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

[_sturt_]

1. I'm not a pretender.

2. I did have them, still do.

3. don't understand what you are trying to imply, see #2 above.

4. No, because I am correct.

5. No.

6. I don't know, maybe the fact that I actually know that New Mexico is in the MWC, you seemed to have excluded them from your numbers.  Oh, you missed Wyoming too.  Hard to keep data when you don't even know which teams are in a conference I guess.  You only had 4 MWC teams listed when, at the time of my post, I correctly had 5 teams listed, Hawaii at 123, UNLV at 111, New Mexico at 110, Wyoming at 103 and Air Force at 102.  If you add those up, that's 5 teams with a total of 549 points.  You divide 549 by 5 and you get 109.8, which rounds to 110.  Seriously, that's 4 errors I have now had to point out to you on your chart.  You want me to just email you mine when I update it so you have the correct numbers?

7.  I didn't go there because I didn't really want to embarrass you by showing your lack of even knowing who is in what conference.  But since you pushed, there you go.

8.  I didn't make a mistake, how you doing with your mistake?  Just remember, Wyoming and New Mexico, proud members of the MWC.

Glad I could help.

Nevada. MWC. 82.

Average is 105.1667 among us mere humans.

You want to know how I deal with any of my mistakes (... plural, not singular, mind you)?

Us mere humans recognize our occasional fallibility, acknowledge them, and go on about our business, content in knowing that at least we're sincerely trying to pursue the truth, and it's not just a game to see how much we can reassure our own egos:

Had already corrected the entry error that the poster above also caught [i.e, typed 133 instead of 113]. But also, given a second glance, I see that I missed a couple of MWC teams, so instead of 104, it becomes 105.

Done with this.

[fuzzy fillez]

Well that was just a little awkward wasnt it. Damn.

You might have a point here. I'm not sure. But if so, the 2013 numbers actually point to the opposite conclusion--i.e., that the differences top-to-bottom among the non-contract bowl conferences are actually more dramatic than at the top in among the contract bowl conferences (... I refuse to use that P word b/c its just another way of for big media to exercise their condescension against us).



Notably, the last place conference among the contracts ended up about the same distance from the top as the THIRD place conference among the non-contracts did from their top.

The greatest divide among the contracts was about 3 points. The greatest divide between the non-contracts was about 5 points.

So, again 2013 is just one year, but just in terms of the surface info, it's consistent with what we should expect from having looked at rankings comparisons.

Here's what should give us some hope though... being that I'm not one of the fatalists/cynics on this board, I should point this out  ;)...

Who won the national championship for the 2013 season? It was a school from the LAST place conference among the contracts (ie, in terms of ratings), which equated to appx. the 3rd place conference among the non-contracts.

Lesson: It's do-able.

(I should define "do-able"... i.e., emerging as the best school among your half of D-1.)

But. Yes, there's always a but.

But... with the caveat... that FSU's regular season schedule included three top 25 schools, two of those top 10 (Clemons was #3 when they played, and UMiami was #7).

Lesson: It's do-able when you have some high-caliber schools in your conference who show up on your schedule.

Failing that, to vault yourself to the top, you're going to need to find some other way to get some high-caliber schools perennially on your schedule.

Oh, and one more thing... indeed, it was widely taken for granted last season that FSU did need to go undefeated in order to get to pinnacle.

And if you dont mind me finishing your point for you we sure could have used a couple of additional openings this year to schedule a couple of higher-caliber schools. Right? Who knows--adding that flexibility by subtracting two of the conference dates might have even been enough to keep Louisville on the schedule! Cant really know that for a fact but maybe. Even setting that possibility aside we almost definitely could have scheduled a stronger opponent than Southern Miss figures to be.

Ive been thinking too that its too bad we cant have some kind of playoff just among the Go5 schools. I read somewhere that Banowsky and the Sun Belt commissioner were trying to get some traction with something like that sometime last year I think but obviously American and Mtn West dont have much reason for now to be interested.

[banker]

Guess you missed the "at the time of my post". Glad Nevada got ranked so you weren't as wrong in your eyes. Seriously, you are tracking conference standings and don't even know who is in what conference?  You do know the WAC doesn't exist anymore, right?

[_sturt_]

banker, really? Why?

Please let it go. This isn't ending well for you, and the ego you're now trying so hard to revive with this latest post is, instead, just taking another self-inflicted kick between the legs. I'm sure you spent 24 hours trying to figure out something clever to say to save face, but honestly, that's hardly clever. No one's fooled. You evidently overlooked it, but the timestamps betray you, and unless you are suggesting I'm psychic, my very first post in this vein betrays you, as I referred in the chart to the "lower 48," ie, #81-#128, and the number 82 does show up in the MWC list.

And the infallible thing? Might be news to you, but same thing--brother, no one's fooled. I don't know how old you are, but really, not trying to insult you but just stating fact--a person just makes himself look immature with the pretentiousness of trying to keep up an image. Accept, don't resist, the humiliation lessons in life, this one being a pretty minor one. To the contrary, people respect people who carry themselves with confidence but humility, able to acknowledge their fallibility because they are self-aware and authentic. Yes, forgive me father for I have sinned... I whipped through the slideshow, evidently, too quickly and missed a couple of teams. Yes, forgive me again... I typed 133 instead of 113 at first. It happens. But as much as you perhaps would like that to be a mortal wound to my very soul, I'm just not that injured. I corrected myself even before you corrected me, but regardless, I kinda accept my mortality and fallibility and I deal with it.

I said I'm done. And, on this topic, at least where it concerns you... assuming no further rhetorical contortions... I'm done. I didn't have before and don't have now any interest in merely rubbing your nose in your mistake, let alone a mortal wound to your soul. I've moved on.

[_sturt_]

And if you dont mind me finishing your point for you we sure could have used a couple of additional openings this year to schedule a couple of higher-caliber schools. Right? Who knows--adding that flexibility by subtracting two of the conference dates might have even been enough to keep Louisville on the schedule! Cant really know that for a fact but maybe. Even setting that possibility aside we almost definitely could have scheduled a stronger opponent than Southern Miss figures to be.

Ive been thinking too that its too bad we cant have some kind of playoff just among the Go5 schools. I read somewhere that Banowsky and the Sun Belt commissioner were trying to get some traction with something like that sometime last year I think but obviously American and Mtn West dont have much reason for now to be interested.

Yes. I believe that finishes the point real well.

[_sturt_]

Fuzz, going back to your earlier post, I just thought to put this together this a.m....

[fuzzy fillez]

Okay. Well see how 2014 goes and whether the pattern continues.

Sturt I dont know where things go from here. If I can be candid without being offensive I think the idea to give ADs maximum scheduling flexibility is solid but I feel like maybe youve just created a few too many enemy combatants here that it wouldnt matter how much sense an idea makes.

And again being candid at the risk of insulting you--you have spoken about having friends here but since none of your friends even seem to be supportive I dont see how the idea is ever going to fly as long as you are in any way associated with it. Just sayin.

Im not volunteering to take a lead because I dont see myself as the kind of person who has the time or talent to do that.

I fully believe in the idea and the rationale for doing it but I guess Im just coming to the conclusion that this might be one of those excellent ideas that just never went anywhere because the right people never surfaced to push it along.

[banker]

Well sturt, I just find it convenient that you made 4 "mistakes" in your original table and each of the "mistakes" served to strengthen the point you were trying to make.

As far as me letting it go, page up and look for the post where you said you were done and I could have the last word. Seems like I'm not the only one having an issue calling it quits.

[_sturt_]

"...And, on this topic, at least where it concerns you...assuming no further rhetorical contortions..."

So in case you weren't paying attention, (a) I'm done with this vein of the conversation, having no interest in rubbing your nose in it, and (b) said I would not return to it unless there were further rhetorical contortions.

Oops. Contortion made. Let me just set that straight since you prefer to talk about my mistakes... which, notably I believe I've acknowledged a few times now, while you have yet to even acknowledge the foot you inserted all the way down to your small intestine. (Talk about contortions.)

My mistakes? One more time:

"...Yes, forgive me father for I have sinned... I whipped through the slideshow, evidently, too quickly and missed a couple of teams. Yes, forgive me again... I typed 133 instead of 113 at first."

Missing the two teams changed the average from 104 to 105.

The 133 to 113 mistake was caught before you or anyone else could even say anything. Made no actual difference as a result. If I hadn't caught it, the difference would have been 112 instead of 110.

"...It happens. But as much as you perhaps would like that to be a mortal wound to my very soul, I'm just not that injured. I corrected myself even before you corrected me, but regardless, I kinda accept my mortality and fallibility and I deal with it."

By all means... have the last word, my friend... but it's only right, especially given your history of chain-yanking for sport, that I reserve the discretion to judge whether your contortions are too extreme.

[_sturt_]

Okay. Well see how 2014 goes and whether the pattern continues.

Sturt I dont know where things go from here. If I can be candid without being offensive I think the idea to give ADs maximum scheduling flexibility is solid but I feel like maybe youve just created a few too many enemy combatants here that it wouldnt matter how much sense an idea makes.

And again being candid at the risk of insulting you--you have spoken about having friends here but since none of your friends even seem to be supportive I dont see how the idea is ever going to fly as long as you are in any way associated with it. Just sayin.

Im not volunteering to take a lead because I dont see myself as the kind of person who has the time or talent to do that.

I fully believe in the idea and the rationale for doing it but I guess Im just coming to the conclusion that this might be one of those excellent ideas that just never went anywhere because the right people never surfaced to push it along.

Not offended at all. Didn't say anything I hadn't wondered to myself from time to time. I even appreciate the candor because it's a sign of a genuine kind of person. But... I can't use any of what you said as an excuse for me to not do what I can. If people want to get in the way, that's on them. I need to be able to look at myself in a mirror and say I did what I could, whether it was enough or not. So. I will do what I can.

Certainly let me know if you have any other ideas.

By the way, fuzz, you once said you desired to go this route (max scheduling flexibility) for now, but ultimately would like to see what was called "#6," which proposed incorporating geographic rivalries, and in-season playoff, and challenge games on the final regular season weekend. Had second thoughts on that, or still prefer it? Curious.

[fuzzy fillez]

By the way, fuzz, you once said you desired to go this route (max scheduling flexibility) for now, but ultimately would like to see what was called "#6," which proposed incorporating geographic rivalries, and in-season playoff, and challenge games on the final regular season weekend. Had second thoughts on that, or still prefer it? Curious.

Just in the last week or so I talked about conference things over lunch with a couple of guys I work with from other CUSA schools. One graduated from UAB and another went to USM. And when we got back to the office I shared the link where you explained that one. They both were really impressed first of all because of the geographic rivalry thing where they don't have to play UTEP and UTSA every year but instead play only a few schools that rotate. Of course the USM guy cared a whole lot more than my UAB co-worker about the whole in-season playoff thing because he too recognizes how the conference schedule is going to be an albatross around the neck of our champ more often than not.

So yes that format would be the ideal.

But you take what you can get and for now it seems even getting people to see the virtue of putting two more games in the hands of the athletic directors would be a monumental accomplishment. And like I said before its do-able now and doesnt have to wait for any new NCAA rule changes.

[Big Ol' Hillbilly]

NM waste of time

[_sturt_]

Just in the last week or so I talked about conference things over lunch with a couple of guys I work with from other CUSA schools. One graduated from UAB and another went to USM. And when we got back to the office I shared the link where you explained that one. They both were really impressed first of all because of the geographic rivalry thing where they don't have to play UTEP and UTSA every year but instead play only a few schools that rotate. Of course the USM guy cared a whole lot more than my UAB co-worker about the whole in-season playoff thing because he too recognizes how the conference schedule is going to be an albatross around the neck of our champ more often than not.

So yes that format would be the ideal.

But you take what you can get and for now it seems even getting people to see the virtue of putting two more games in the hands of the athletic directors would be a monumental accomplishment. And like I said before its do-able now and doesnt have to wait for any new NCAA rule changes.

Encouraging.

[fuzzy fillez]

sturt look at your PMs. My USM friend wants to get in touch with you so I sent you his email addy a couple of days ago.

[_sturt_]

We have Purdue and OH on the schedule next year, and Louisville in 2016, so just like in years past we are going to get right back to our consistency of having a tough non-conference schedule with a P5 school, 2 MAC/AAC level teams, and an FCS. 
 

Yes, that much looks to be the same in the future. No one's disagreeing with that.

What's different is what's important. Of course. You know that.

And what's different is that we've been forced to replace the UCFs ECUs Tulsas and Houstons with the likes of FIU, UNT, UTSA and even a brand new program in Charlotte.

Will things seem different in 10 years? Likely.

But we are setting that trajectory right now as to whether we're going to shrink and eliminate the gap between us and AAC and MWC or if its going to just get wider...

Like I said, we're setting the trajectory now. If you're going to Myrtle Beach from Huntington this summer, the decisions you make early in the journey are most consequential to if/when you sink your toes in the sand. If we're blind to that and don't try to do what we can, we only have ourselves to blame for ending up meandering some backcountry roads and lost instead of promptly arriving at our condo and getting the fun started.

That's what's frustrating for me. Why be so hands-off as some seem to be about this. It makes no sense if you're truly pulling for your school to advance and put players in the position to play on the biggest stage reasonable.

Finally, I choke on the words earlier that someone would rather play in the Heart of Dallas Bowl and win rather than play in the Peach Bowl and lose.

First of all, who's to say we couldn't win the Peach Bowl... more to the point, why would anyone automatically assume that? UCF fans certainly wouldn't assume that, so why are any of us talking like that? I don't get it.

But second, pragmatically and accepting the other poster's premise that we would lose one but win the other... how is it to our long-term benefit to win a bowl that pays out $1.1 million to our conference versus playing in a bowl, even if we lost, and the conference payout being something north of, conservatively, $10 million? (By the way, I can't find that anyone has reported exactly what the new payouts are going to be, given that there are essentially 6 major bowls now instead of 4... if anyone has that, please add to the discussion).

I know it pains some of you to ever even come close to agreeing with me. But please don't be so personality-focused. Think of the merits of all of this. Think of that political figure who you most dislike... for me it might be Charles Schumer. I disagree with the President (who often agrees with Schumer, of course) on a lot of things, but I not only disagree with Schumer, I strongly dislike the guy and the way he comes across. I think Mr. Obama is a likeable guy. Schumer, not so much. But even Schumer says some things on occasion that I have to agree with. Rarely. But it happens. And that's as it should be. I can't let my dislike for Schumer overall to keep me from picking out those things he's right about and nodding my head in agreement. Some of you guys have formed your own little clique of sorts here defiantly trying to put up a counter-offensive anytime I post something--one poster even recently said that s/he considers it a form of recreational to do just that. That's responding to a personality, and it's merely unfortunate at best, and completely counterproductive at worst. We aren't the biggest fan base. But we might be the most passionate one, pound-for-pound. We can make a lot happen just by acting with one voice, as fuzzy put it. But will we act with one voice. That's a huge question. Right now, it doesn't look that way. But I don't give up hope.

*bump*