Topic: RANT SPORTS: Ranking Every Top-25 Team's Biggest Strength Heading into 2014

[_sturt_]

Sturt, would you create a poll for us regarding whether you should join the once heralded GB60 in herdfans jail, aka the smack board.  You can write a book debating both sides of the argument for us, and then we will all vote to see how the board as a whole feels regarding the matter.  I don't even think you will have to bump (...) it a thousand times to try and create interest for it!

Oh stop it already. I don't mean to call you out...  you otherwise seem to be a good guy... but you're really acting childish now.

I'm not here bashing the program or calling out players or even coaches. Completely other way around. I'm here trying to prompt people who otherwise think they're powerless to think deeper about options we actually have, and to do the one thing that us fans can actually do--get behind an idea, raise the volume, and create an environment where decision-makers feel motivated to take some action. Naysayers be damned. We're in a real pickle here. A real one. Not imagined. Almost no one with any common sense is oblivious to that. I happen to be one of those people who isn't so popularity-conscious that I can stand taking the battering from the cynics who get their jollies by standing there rooted in their ego-reassuring "it'll never happen... it can never work" posture. Those are the enemies of this program, truth be told. And you kinda know who those people are by their sensitivity to that light being shone upon them. Ultimately, what matters to them is how they personally come off, not how this program progresses. That the players get to play on the biggest stage reasonable is the means to an end when, if they were genuine, it would be the end itself. The end for them, rather, is feeling good about self in the short-term. They don't really care about the players or the long-term: "Just win baby. And don't expect anything of me. It's all on the players and coaches. Sure, I pay my money. I show up. I cheer. What else do you want from me? Just let me sit on my hands. It's futile to do anything else, so why try?"

Since you want to focus on me, and not the problem or solutions at-hand... no narcissism on my part, you brought it up... let me just say some things clearly that maybe need to be said, given the cattle prod you just waved in my direction: No great revelation here. I'm me. And I believe in what I believe in. If it makes you uncomfortable, it's not hard to avoid my posts. Dozens and dozens of people seemingly do just that and we all get along just great. You'll find others who, on occasion, will speak up and indicate that they appreciate what I bring to the board, reserving the right... justifiably and fair enough... to disagree on occasion or agree. YOU yourself seemingly just did as much when you said something along those lines in a post yesterday, which is why I'm particularly struck this morning... "where'd THIS come from?"

And rest assured, there are several on this board who are friends from high school and college and Big Green fellowship, and sometimes we agree, sometimes disagree, even fairly strongly. A couple have become good friends just from this board, even to the point that we include each other on Facebook. Some have shared with me, so I assume it probably can be said of several more, that they often agree with my posts, but feel like I need no back-up and carry the ball, so to speak, just fine without them chiming in. And that's all good for me. I appreciate it if/when they do, but I also don't mind it if/when they don't.

I say this to you and others who have recently settled into this vein. Stop the insanity. Be a man. Stop trying to defeat arguments by deflecting to personal attacks on a person... in this case, me. Focus on the issues, not people... again, in this case, me. If someone writes differently than you... more words or less words or words you don't usually write, though you totally understand them when national columnists use them... just ignore him if you don't like it, but don't veer off off into some side discussion that, in reality, only reflects negatively on yourself by calling into question your own education. Why go there, when what you're communicating without saying it is "this is above me"... even when it actually isn't above you, that's the unintended message that comes across. When someone is trying to keep the flow of a discussion, don't interject yourself with meaningless sidebars; but if you do, don't be surprised when the person (as opposed to being motivated to bump the conversation, that actually, hadn't sunk to even need bumping in the first place) is motivated to sidestep your sidebars by deleting and re-posting. Focus, focus, focus on the content, content, content. Please, please, please. With all due respect.

Do that, and we'll all not only get along famously, but we'll routinely have some respectful, productive conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing.

[wasbarryb]

Sturt, would you create a poll for us regarding whether you should join the once heralded GB60 in herdfans jail, aka the smack board.  You can write a book debating both sides of the argument for us, and then we will all vote to see how the board as a whole feels regarding the matter.  I don't even think you will have to bump (...) it a thousand times to try and create interest for it!

Great suggestion Ntelos. Hope we can vote without having to scroll through the endless windbag discourse on himself. I already know how I'd be voting. I'm long ago tired of having to scroll through his seemingly endless BS to get past his endless attempts to highjack otherwise interesting threads.

[fuzzy fillez]

I think you just said a lot of things that probably needed to be said, sturt.

But. I would be careful painting with too broad a brush. Some people genuinely see the current situation and think we've been blessed to basically be put into Southern Conference situation at the D-1 level. And that as a result we're going to be in a position down the line much like we were when the MAC looked to expand. They don't want to see us have to go through any new gauntlet and play good teams in the effort to get an access bowl invite. They think there is value in being that school that everyone considers a wild card--being that under-appreciated team year-in-year-out. And I think that's legitimately thinking long-term and you might be lumping some people together that don't actually belong together.

Now personally I think they miss that there's a hazard with that way of thinking, which is that you're going to eventually feel the effects of that in recruiting, with players choosing American and even Mid-American schools because, even assuming success (and that's actually not a given, of course), Marshall will have the reputation of never actually getting to an access bowl. I have come to agree that we really need to do something different. And that as fans we really need to be talking about this and attempting to come together to speak with one voice. I think that's what you're trying to say (?).

So given more thought I think the idea of giving Hamrick and other ADs complete power to schedule whoever they want beyond the in-division games is the right compromise. If/when we get so good that we feel we need to play some high-caliber programs, that gives Hamrick extra room to schedule some one-fers, but in the meantime, it also gives him the ability to purposely schedule teams from CUSA 2.0 that some of us care about like USM or maybe Rice, instead of leaving that to the conference office every year.

[BHFIOHIO]

good post ..but the actual bottom line is regardless how you feel about our conf affiliation and the AAC the fact of the matter is they didn't/don't want us and there is very little anyone can do about it. Also I'm not gonna pick at Hambone over scheduling when he has got deals with UL. Purdue and Navy not to mention the more than excellent job he has done raising money , securing relationships and building facilities. Everything isn't perfect but its still a great time to be a Herd Fan. Prob in the future there will be less MAC and more challenges if Doc keeps on keeping on.

[fuzzy fillez]

Maybe I missed something but I don't think think sturt is picking on Hamrick's scheduling. If anything he's wanting to give Hamrick more flexibility to do more of it.

I might add that as far as I've read the ones focused on making Marshall an attractive expansion choice later are the ones who prefer the current situation (SoCon in D-1). Sturt seems to be satisfied to stay in CUSA but to make CUSA itself better positioned to annually produce an access bowl candidate.

[MUsince96]

Fun fact--C-USA and The American have the same number of teams (5) in the bottom 86 USA Today countdown.

[BHFIOHIO]

Sturts ideas about CUSA/MAC collaboration have zero chance imo. There is the 4 game OOC part tho for those whose hopes live and die with an access bowl. Or just because the same people are not satisfied with double digit wins vs mid-majors. Count me as one who will be satisfied this yr with HOD vs Big 12/10. I would rather beat the Pouties or Illinois at Dallas than lose to Missouri in the Peach. Having 8 games vs CUSA 3 does not prevent for ex BUGS, FCS, VT and BYU OOC.  We can have a tougher schedule within the framework of the present system if we want. This yrs schedule mostly was engineered when we were struggling to put it mildly. If we have arrived I figure the schedule will become more interesting. All good things come to those who are patient. We have had one good yr in the last ten or twelve.. The 2012 D would prob give up 40 at Akron.

[fuzzy fillez]

Perhaps so on the collaboration thing but I think the focus now seems to be simply broadening ADs scheduling powers. I don't really see a problem with that. And I respectfully disagree that we already can so easily have a tougher schedule within the current framework because it is not just a matter of schools but dates available. Hypothetically Hamrick and the VT AD might both be open to scheduling something but for the years the VT AD is interested Hamrick might already be confined. I mean it never hurts to have flexibility. If Hamrick wants instead to schedule UTSA and UTEP he still could do that.

[BHFIOHIO]

Don't understand your last part. Those two are part of our conf schedule. Unless you are still talking about some mumbo jumbo with the MAC. If you don't think we could beef up the OOC  you need to look at the Sun Belt. MAC and AAC teams that are playing harder schedules. Its almost only us this yr that has zero challenges. Just a coupla yrs ago we had USPAM and VT same yr. We can get a game with a true top dog for mega bucks if we want. Take a look at the schedules of other mid majors and then tell me why they can but we cant.

[fuzzy fillez]

I suppose Im not communicating very well. First when I said "perhaps so on the collaboration thing but I think the focus now seems to be simply broadening ADs scheduling powers" I thought I was saying this isn't anything MAC related. Second I doubt anyone sturt included is saying we cant play a tougher schedule as it is. But we are locked into two CUSA games--and as I just noted perhaps just as importantly two Saturdays--under the current arrangement that at Hamrick's discretion could be filled instead with better competition to balance out the lack of good competition in the CUSA East. Or what I was saying about UTSA and UTEP is that Hamrick (and other ADs of course) would maintain the option to schedule cross-division if they wanted.

Seems to me only good can come from having options.

[BHFIOHIO]

 I give up. I think Sturt has corrupted your thinking.

[fuzzy fillez]

BHFIOHIO, I dont know how to respond to that. I didn't realize what I said would spark such a sharp reply. Is it wrong to say that only good can come from having options. Or is it simply wrong to ask the question in the first place. I dont want to act defensively myself but it suddenly feels like maybe I should be. Im not taking sides here. Ive let sturt know that I think some of what he said was off target. But I guess I dont have the strong feelings some have about him so maybe I just dont understand the whole picture. Regardless I cant help but feel the statement in my last post was fair, and that only good can come from having more options.

[_sturt_]

Don't let me interrupt. I just thought 96 would want all of the salient information to be put out there, and he evidently was short on time. Glad to be of-service.  :P



Seems to me, it lines up the Go5 conferences pretty much like every other ranking we've been looking at.

[banker]

Why do you have USM at 133 instead of 113?

Actual averages thru today
CUSA. 109
AAC. 94
MAC. 111
Belt. 112
MWC. 110

Now, the first 4 all have 7 teams ranked so far, the MWC only 5. The MAC and CUSA both have 6 teams left to rank, the AAC and Belt 4 and the MWC 7. So one way to look at it as the countdown progresses is what is the lowest possible average each conference can obtain.

That plays out like this:

MWC. 48.08
CUSA. 60.62
AAC. 60.82
MAC. 61.54
Belt. 72.00

Now if you want to look at the Orlando Sentinal, the other 128-1 countdown and the one Myerberg used to do before he went to USA Today, it looks like this:

MWC. 95
AAC. 97
Belt. 105
CUSA. 105
MAC. 106


The difference here is CUSA has the same 6 teams left and the AAC has the same 4, but the MWC only has 5, the Belt only 3 and the MAC has 7, one more than in the Myerberg countdown. So best possible average for each conference:

MAC. 51.00
MWC. 56.75
CUSA. 57.92
AAC. 63.73
Belt. 76.64

So in both countdowns CUSA and the AAC have 7 teams in the bottom teams to date. My guess is that CMU is coming up next in the Sentinal countdown, which will raise the MAC best possible to 56.31 so it will be in line.

Bottom line is that with the exception of the Belt everyone else is going to end up fairly close.

[banker]

Here's how all the conferences look in best possible average:

   Orlando   Remaining
SEC    25.57     11
Big 10    30.64     10
ACC    32.57     10
PAC    36.00     8
Big12    43.80     6
MAC    51.00     7
MWC    56.75     5
CUSA    57.92     6
AAC    63.73     5
Belt    76.64     3

   Myerberg   Remaining
SEC    19.36     12
PAC    22.67     9
Big12    24.70     8
Big 10    25.43     11
ACC    30.29     10
MWC    48.08     7
CUSA    60.62     6
AAC    60.82     4
MAC    61.54     6
Belt    72.00     4

Myerberg is a little more P5 biased and likes the MWC more while the OS countdown has a little MAC bias to this point.

[MUsince96]

Why do you have USM at 133 instead of 113?

Actual averages thru today
CUSA. 109
AAC. 94
MAC. 111
Belt. 112
MWC. 110

Now, the first 4 all have 7 teams ranked so far, the MWC only 5. The MAC and CUSA both have 6 teams left to rank, the AAC and Belt 4 and the MWC 7. So one way to look at it as the countdown progresses is what is the lowest possible average each conference can obtain.

That plays out like this:

MWC. 48.08
CUSA. 60.62
AAC. 60.82
MAC. 61.54
Belt. 72.00

Now if you want to look at the Orlando Sentinal, the other 128-1 countdown and the one Myerberg used to do before he went to USA Today, it looks like this:

MWC. 95
AAC. 97
Belt. 105
CUSA. 105
MAC. 106


The difference here is CUSA has the same 6 teams left and the AAC has the same 4, but the MWC only has 5, the Belt only 3 and the MAC has 7, one more than in the Myerberg countdown. So best possible average for each conference:

MAC. 51.00
MWC. 56.75
CUSA. 57.92
AAC. 63.73
Belt. 76.64

So in both countdowns CUSA and the AAC have 7 teams in the bottom teams to date. My guess is that CMU is coming up next in the Sentinal countdown, which will raise the MAC best possible to 56.31 so it will be in line.

Bottom line is that with the exception of the Belt everyone else is going to end up fairly close.

[_sturt_]

Had already corrected the entry error that the poster above also caught. But also, given a second glance, I see that I missed a couple of MWC teams, so instead of 104, it becomes 105.

I figure anyone having taken the most elementary math class recognizes the value of averages and medians as opposed to picking out a number and saying "there's 7 of A and 7 of B within these 50 numbers." That is because it's fairly arbitrary from a statistician's perspective to just pick a number... the top 48 or the top 28 or whatever... and count as-if that describes the picture very well. In this case, the original poster bringing up the "fun facts" could have just as easily made a big deal that there are only 2 American teams in triple digits, while there are 5 for everyone else. Curiously... and yes, there's a sarcastic tone in saying that word... he didn't. Curiouser still is that he thought anyone would be so shallow as to draw any worthwhile conclusion from such an arbitrary count and not look deeper. It's sometimes as-if he's a double-agent, setting up strawmen just to make the all-is-hunky-dorry crowd seem simple-minded.

I understand the desire to better account for the teams that don't show up in the "Lower 48" by calculating the lowest possible average each conference can obtain. And I appreciate that. It represents an improvement over merely showing the percentage of teams for each conference that show up in that L48 group, which is what I did.

We'll see how that plays out, of course, as the whole USA Today ranking is revealed. But statistically, it's doubtful we'll see much change in the pattern already evident--i.e., the conference's ranking relative to each other. 48 of 128 would seem a pretty decent data set from which to make some solid projections.

If so, we'll see the two tiers develop again:

American at the top, MWC slightly behind... a distinct gulf until the next conference shows up, which might be CUSA depending largely on Marshall's rank, or still could be MAC... and then Sun Belt slightly behind those two.

[MUsince96]

Or you could just say half of The American sucks like half of C-USA sucks and it's really that simple.


Keep it simple, stupid.

[_sturt_]

Um. Yeah. Curiouser and curiouser. *rolls eyes*

[MUsince96]

See that was very simple. You're learning. Gold star for you.

[_sturt_]

See that was very simple.

Couldn't agree more. Wow. *rolls eyes again*

[_sturt_]

fuzzy, first, "mega-dittos" on most of what you said above.

Perhaps even more than appreciating the content, I appreciate the tone. Hopefully, I won't put you on the defensive if I offer a slight disagreement, and then I'd like to build on something you said...

1. It's one thing to say "I think we're in a good position just as things stand, positioning ourselves as the most attractive candidate for AAC expansion in the future." It's a different thing to say, "I recognize we're in a bad position, but what can we do? We have no influence."

Where the former is concerned, while I disagree with the premise... let me come back to that... I agree with you that the former is a legitimate long-term position and one that isn't inherently self-gratification-driven.

Notice what I said please: "We're in a real pickle here. A real one. Not imagined. Almost no one with any common sense is oblivious to that."

In saying that, I ruled out those who accept the "we're in a good position" premise. So, I did not actually talk about them... the oblivious... in that post. I wouldn't and didn't paint those people as only caring about themselves. But you can read into what I said that I do "paint them" as ignoring their own common sense. I feel a little sorry for them because I perceive them as the personality type that tends toward a feeling of powerlessness... in the vein of (but not so extreme as) Stockholm Syndrome, in that in the midst of their feeling powerless, they exaggerate every small/shallow something to feel good about to salve their conscience. Feeling like they have no influence, they cower to whatever authority or "the man" tells them and make the best of it psychologically.

2. Let's talk about that premise now--i.e., that we're not actually in a pickle..

You pointed to the recruiting disadvantages. True.

But I contend that there is a more substantial aspect to the problem staring us in the face that echo the same dire consequences:

Every year that an American or MWC conference gets the access bowl, they reap the financial benefits... and with every year they do so, they widen the gulf between us and them... the top tier of Go5 and the bottom tier of Go5... more and more.

In other words... sitting on our hands is the best option if you're content to see us become the best program among the bottom tier... of the bottom half... of D-1 schools.

I don't know how else to put it. We're at pivotal point. We need to be in contention for the major bowl and its financial benefits NOW, not later at some imagined date in the future when Texas and Oklahoma (the clear opinion leaders within the Big XII) flip-flop and decide the Big XII can expand after all, and there becomes some hope that the ripple effects give us a shot to fill an AAC slot. We cannot afford... literally... to put this off. We need to do whatever can be done to be a year-in-year-out contender that the CFP 13 looks at.

[MUsince96]

[_sturt_]

I get the desire to be taken seriously again after having been long ago written off [link].

Internal dialogue probably goes something like this...

"Let's see... how can I be taken seriously?... hmmm... well, mature, intelligent debate is probably a dead-end for me... what else can I do... I know... laughter... people always like funny people more than they like serious people... I'll just try to make everything a joke... yeah, that's the ticket." (cue the laugh track)

Someone is extremely misguided if they think attempting comedy is a path to gaining credibility. The path to popularity? Sure. But the path to credibility has nothing to do with popularity.

[MUsince96]

(can't figure out the getting owned comment was about him)

I laugh every time you post that.

You try and have serious dialogue (insane albeit serious), and can't get taken seriously. You're like the Gary Sweeney of Herdfans.

"There's one in every family" comes to mind.