Power 5 Conference Testicle Check

[TheRobotDevil]

27 out of 129, and most of those who responded weren't even from P5 schools.

I read 15 of 27. But I see you didn't read the entire article that discusses the financial gain in regards to expanding the play offs. Its a good read

 

[TheDayMan]

27 out of 129, and most of those who responded weren't even from P5 schools.

I also like how it concludes with 'presidents won't go for it.'

Yep, definitely expanding in 7 years...

 

[4down20]

They would replace conference championship weekend and have no impact on the current bowl system.

They won't happen because no matter how much money those will make, the power conferences are not giving up their current tv deals and down size.

Conference championships are in many ways a defacto playoff game.

 

[WizardHawk]

Conference championships are in many ways a defacto playoff game.

Yes they are. Going back down to 10 team conferences and adding a round of playoffs is a wash with those, but makes them targeted and allows two teams from the same conference to get into them while also balancing out at least the schedules of the teams in the same conference. Yes, the SEC still would have a tougher road overall, but it's apples to apples within the SEC.

Clark asked my opinion of super conferences and I simply gave what I'd rather see. But I know I'm an old relic and those wishes are never going to come true. Like it or not we are probably headed at some point to the mega conferences and all of the money the conferences will grab having them.

 

[Deep Creek]

Yes they are. Going back down to 10 team conferences and adding a round of playoffs is a wash with those, but makes them targeted and allows two teams from the same conference to get into them while also balancing out at least the schedules of the teams in the same conference. Yes, the SEC still would have a tougher road overall, but it's apples to apples within the SEC.

Clark asked my opinion of super conferences and I simply gave what I'd rather see. But I know I'm an old relic and those wishes are never going to come true. Like it or not we are probably headed at some point to the mega conferences and all of the money the conferences will grab having them.

When they go to four superconferences, it won't change the teams that have realistic chances of winning a Natty. While there may be 64 in the club, only a couple of dozen have realistic chances of winning a Natty on a regular basis...and we all know who those suspects are. The other 40 or so are just along for the ride currency ride.

 

[Rolltide94]

You do know the difference between FBS and FCS. FCS schools only get 65 schollies vs 85 for FBS.

Which makes pretending Rutgers is a P5 team even more embarrassing.

 

[Rolltide94]

Keep trying to pimp FCS teams, bub.

Maybe you should be the one pimping FCS teams...my team doesn't make a habit of losing to them...especially not when we are ranked.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Yes they are. Going back down to 10 team conferences and adding a round of playoffs is a wash with those, but makes them targeted and allows two teams from the same conference to get into them while also balancing out at least the schedules of the teams in the same conference. Yes, the SEC still would have a tougher road overall, but it's apples to apples within the SEC.

TheRobotDevil asked Alaskaguy's opinion of super conferences and I simply gave what I'd rather see. But I know I'm an old relic and those wishes are never going to come true. Like it or not we are probably headed at some point to the mega conferences and all of the money the conferences will grab having them.

I do agree that the format you presented would be my preference, But I also see the NCAA eventually heading in the direction of super conferences,play off expansion or possibly both.And it could be beneficial to the sport. On competitive and financial levels. This was a really interesting read

Here's what college football will look like in 2026

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Maybe you should be the one pimping FCS teams...my team doesn't make a habit of losing to them...especially not when we are ranked.

lulz

 

[4down20]

lulz

True story, in 2009 the team that scored the most points on Alabama was a FCS team.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

True story, in 2009 the team that scored the most points on Alabama was a FCS team.

But did they score those points against Bama's starters?

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

Maybe you should be the one pimping FCS teams...my team doesn't make a habit of losing to them...especially not when we are ranked.

I don't feel bad about a loss from 10 years ago, weirdo.

 

[4down20]

But did they score those points against Bama's starters?

It was actually 2011, not 2009. And yes they did. The score was 24-14 at one point and 31-21 when they got their last score.

 

[travis2x]

Ok. Let's try one more time.

G5 schools don't have as much money. This is understood.

The ACC/SEC only schedule 8 conference teams instead of 9. This is understood.

What do that ACC/SEC conference schedules have to do with the G5 schools' not having as much money? If it's so simple, why are you not able to clearly demonstrate the correlation? I've even showed that the ACC/SEC scheduling practices give MORE money to G5 schools.

I didn't go ahead and read all 20+ pages so I don't know if this gets answered later but what I think he is TRYING to say is that P5 schools have more resources, better facilities, better recruits, more money to travel more and spend more on recruiting, etc. So even though some G5 schools are better than some P5 schools, still as a whole, P5 schools are going to be better and more competitive overall due to their advantages. So he's arguing because of this, teams should be trying to play more P5 schools, not G5/FCS schools. Which goes back to his argument of the ACC/SEC scheduling less P5 games as a conference and why he believes it to be a sissy mentality.

 

[Across The Field]

I didn't go ahead and read all 20+ pages so I don't know if this gets answered later but what I think he is TRYING to say is that P5 schools have more resources, better facilities, better recruits, more money to travel more and spend more on recruiting, etc. So even though some G5 schools are better than some P5 schools, still as a whole, P5 schools are going to be better and more competitive overall due to their advantages. So he's arguing because of this, teams should be trying to play more P5 schools, not G5/FCS schools. Which goes back to his argument of the ACC/SEC scheduling less P5 games as a conference and why he believes it to be a sissy mentality.

And that makes sense. I was simply trying to get him to make the correlation and spell it out clearly, and he was really struggling with that part for some reason.

 

[4down20]

I didn't go ahead and read all 20+ pages so I don't know if this gets answered later but what I think he is TRYING to say is that P5 schools have more resources, better facilities, better recruits, more money to travel more and spend more on recruiting, etc. So even though some G5 schools are better than some P5 schools, still as a whole, P5 schools are going to be better and more competitive overall due to their advantages. So he's arguing because of this, teams should be trying to play more P5 schools, not G5/FCS schools. Which goes back to his argument of the ACC/SEC scheduling less P5 games as a conference and why he believes it to be a sissy mentality.

Well we have this thing call strength of schedule which measures how difficult a teams schedule is.

Hint: It's not the SEC or ACC that are sissies.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Well we have this thing call strength of schedule which measures how difficult a teams schedule is.

Hint: It's not the SEC or ACC that are sissies.

SOS based on win loss records ... am I right? Not too hard to get enough wins to become bowl eligable when you drop a conference game in favor of a Sisters of the Poor. Unless someone just fell off the last boxcar, it's not that difficult to understand the original post.

 

[4down20]

SOS based on win loss records ... am I right?

No, you are not right.

Not too hard to get enough wins to become bowl eligable when you drop a conference game in favor of a Sisters of the Poor. Unless someone just fell off the last boxcar, it's not that difficult to understand the original post.

But for shits and giggles, let's do win% based:

If you think 6 possible extra wins in 144 games is that big of a deal, then I'm not even sure what to tell you. And btw, those 6 wins aren't even guaranteed, as we look at Wazzu losing to FCS team this year.

You're just assuming what you want because you can't deal with the reality.

 

[travis2x]

Well we have this thing call strength of schedule which measures how difficult a teams schedule is.

Hint: It's not the SEC or ACC that are sissies.

So wait just a minute, you're trying to tell me that this thing called "SOS" tells the entire story of schedule strength? It's the only method you need to go by?

Okay. Well I think there are definitely benefits of it. There are also benefits of the method AG used in the OP. Both don't tell the entire story, but both, along with other metrics, tell part of it. But you cannot pretend that one metric is perfect and one is nonsense. You cannot only use the metric that works in your favor and ignore the rest. You also cannot argue that less P5 opponents doesn't skew the SOS a little bit. Teams W/L will look better when you play more G5/FCS schools. That's not an opinion of mine either, it's a fact. I like to look at all sorts of methods and in everyone you can see flaws that don't tell the whole story. Like in AG's method, some teams schedule top of the line G5 schools like Houston or Boise, and that's a flaw that doesn't go into that measurement.

I will probably regret wasting my time with this post cause as I can see from other posts, your opinion is set. You probably won't listen or even think about the possibility of being wrong or gaining new information. You would rather be right and your mind has already been made on what is right.

So, with that being said, what goes into this "SOS" method you are talking about? (The one you use)

How is it calculated? What does it tell us? What are the flaws? (Aka stuff that might be deceiving). I want to atleast hear out why this method is so awesome in your opinion? Thanks!

 

[4down20]

So wait just a minute, you're trying to tell me that this thing called "SOS" tells the entire story of schedule strength? It's the only method you need to go by?

Okay. Well I think there are definitely benefits of it. There are also benefits of the method AG used in the OP. Both don't tell the entire story, but both, along with other metrics, tell part of it. But you cannot pretend that one metric is perfect and one is nonsense. You cannot only use the metric that works in your favor and ignore the rest. You also cannot argue that less P5 opponents doesn't skew the SOS a little bit. Teams W/L will look better when you play more G5/FCS schools. That's not an opinion of mine either, it's a fact. I like to look at all sorts of methods and in everyone you can see flaws that don't tell the whole story. Like in AG's method, some teams schedule top of the line G5 schools like Houston or Boise, and that's a flaw that doesn't go into that measurement.

If you think it's such a big advantage in the win/loss area that the 1 extra game can potentially bring, then you haven't done the math. It's seriously adding AT BEST 6 or 7 total wins to your conference on the year. AT BEST.

I will probably regret wasting my time with this post cause as I can see from other posts, your opinion is set. You probably won't listen or even think about the possibility of being wrong or gaining new information. You would rather be right and your mind has already been made on what is right.

It's not that my mind is set, it's that I've spent way more time on this topic than most people would and none of you ever bring new arguments.

In full disclosure, I once ran computer rankings and had my own SoS formula. So I have put a good bit of effort and know a good bit about the advantages and disadvantage of different SoS formulas.

Which doesn't make a bit of difference because the people I'm arguing with aren't speaking from logic, they are speaking from what they want to believe. You want to believe the extra conference game is some kind of difference maker and it's not. Have you done the math to support your belief? Nope. But because it sounds good - you accept it, and now you are telling me I'm the one set in beliefs. I have done the math.

So, with that being said, what goes into this "SOS" method you are talking about? (The one you use)

How is it calculated? What does it tell us? What are the flaws? (Aka stuff that might be deceiving). I want to atleast hear out why this method is so awesome in your opinion? Thanks!

BCF Toys - 2016 SOS Ratings

That is the one I like to use. Most SoS rankings use averages. Average SoS formulas have a flaw in that it see's playing the #1 team in the country and the #100 team in the country as basically the same as playing the #40 team in the country and the #60 team in the country as being equal. When in reality, you take a top25 team and put them on the schedule vs #1 and the #100 they are much more likely to have a loss than if they played the #40 and #60 teams.

So this method above is based not on average, but on grading the expected number of losses an elite team(or good or average team is also available). It would easily recognize playing the #1/#100 as being much more difficult. Which is why you see a lot of opponents of Alabama, Ohio St, and other top teams up higher than most.

These are also not based on wins and losses. Instead, these are based on advanced stats called the FEI.

BCF Toys - 2016 FEI Ratings

In a nutshell, it measures the strength of teams in order to rate their difficulty in beating. Where as with win/loss records it says all 5-2 teams are equal, this method is able to look at the strength of teams, so it doesn't see 7-0 Alabama as being equal to 7-0 Western Michigan. Win% based SoS formulas however would see those 2 teams as equal.

So this is currently my go to SoS rankings.

Flaws? I'm not sure I would call it a flaw, but there are things that it doesn't take into account and could be improved. That #100 team is REALLY easy, and easier than the #40/#60. And playing teams that you should beat every week, but not by a lot and playing them week after week can take it's toll as well. If I were using that SoS, I would probably measure vs elite teams, vs good teams, vs average teams and vs below average teams and combine them into a final ranking to make up for that. And when I did my rankings, I kept track of bye weeks and how long teams had gone without one vs the other team etc. This doesn't do that.

I would say those things are pretty minor and the "flaws" really apply more to the bottom side of the list rather than the top.