day comes that we dominate this SunBelt II like we did the MAC, that will be the day that "we are too good for this" may start sounding reasonable)

^^^^^^^
Spot on. Marshall football hasn't done anything in the last 8 years and basketball in the last 30 to act like we are too good for this league.  Go prove it on the field and court and then it will be time for a review. 5-7 and 13-19 don't get you many offers for BCS or wanna be BCS conferences. The schools added have twice the enrollment Marshall has and will move rapidly to improve.  No one is going to hand Marshall the crown.

[carolinaherdfan]

Sweet Jesus Sturt....I leave for a few days and I come back to peat and repeat...move on my man...we appreciate your effort, we herdfans need new material.;-).

[whf]

Was sitting here this AM trying to see if anything of substance / new had been added to this thread when it hit me...
If you think it is hard for many of us to accept this being left out and taking a step back, how to you think the Admin must "really" feel, and how good a job they have "really" done in masking it and turning it into a river of gold.

Yes, it is truly time to move on; the new boat has sailed and we are the one who wanted us.  That is "really" all that can be said.  You can't make the desired date say yes, there has to be a mutual desire for an effective relationship. And I will say, there seems to be a solid desire for the current group to want us.  That may be worth the result.

[BHFIOHIO]

just win baby!

[svherd]

(Once again, have to agree with BHFIOHIO. We drove ourselves right to the front door to where we are now. When the day comes that we dominate this SunBelt II like we did the MAC, that will be the day that "we are too good for this" may start sounding reasonable)

^^^^^^^
Spot on. Marshall football hasn't done anything in the last 8 years and basketball in the last 30 to act like we are too good for this league.  Go prove it on the field and court and then it will be time for a review. 5-7 and 13-19 don't get you many offers for BCS or wanna be BCS conferences. The schools added have twice the enrollment Marshall has and will move rapidly to improve.  No one is going to hand Marshall the crown.

We have a winner. Some of our fans get visions of granduer based on our run from 97-02. Most schools have runs like that at some point in their histories. We are fine where we are. Winning cures all ills. Face facts, we were never going to be, or will be in a big time league. Its just not in the cards. Even if we were in the old BE for a few years, look where they are now, basically in the same boat we are. Sure, we could have had better admiministation back in the late 90's and and early 2000's to help position us better but whats done (or not done) is done. Lets chill and enjoy football season.

[iherdya]

Okay. Let's line 'em up and test that... (as we've done a few times by now...)

1999 Marshall: First, it's one year. If you want a single year of success in every 20 or so, we're not even barely speaking about the same thing. Second, that was an era when there was annually only one Go5-type school ascending to any national recognition. Today? There's been at least 3 Go5-level teams in the BCS top 25 for the last six seasons... in two of those, there were five or more.

Boise State: Yes... exactly... now, you're talking... that's what we want to be. And Boise has played in what has basically been the equivalent of CUSA 2.0 over the years. You won't like this, given your dislike for numbers, but that's what the numbers say.

2013 NIU: See 1999 Marshall #1... but moreover, also note that last year was an outlier year in comparison to any of the years since 2005 when CUSA 2.0 was formed... that is, ALL of the Go5 conferences were within two points of each other in the Sagarins...uniquely, MAC was competitive with everyone else. Is that a trend? Who knows. Could be. But we won't know that for a few years... or, at minimum, we should at least wait to see how 2013 shakes out before we throw out the other 8 data points before it.

As said earlier...

You're 3 things you must hit on, let's look at them at the first one...

2012, take NIU's rating out of the MAC and the league's Sagarin average is 61.17, which would place the MAC LAST in FBS.

2010, take TCU's rating out of the MWC and the league's Sagarin average is 67.19, which would place them 9th in FBS, behind the mighty WAC.

2009, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 63.11, which would place them 10th in FBS, only ahead of the MAC a conference where 8 of the teams finished with a losing record.

2009, take TCU's rating out of the MWC and the league's Sagarin average is 69.15, which would place them 9th in FBS.

2007, take Hawaii's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 59.67, which would place them 9th in FBS, behind FCS Southern Conference.

2006, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 62.52, which would place them 10th in FBS, 0.3 from being the worst FBS conference in the country.

So, if by "play in a strong conference", you mean "play in a conference" I'd agree with you. Last year was definitely a down year for CUSA, the league's average rating by Sagarin was 62.64, which better than 3 of the 5 conference averages above, and within a point of a fourth.

[_sturt_]

It seemingly evades many here that my contention is simply that we can't be stagnant and expect to progress.

That doesn't go away. It's not an old argument, and never will be.

What has gone away, on the other hand, is the earlier call for us to pull out all stops in the pursuit of an AAC invite. The possibility of achieving that, however, vanished about 90 days ago when it became clear that the MWC and AAC weren't standing their ground to take a more capitalist (earn what you get) approach to the general BCS revenue distribution.

We have to be innovative. Again, if you want to argue about that, you're not just arguing with that doofus _sturt_... you're arguing with your own commish... no, he won't say it the way I'm saying it, nor should he as the ambassador of the conference... but the man realizes that we're in a dire strait... he's even on the record publicly talking about some very complicated playoff system that he was (and maybe still is) hoping to institute.

What's upsetting is that so many of you are talking like MAC fans... truly, you are. To say, "Just give me a conference title and that's enough for me" is the stuff that you used to criticize Miami fans for... but suddenly, it's okay for you to say it... what's up with that?

Have we taken a hit since 1999? Sure. But that misses the point... you aren't responding coherently...

I'm not arguing that we deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Boise, or even ECU necessarily.

The point is that we have to still aspire to the same goals, and we have to be willing to be innovative... we have to not be stuck in the rut of thinking things have to be set-up in the structure we're all used to... obviously, I'm out in front of that parade, having made a pretty coherent proposal for how cooperation with another conference that's essentially on the same tier as us competitively would put us on a platform equal with AAC and MWC.

[_sturt_]

You're 3 things you must hit on, let's look at them at the first one...

2012, take NIU's rating out of the MAC and the league's Sagarin average is 61.17, which would place the MAC LAST in FBS.

Back up. Missed on three counts.

1. MWC was last, not MAC.

2a. And regardless, all of the conferences finished within 2 points of each other, which putting that into a little context if you're familiar with the Sagarins, is even less than what a team receives as a home field advantage.

2b. The standard is that you must play in a strong conference. And relative to all of the other conferences, MAC was as strong as any for 2012.

3. The premise is that these are the three things that a school (and by inference, its conference) must do in order to enjoy PERENNIAL success... not a single year. There will be outlier years, but if you're just interested in achieving something every 10-20 years, that's just asking to be considered inferior, and that's not the mentality of a winner.

2010, take TCU's rating out of the MWC and the league's Sagarin average is 67.19, which would place them 9th in FBS, behind the mighty WAC.

2009, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 63.11, which would place them 10th in FBS, only ahead of the MAC a conference where 8 of the teams finished with a losing record.

2009, take TCU's rating out of the MWC and the league's Sagarin average is 69.15, which would place them 9th in FBS.

2007, take Hawaii's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 59.67, which would place them 9th in FBS, behind FCS Southern Conference.

2006, take Boise's rating out of the WAC and the league's Sagarin average is 62.52, which would place them 10th in FBS, 0.3 from being the worst FBS conference in the country.

So, if by "play in a strong conference", you mean "play in a conference" I'd agree with you. Last year was definitely a down year for CUSA, the league's average rating by Sagarin was 62.64, which better than 3 of the 5 conference averages above, and within a point of a fourth.

Back up.

First, do you realize that all this work you apparently did was already available to you in the screenshot of the Excel sheet? All of those calculations, minus the strongest school in the non-AQ conferences for each year, are there.

Second, the relevant standard is how each of the non-AQ conferences have compared to each other... it's not actually relevant where they placed in relation to any of the others, whether AQ or FCS/I-AA.

This is why I took the time to do the graphs... those show at a glance how everyone stacks up against each other for any given year. If you respect nothing else I'm saying, you have to respect the fact that I've brought together all of the relevant information to one Excel sheet. You're certainly welcome to see if you can draw other conclusions, but the ones I've drawn can't really be disputed with any level of veracity... to enjoy perennial success, this must be the norm for your team:

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Lose no more than one game in a season.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

[_sturt_]

just win baby!

As accurate as someone saying, "Just play in a strong conference, baby!"

No. Just because "Just win baby" rolls off the tongue easy and because it is a famous old line from a famous dead NFL exec... doesn't make it accurate for today. It just doesn't survive the test of scrutiny.

Like it or not... and evidently not... this is what the data supports:

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Lose no more than one game a season.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

Maybe it would become clearer if some of you old-timers would think back to the I-AA days...

For the same reason that a Tennessee Tech should not have gotten their hopes too high that their Ohio Valley Conference title would be very meaningful to being considered for the #1 seed in the I-AA playoffs... in light of the kind of caliber teams that emerged from SoCon (us, Appy, Furman) or Gateway (Youngstown, Illinois directionals) on a regular basis... that just wasn't in the cards, at least, in any typical way.

Tech needed something more than simply winning an OVC championship.

Fortunately for them, there was a mandated 16-team playoff... so, they only had to be one of 16... which was great... it gave them a shot, at least.

Fast forward to today and our circumstance on the horizon....

Your commish recognizes that his conference's only shot at avoiding Sun Belt-like marginalization is to persuade his peers to participate in a Go5 playoff of some kind... the details remain sketchy... but the point remains... HE'S THINKING OUT OF THE BOX BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THE WHOLE OF THE SITUATION. (Sorry to shout.)

What I've proposed is inferior to what he's proposing... but failing his pursuit... and I do believe it will be exceedingly difficult for him to gain that ground politically since MWC and AAC are in the position they're in... failing his pursuit, what I've proposed is the next best thing, at least until someone comes up with something better.

[iherdya]

Back up. Missed on three counts.

1. MWC was last, not MAC.

2a. And regardless, all of the conferences finished within 2 points of each other, which putting that into a little context if you're familiar with the Sagarins, is even less than what a team receives as a home field advantage.

2b. The standard is that you must play in a strong conference. And relative to all of the other conferences, MAC was as strong as any for 2012.

3. The premise is that these are the three things that a school (and by inference, its conference) must do in order to enjoy PERENNIAL success... not a single year. There will be outlier years, but if you're just interested in achieving something every 10-20 years, that's just asking to be considered inferior, and that's not the mentality of a winner.

Taking NIU out of the picture, because judging the strength of the conference a school played in shouldn't include the actual school, the MAC's simple average was 61.17. The MWC simple average was 61.82, which would put the MAC dead last in terms of FBS conferences.

Relative to ALL of Division 1 football, the MAC finished middle of the pack in terms of conferences. In terms of FBS conferences they finished dead last. And the fact that the MAC had such a good year in 2012, was the outlier, in most years the MAC has been much weaker.

Either way you look at it, the conference NIU played in last year, or the conference NIU has played in for the last 10 years, it has not been remotely a "strong conference" as you require.

As far as the play a top 25 school, in 2004 what top 25 team did Utah play? In 2006 what top 25 team did Boise play?

[_sturt_]

Taking NIU out of the picture, because judging the strength of the conference a school played in shouldn't include the actual school, the MAC's simple average was 61.17. The MWC simple average was 61.82, which would put the MAC dead last in terms of FBS conferences.

Relative to ALL of Division 1 football, the MAC finished middle of the pack in terms of conferences. In terms of FBS conferences they finished dead last. And the fact that the MAC had such a good year in 2012, was the outlier, in most years the MAC has been much weaker.

Either way you look at it, the conference NIU played in last year, or the conference NIU has played in for the last 10 years, it has not been remotely a "strong conference" as you require.

Diversions... you're dancing now... please stop... respond instead to something I just said... perhaps(?), starting with what I said about the MAC's strength relative to the other conferences in 2012... and maybe we can have a worthwhile conversation.

As far as the play a top 25 school, in 2004 what top 25 team did Utah play? In 2006 what top 25 team did Boise play?

2004 Utah... I didn't go back before 2005 for a couple of reasons... first and foremost, because the BCS ratings until then were only top 15, which significantly skews the conversation if we're going to eliminate 40% of the data... that is, we can't actually know for several of those years who was the best non-AQ team because the BCS slots 1-15 had none, and 16-25 were not identified... second, the real avalanche of Go5 school significance on a national stage began with that Boise team that beat Oklahoma in 2006, so the vast majority of what is relevant and current is, conventionally-speaking, taken into account.

2006 Boise... clearly, you're correct. They did not meet a top 25 team in the regular season (nor in a championship game, of course). Be fair to the discussion, though. I've clearly said there can be outliers. This is one. Thank God, this is one, or we might not even be having this conversation at all, without any hope of playing in a major bowl. There could still be a year when someone with 2 losses makes it... there could still be a year when someone with no games against a ranked opponent makes it... and, yes, could be a year when someone from a weak conference somehow makes it. But I'm not talking outliers... I'm talking about what you see in the main when you look at what characterizes/defines the #1 non-AQ teams over all these years...

1. They characteristically played in a strong conference.
2. They characteristically did not lose more than one game.
3. They characteristically played at least one top 25 team... and for some... most recently NIU, they had their own conference to thank for being able to check this one off.

[_sturt_]

I'm getting the impression that many still aren't seeing the point of the discussion. You're saying, essentially, "We are where we're at... nothing we can do about it, so why are we talking about it?"

To be clear, indeed, we are where we're at, but that's NOT a reason to lose our hopes and ambitions.  There IS something we can do about it.

Again, your own commish sees it that way. Why don't you?

While he certainly speaks highly of his new portfolio of schools... as he should... he also recognizes the need for the structure of things to change in order for CUSA 3.0 to avoid being marginalized to Sun Belt-like status.

I'd love to see his playoff idea laid out in detail... I'm fairly certain that whatever he's conceived, it is the best option for us.

But failing that... here's is the best Plan B on the table... if only because it's the ONLY Plan B that, to my knowledge, has been proposed by anyone anywhere...

===================================================

- CUSA adds 2 schools... perhaps Georgia State (East) and Texas State (West)

- MAC adds 3 schools... perhaps Army, Delaware and James Madison (all East)

- Top two football schools from the MAC East, MAC West, CUSA East and CUSA West--8 total--are promoted into a conference for the elites of CUSA and MAC... hereafter called the Great 8.

- Regular season play for Great 8:

• 3 conference games versus the other teams originating from their parent conference,
• 3 non-conference games versus three teams from their parent conference,
• 3 non-conference games with contracted opponents, and
• the 3 conference games that constitute the three-round in-season playoff that leads to a conference champion's emergence.


- Regular Season play for CUSA and MAC:


• 5 intra-division games,
• 1 inter-division game,
• 3 non-conference games versus the teams formerly associated with the division that succeeded to the new conference
• 3 non-conference games with contracted opponents

- Both CUSA and MAC crown their champions from among their 12 teams in the traditional way, via conference championship game

- In each succeeding season, either the CUSA or MAC champ automatically is promoted and replaces the Great 8 school associated with their division that is least successful (W/L %) in comparison to the champ; that school is relegated back to its normal division.

- How would TV work? Not much different than it already does. Great 8 revenues are funneled back to the two leagues. But the addition to the agenda, obviously, is the new conference's tournament games, which could spark additional interest over ordinary regular season games


I'm trying to look at this with as little subjectivity as a Marshall fan can bring to the topic... the Excel spreadsheet was constructed using what seemed to be rational criteria without attempting to prescribe any particular end-game. And what we find is this:

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
87.3 = Great 8 schools' (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
19.5 = Great 8 (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools

So, the numbers... not me... suggest that the G8 would be right there with AAC and MWC in any given year.

What's more, compare the G8 with what otherwise would be the case if status quo remains...

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
113.3 = MAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (25% below MWC)
118.7 = CUSA schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (31% below MWC)

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
35.3 = MAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (40% below MWC)
38.2 = CUSA average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (52% below MWC)

So, status quo says that sometimes but probably not often, CUSA and MAC can expect to compete with AAC and MWC for the major bowl slot.

But set up a Great 8 paradigm, and the numbers support that it would be an annual expectation that either a CUSA or MAC school would be in the mix.

Here’s how that might reasonably start off…

[/list][/list]

[iherdya]

Diversions... you're dancing now... please stop... respond instead to something I just said... perhaps(?), starting with what I said about the MAC's strength relative to the other conferences in 2012... and maybe we can have a worthwhile conversation.

2004 Utah... I didn't go back before 2005 for a couple of reasons... first and foremost, because the BCS ratings until then were only top 15, which significantly skews the conversation if we're going to eliminate 40% of the data... that is, we can't actually know for several of those years who was the best non-AQ team because the BCS slots 1-15 had none, and 16-25 were not identified... second, the real avalanche of Go5 school significance on a national stage began with that Boise team that beat Oklahoma in 2006, so the vast majority of what is relevant and current is, conventionally-speaking, taken into account.

2006 Boise... clearly, you're correct. They did not meet a top 25 team in the regular season (nor in a championship game, of course). Be fair to the discussion, though. I've clearly said there can be outliers. This is one. Thank God, this is one, or we might not even be having this conversation at all, without any hope of playing in a major bowl. There could still be a year when someone with 2 losses makes it... there could still be a year when someone with no games against a ranked opponent makes it... and, yes, could be a year when someone from a weak conference somehow makes it. But I'm not talking outliers... I'm talking about what you see in the main when you look at what characterizes/defines the #1 non-AQ teams over all these years...

1. They characteristically played in a strong conference.
2. They characteristically did not lose more than one game.
3. They characteristically played at least one top 25 team... and for some... most recently NIU, they had their own conference to thank for being able to check this one off.

Of the 8 BCS busters:

1. 3 of 8 played in a strong conference. 5 of them benefited from playing in the 9th or worse FBS conference.
2. All of them lost 1 or less game, though Boise and TCU both had years where they were eligible to be selected as an at-large with 2 losses and were not.
3. 2 of the 8 didn't play a top 25 team. 3 of the remaining 5 played a team that was ranked Top 25 at the time of the game, but did not finish in the Top 25 for the year.

[IM4DHERD]

Gotta agree with Herdya's point.  If NIU is the top team in the MAC, then you have to remove NIU from the equation when considering whether the MAC that year is a "top conference".  NIU rose the tide.

[_sturt_]

Of the 8 BCS busters:

1. 3 of 8 played in a strong conference. 5 of them benefited from playing in the 9th or worse FBS conference.

(Thank you for responding to something I said this time.)

Back up. Re-evalulate your standard.

Six of the 11 FBS conferences are irrelevant to the conversation... they were AQ, and by definition, none of those schools would compete for the distinction of becoming the #1 non-AQ team.

The only conferences that are relevant to the conversation are the non-AQ conferences. And, it is the comparison of those 5 that is cogent. Anything else is a diversion from the point of distinguishing "strong" conferences.

2. All of them lost 1 or less game, though Boise and TCU both had years where they were eligible to be selected as an at-large with 2 losses and were not.

Okay. (Missing the so-what...?).

3. 2 of the 8 didn't play a top 25 team. 3 of the remaining 5 played a team that was ranked Top 25 at the time of the game, but did not finish in the Top 25 for the year.

To be clear, indeed, when I say "play a top 25 team," that should be taken as "play a team that, when you play them, is in the top 25." The wider view is, essentially, you need to play a team during the season that is highly enough regarded that playing them makes a difference in how you're perceived... and of course, all the better if you can actually defeat them."

And 7 of the 8 played a top 25 team... Boise 2006, as stated previously, is the only outlier to that.

Please think about it... it only matters that you're playing a top 25 team when you actually play them... you get credit as you go along... we don't wait until the end of the season and make adjustments saying, "Hold it... let's move Nevada up because Washington ended up in the top 25 after all." No. Doesn't work that way. Whether it should work that way is, perhaps, a worthy conversation. But it doesn't, and until it does, then it's tangential to this discussion to approach it as if it does.

[_sturt_]

Gotta agree with Herdya's point.  If NIU is the top team in the MAC, then you have to remove NIU from the equation when considering whether the MAC that year is a "top conference".  NIU rose the tide.

The misnomer is that iherdya's point is original with him.

Look again.

Ummm... THAT IS A PREMISE OF THE EXCEL SHEET I CONSTRUCTED.

So, is it now any less agreeable to you now, knowing that that was originally taken into account by yours truly?

[IM4DHERD]

Whoever comes up with the number, the point is that these teams did not play in a strong conference, they were a strong team playing in a weak conference.  Assuming Herdya's compilation is correct, even if you came up with the same deduction, then each team listed was actually in the worst, next to worst or next to that conference.  Considering the BCS or not, this still leaves most every one (and I have not reviewed all the detail) seemingly not in the strongest non-BCS conference.

Not to go off on another tangent, and not to start a row, but you really need to stop with stuff like "Thank you for responding to something I said this time" and "respond instead to something I just said", etc.  This is a forum, not a classroom and others are allowed to interject their opinions and other perspectives.  There have been numerous occasions where a thread has been started saying something to the effect of (very sarcastically exaggerated) "the sky is blue" and others are commenting on the blue hue of the sky when you come in and say "If you think the sky is blue, you aren't paying any attention to the landscape of the realignment of college conferences.  Here is the only answer (to be continued ad naseum, ad infinatum)".

BTW - I do agree with your premise that to be perpetually included in the mix, playing in a strong conference, beating at top 25 team and losing no more than one game should get you there.  Don't need graphs and charts to figure that out.

[MarshallGrad]

What I've proposed.....

You are admonishing others for their lack of getting on the train to change and innovative thinking. The train is run by the conductor and his minions and it goes where they lay the track - there is no historical context to suggest it will go where the members of a fan board prefer it to. What's the point in it all when past performance and reasonable inference from the facts suggests that there is no power to make any of what you want to happen, happen?

Reconciling to where we are right now is not an act of complacency, or lack of insight as to what "better" could look like, it is an acceptance that there are realities and some fans are at ease living within the constraints of those realities. Pipe dreams - or even great ideas - are not lost on those that choose not to succumb to them. Empirical data does not create opportunity where it was never going to exist anyway.

Le CUSA est mort, vive le CUSA!

[_sturt_]

Whoever comes up with the number, the point is that these teams did not play in a strong conference, they were a strong team playing in a weak conference.

Geezlouise.

It's like you think if you keep repeating the sky is orange, it won't be blue anymore... keep repeating 2+2 = 5, it won't be 4 anymore.

"Strong" has to be measured in comparison to the other non-AQ conferences.
 
It doesn't matter how weak the MWC is in comparison to SEC.... doesn't matter how strong they are, either... the SEC schools are not in competition with the MWC schools for being the #1 non-AQ because?... Because they're AQ, not non-AQ.

This isn't that hard.

"Thank you for responding to something I said this time" and "respond instead to something I just said", etc.  This is a forum, not a classroom and others are allowed to interject their opinions and other perspectives.  There have been numerous occasions where a thread has been started saying something to the effect of (very sarcastically exaggerated) "the sky is blue" and others are commenting on the blue hue of the sky when you come in and say "If you think the sky is blue, you aren't paying any attention to the landscape of the realignment of college conferences.  Here is the only answer (to be continued ad naseum, ad infinatum)".

Oops.

BTW - I do agree with your premise that to be perpetually included in the mix, playing in a strong conference, beating at top 25 team and losing no more than one game should get you there.  Don't need graphs and charts to figure that out.

*whew*... and to think, it only took me about 138 posts to get to this point... hehe.

Thank you. Sincerely, IM4. Finally. Someone who's been on the other side of this fence acknowledges those premises as a group. Good to see that.