Author
Topic: The Big East after Realignment
(Read 8174 times)

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #42 on:** July 27, 2019, 10:24:34 PM »

Quote from: Kris60 on July 27, 2019, 10:04:08 PM

I dunno. I think it’s kinda weird to consider Louisville a non power conference school in a season they won what was considered a power conference and finished in the top 10. To me, I’d put UL as a P5 starting in 2005.

When are TCU and Utah getting P5 distinction in your game?

They're more cut-and-dry, as they didn't join a poached conference.
TCU joined the XII in 2012, so that's when they are considered P5 in my game. So even when they were good before that, it was in a weak conference, and get deducted the penalty.
Utah joined the PAC in 2011, so that's when they became a P5 program. Same deal.

The penalty for being a mid-major in my game is downgrading the defense 2 levels (so a very good run defense, which would be -4 yds is now -2). Also, on offense, their first TD and FG don't count. If they never attempt a FG, then that doesn't come into play. But they're motivated to score, so that their next score will go up on the scoreboard.

So basically its around a 1-yard per attempt penalty vs the run and 1.5 vs the pass (plus 1.5% less likely to get an INT). And up to a 10-point penalty on offense.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #43 on:** July 27, 2019, 10:31:44 PM »

So I'm actually just now editing the 2010 cards, which is the year TCU went undefeated and finished #2 behind Auburn.
TCU was 4th in scoring offense and had the #1 scoring defense in the country. But its SOS was 81st. With their strong offense and great defense, it'd be possible they'd wreck everyone else from that season, based solely on the stats.

That's not realistic. That TCU team could beat anyone from the top 10 that year, but shouldn't/wouldn't dominate everyone..

#1 Auburn faced the 9th-hardest schedule, and #3 Oregon's SOS was 2nd. No matter how good TCU actually was, their schedule just wasn't on the same plane as the P5 types.

Kris60 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 27, 2019, 10:35:54 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on July 27, 2019, 10:24:34 PM

They're more cut-and-dry, as they didn't join a poached conference.
TCU joined the XII in 2012, so that's when they are considered P5 in my game. So even when they were good before that, it was in a weak conference, and get deducted the penalty.
Utah joined the PAC in 2011, so that's when they became a P5 program. Same deal.

The penalty for being a mid-major in my game is downgrading the defense 2 levels (so a very good run defense, which would be -4 yds is now -2). Also, on offense, their first TD and FG don't count. If they never attempt a FG, then that doesn't come into play. But they're motivated to score, so that their next score will go up on the scoreboard.

So basically its around a 1-yard per attempt penalty vs the run and 1.5 vs the pass (plus 1.5% less likely to get an INT). And up to a 10-point penalty on offense.

TCU actually did join a poached conference but I get your overall point. I would personally put UL in as power conference team starting in 2005 but I get the other side of the argument.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #45 on:** July 27, 2019, 10:53:32 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 27, 2019, 07:21:16 PM

Yes. Quite weird.

Indeed.
But at the same time, considering West Virginia as "less than" for a 7-year stretch seems weird, too.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #46 on:** July 27, 2019, 10:57:36 PM »

Quote from: Kris60 on July 27, 2019, 10:35:54 PM

TCU actually did join a poached conference but I get your overall point. I would personally put UL in as power conference team starting in 2005 but I get the other side of the argument.

Well poached....but the Big East was beheaded. Nebraska and CU had gone 10 years since their last major bowl when they left the XII.

So if UL makes the grade starting in 2005, then so too does South Florida, Cincinnati, and UConn?

Kris60 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 28, 2019, 12:20:18 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on July 27, 2019, 10:57:36 PM

Well poached....but the Big East was beheaded. Nebraska and CU had gone 10 years since their last major bowl when they left the XII.

So if UL makes the grade starting in 2005, then so too does South Florida, Cincinnati, and UConn?

Yeah, for me they would. I wouldn’t overthink it. If they were technically in a power conference I would make them power teams. Otherwise, you have this weird thing happening where teams like UL in 2006, Cincy in 2008 and ‘09, and UConn in 2010 aren’t considered P5 teams but played and won and competed in a conference with other teams you are designating as P5. Again, I’ll point out that the BE wasn’t getting slaughtered against P5 OOC competition. They were competing at a level commiserate with what the other P5 leagues were doing.

You mentioned before TCU being dominant but doing it against a SOS of 81. You know what Louisville’s was in 2006 when they went 12-1?

14th. By your standard they had 7 wins over P5 teams that season. Can you find others examples besides these BE teams from 2005-2011 where G5 teams were posting that many wins over P5 teams?

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other?date=2006-12-25

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2019, 01:22:28 AM »

I'm with you, but look at the poll results.

This is something I want to mesh with potential customers, not simply what I think is best. The problem is that most of us seem to also consider those Big East teams that weren't poached as P5-level individually.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #49 on:** July 29, 2019, 11:18:51 AM »

Quote from: Kris60 on July 26, 2019, 07:45:16 PM

What’s your objective measure for stating those ACC schools you listed were better than the BE schools you listed? VT was actually head and shoulders above any of the ACC teams you listed during its time in the BE. Syracuse and BC were performing as good if not better than the schools you listed (throwing Duke in there is a complete joke). During the time they were in the BE VT, Syracuse, and BC were a combined 17-14 against ACC schools.

not much objective measuring going on. mostly subjective opinions. the most objective measure would probably be the histories of the programs, but that still has some subjectivity.

fwiw, duke shouldn't have been listed. and those acc schools, minus duke, were 42-36-1 vs bigeast, and that includes clemson's abysmal 1-6, but i included them because they were/are a traditionally good fb school.

EDIT: just for info, i looked up those acc schools vs those be schools while they were be schools, and the acc schools were 24-17, again including clemson's abysmal 0-4 record. vt is the only team keeping this close, btw, having 10 of those 17 wins to only 6 losses (all to uva, interestingly).

(i could have miscounted, but this should be close)

Kris60 · « **Reply #50 on:** July 29, 2019, 10:06:38 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on July 29, 2019, 11:18:51 AM

not much objective measuring going on. mostly subjective opinions. the most objective measure would probably be the histories of the programs, but that still has some subjectivity.

fwiw, duke shouldn't have been listed. and those acc schools, minus duke, were 42-36-1 vs bigeast, and that includes clemson's abysmal 1-6, but i included them because they were/are a traditionally good fb school.

EDIT: just for info, i looked up those acc schools vs those be schools while they were be schools, and the acc schools were 24-17, again including clemson's abysmal 0-4 record. vt is the only team keeping this close, btw, having 10 of those 17 wins to only 6 losses (all to uva, interestingly).

(i could have miscounted, but this should be close)

42-36-1. I think it’s pretty safe to say those schools had much better records against the likes of the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. And that was really my point. I’m not arguing the BE was better than the ACC or vice versa. I don’t care if anyone thinks the BE was the 6th best conference in those days. It probably was. My point was the BE OOC performance was always much closer to the P5 conferences than the G5 conferences. Some years it was 4th or 5th and some years like 2006 it was leading the way. I can never remember the Mountain West or AAC or any other G5 conference posting a 13-6 mark against P5 conferences.

I know the old saying “perception is reality” but honestly sometimes it isn’t.

CWSooner · « **Reply #51 on:** July 29, 2019, 10:33:28 PM »

Kris, you have made good points. I think I voted that the post-realignment BE was not a major conference, but you have converted me to the other PoV.

FearlessF · « **Reply #52 on:** July 29, 2019, 10:50:08 PM »

I agree about the very fine points

Louisville may have a better record than Nebraska since 2000, but so does Toledo and Northern Illinois

I just can't get behind South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Toledo and Northern Illinois

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #53 on:** July 29, 2019, 11:06:55 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on July 29, 2019, 10:50:08 PM

I agree about the very fine points

Louisville may have a better record than Nebraska since 2000, but so does Toledo and Northern Illinois

I just can't get behind South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Toledo and Northern Illinois

I'm more comfortable having the remaining Big East teams + Louisville and these teams you listed being "in" rather than leaving them all out. It's only for a set number of years anyway.

Thanks for the help, fellas.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #54 on:** July 29, 2019, 11:11:28 PM »

I really enjoyed watching Cincinnati make the most of it, winning 4 Big East Titles in 5 years.

They have only mustered 1 AAC Title since, and it was Tommy Tuberville, who otherwise had a pretty rough go of it in the Queen City.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #55 on:** July 30, 2019, 10:38:51 AM »

Quote

42-36-1. I think it’s pretty safe to say those schools had much better records against the likes of the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. And that was really my point. I’m not arguing the BE was better than the ACC or vice versa. I don’t care if anyone thinks the BE was the 6th best conference in those days. It probably was. My point was the BE OOC performance was always much closer to the P5 conferences than the G5 conferences. Some years it was 4th or 5th and some years like 2006 it was leading the way. I can never remember the Mountain West or AAC or any other G5 conference posting a 13-6 mark against P5 conferences.

I know the old saying “perception is reality” but honestly sometimes it isn’t.

they were better than the "other 5" or whatever. but, imo, they were a clear step down from the p5 too. somewhere in the middle. i don't have thebobs site to look again, and maybe i'm mis-remembering, but we've had numerous "best conf" discussions ever since i've been a part of this board, and i think it always had the bigeast lingering in between the p5 and g5. p5 generally have a .45-.5 record vs each other, and a >.75 record vs everyone else. while g5 usually have a .3-.35 vs p5 and .55-.6 vs everyone else. i might be mistaken, but it always seemed like the bigeast was just behind the p5 and above the g5.

maybe i'm being too harsh. i just don't remember being impressed with the bigeast much more than i am the aac right now (which is a pretty good conf, btw) or the mwc a few years back with tcu and utah. bigeast always just seemed like a collection of good, not great teams, with no major players sans miami. all the other p5/bcs confs seemed to have multiple big hitters or at least historical big hitters. looking back, maybe acc wasn't much ahead of them though.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: The Big East after Realignment

OrangeAfroMan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

OrangeAfroMan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

Kris60

Re: The Big East after Realignment

OrangeAfroMan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

OrangeAfroMan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

Kris60

Re: The Big East after Realignment

OrangeAfroMan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

rolltidefan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

Kris60

Re: The Big East after Realignment

CWSooner

Re: The Big East after Realignment

FearlessF

Re: The Big East after Realignment

OrangeAfroMan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

Brutus Buckeye

Re: The Big East after Realignment

rolltidefan

Re: The Big East after Realignment