College Football Fan Site Area 51 @CFB51; dead nuts accurate

One community smart about college football

Civil discussion, topics, and reading of both original and aggregated news.


Author Topic: Appalachian State thread  (Read 786 times)

Offline Hawkinole

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2018, 07:19:48 PM »

This year App State will likely go undefeated from here on out, will likely win the Sunbelt, and be in the running for a NY6 bowl game.

App State is the 2nd youngest team in CFB.  They will continue to get better, and will be a very scary team next year.

Oh -- and they play Wisconsin in 2020.
They should demand a rematch for their bowl game. I would guess a rematch would draw a lot of national interest. I would guess Penn State would not be interested.

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2516
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2018, 09:42:24 PM »
not sure it's the best, but it's good. la and miss are good as well for smaller states, and of course everyone knows ga and fl. as of 2016 nfl season, la had the most per capita, with bama right on heals. i tabulated this based on numbers from quick googles searches of nfl players by state (which popped up a 2016 season link) and then searched a 2016 pop by state link. i rounded pop to nearest 1000.


      
2016
nfl playerspop (1000)per cap
1Louisiana6346821.346%
2Alabama6048631.234%
3South Carolina4849610.968%
4Georgia97103100.941%
5Florida193206120.936%
6Mississippi2729890.903%
7Ohio80116140.689%
8California187292500.639%
9Texas160278630.574%
10New Jersey5089440.559%
11Pennsylvania66127840.516%
12Tennessee3466510.511%
13Virginia4384120.511%
14Wisconsin2757790.467%
15Maryland2860160.465%
16Michigan4699280.463%
17Missouri2760930.443%
18North Carolina42101470.414%
19Illinois38128020.297%
20New York36197450.182%

Cool, I was right on both counts.  
I love when FL shows up TX and CA.
Gators chomp Nazis

Online FearlessF

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2018, 09:50:11 PM »
yup, in the late 80's early 90's Florida, Miami and FSU were gonna rule College football forever because of the number of elite recruits in the state
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Online FearlessF

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2018, 09:51:00 PM »
today there's not a single team from Florida, Texas, or Cali in the 4 team playoff
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2516
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2018, 09:52:21 PM »
Boise's SOS since moving from the Big West to the WAC in 2000/2001:
96th
113
112
72
103
86
105
95
97
71
74
114
76
67
105
70
69

Are these not high school schedules?  What's preventing Appy St. from winning lots of games against crap slates like these?  I honestly don't know.

Compare to a random-ass team pulled out of a hat.....Iowa.  Let's look at their SOS in the same time-frame:
38
41
30
16
20
52
77....jesus, Hawkeyes, wtf?
58
50
45
40
48
47
68
55
49
3rd
So I'm gonna go ahead and call those SOS numbers embarrassing for Iowa.  Maybe it's having ISU as a rival, I don't know, but those are pretty gross numbers.  
You don't think Iowa has some hardware if they traded schedules with Boise?  I know they're apples and oranges, but still.  Any defense of the Broncos or support for the Broncos has a big, brick wall in the way - and it's SOS.
Gators chomp Nazis

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2516
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2018, 09:53:16 PM »
yup, in the late 80's early 90's Florida, Miami and FSU were gonna rule College football forever because of the number of elite recruits in the state
A - the state of FL supplies the entire country with their skill position talent, and
B - I guess the current state of affairs is why they pay coaches all that money
Gators chomp Nazis

Online FearlessF

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2018, 10:02:32 PM »
A - ed Zachery, why not keep the best recruits at home?

B - money doesn't buy recruits.  Well,............. it shouldn't.  Should have paid more to get Frost.
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2849
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2018, 10:30:10 PM »
today there's not a single team from Florida, Texas, or Cali in the 4 team playoff
All of the major programs in those top three recruiting states already have a loss, two weeks in.
Texas and aTm, USC and UCLA, Florida, FSU and Miami. 
I bet it's been a while since THAT has happened. 
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Online bayareabadger

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2018, 08:55:27 AM »
Boise's SOS since moving from the Big West to the WAC in 2000/2001:
96th
113
112
72
103
86
105
95
97
71
74
114
76
67
105
70
69

Are these not high school schedules?  What's preventing Appy St. from winning lots of games against crap slates like these?  I honestly don't know.

Compare to a random-ass team pulled out of a hat.....Iowa.  Let's look at their SOS in the same time-frame:
38
41
30
16
20
52
77....jesus, Hawkeyes, wtf?
58
50
45
40
48
47
68
55
49
3rd
So I'm gonna go ahead and call those SOS numbers embarrassing for Iowa.  Maybe it's having ISU as a rival, I don't know, but those are pretty gross numbers.  
You don't think Iowa has some hardware if they traded schedules with Boise?  I know they're apples and oranges, but still.  Any defense of the Broncos or support for the Broncos has a big, brick wall in the way - and it's SOS.
Let's run through this 
A. Those are college schedules. Until one of them says something like 500th, they're college schedules. Florida did not host a high school a few weeks back. It hosted a damn college.
B. This does not mean those are robust schedules by any measure. It reflects the basic unbalances of the sport. It reflects that FBS is really a two-class system, with a lot of variance within. 
C. Calling those schedules embarrassing for Iowa is a good piece of context-less hot takery. If you give me some sort of nuance beyond, loogit them numbers, I'll read something into it. If not, I'll assume it's shooting from the hip.
D. App State will win lots of game against non-P5 teams. That's who it's allowed to play.
E. The schedule flip game is always just an avenue to say what we want. Most counter factuals are bad. I dunno if Iowa would have hardware. I've seen it lose to NIU and a great FCS team. It's the same silly game of "if team X were in Conference Y" and then we say whatever our worldview supports.
F. You're playing this game that schools have some kind of control over their schedules. They don't. Historically, they've controlled, what? One third or one fourth of the schedule depending on a historical rivalry. And even that you have limited control of because of the sports ups and downs. Lets say a team controls three games because of a historical rivalry, and it picks Western Carolina, Southern Miss and a 4-win UCF team. Then let's say they schedule Western Kentucky, Troy and FAU the next year. That's how you get back-to-back Top-5 schedules. 
G. The final question is this defense or support of Boise. What it, and this is just an idea, we assume Boise is a perfectly good football programs maximizing a situation that puts a cap on what it is? Not that it's some fraud. But that it's simply a program that because of the structures of the sport has little way to escape the kids table. Boise doesn't WANT to have a MWC schedule. But no one's offering anything else. SOS is a nice crutch, a sort of washing of the hands of a simple truth: The sport is built to ensure more than half the teams in FBS have no path to compete at the highest level. Boise could have a dang NFL team, and it couldn't change its situation. (Interestingly, the team with the worst SOS in the NFC last year won the Super Bowl, so perhaps, maybe just maybe, a team with poor SOS can actually be worth something)

Online 847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 3793
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2018, 09:09:21 AM »
Boise would join the PAC in a heartbeat but it would never be offered.


If they were to join today though, my gut tells me they would immediately be in the upper division out there. It's a good program, much like Utah was before the PAC came calling.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Online Entropy

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 750
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #40 on: September 14, 2018, 09:49:00 AM »
Never heard that.  I've always thought of Louisiana being the best pound-for-pound talent pool.  With FL being the best of the big 3.  
Mississippi and Louisiana would have been my guesses at 1 and 2 for pound for pound talent pool
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 09:51:15 AM by Entropy »

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2849
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #41 on: September 14, 2018, 10:15:12 AM »
The Utes actually had a pretty rough transition to the Pac 12, nonCon games vs Michigan not withstanding.
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Online Entropy

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 750
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #42 on: September 14, 2018, 10:52:08 AM »
The last 4 years the Utes have won 9 games, 10 games, 9 games and 7 games.   They had 2 losing season before that but it seems like they've adjusted.

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2849
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2018, 11:14:06 AM »
Yeah, they adjusted, but before that they were running the table and beating Bama in bowl games.

It took a while for them to adjust to the week in, week out grind of a P5 schedule. 

KW saw them through the storm.
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Online bayareabadger

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #44 on: September 14, 2018, 11:43:13 AM »
Yeah, they adjusted, but before that they were running the table and beating Bama in bowl games.

It took a while for them to adjust to the week in, week out grind of a P5 schedule.

KW saw them through the storm.
I mean, the did that once after Urban. They did that in the same way OSU under Tress was running the table and winning huge bowls against teams loaded with NFL players. 
After that Bama year it was
10-3 (Losses to 11-2 BYU, 12-1 TCU and Pac-10 champ Oregon)
10-3 (losses to TCU, ND and Boise in the bowl)
8-5 (Year 1 in Pac-12)
5-7
5-7
9-4
10-3
9-4
It's a reminder of how small things make if feel like there were big swings. 

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2849
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2018, 11:58:39 AM »
Yeah, they went from winning at least ten games a year to having losing records.
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Online 847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 3793
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2018, 12:09:06 PM »
I really think BSU is ahead of where Utah was at this point. They've sustained for quite a long time now. From 2000-2010 (the last year Utah was in the MWC) Boise was 124-18 (tops in the country by far) and Utah was 96-39.


Boise was also 2-0 against Utah in this time period. They also won a couple of Fiesta Bowls in this period - and of course Utah took down a few giants as well during this time.


I think they are very similar, but Boise is in a better position going in - not that they will ever get that chance. They won't.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Online bayareabadger

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2018, 12:20:07 PM »
Yeah, they went from winning at least ten games a year to having losing records.
The three years before the 13-0 year, they lost 5, 5 and 4 games. College football teams go up and down, it's the nature of these things. 

Online Entropy

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 750
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2018, 12:20:21 PM »
agree.. BSU has been better than Utah.   PAC wasn't interested in a small state/school that did not have a great academic reputation.    BSU would have been more competitive than Utah, but both would have need a couple recruiting years to build the depth needed for a power 5 schedule.   IMO, you don't get the depth of players outside the power 5 that you do within... easier to recruit within the power 5.    Doesn't mean they don't have good players, just the depth. 

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2849
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2018, 01:11:31 PM »
The three years before the 13-0 year, they lost 5, 5 and 4 games. College football teams go up and down, it's the nature of these things.
Be that as it may, their fanbase went through a period of buyer's remorse. They believed that they may have bitten off more than they could chew. 
In the end, it turned out that be the right move.
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Online fezzador

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2018, 05:04:32 PM »
agree.. BSU has been better than Utah.   PAC wasn't interested in a small state/school that did not have a great academic reputation.    BSU would have been more competitive than Utah, but both would have need a couple recruiting years to build the depth needed for a power 5 schedule.   IMO, you don't get the depth of players outside the power 5 that you do within... easier to recruit within the power 5.    Doesn't mean they don't have good players, just the depth.  
I think you're partially correct about the PAC passing on BSU and taking Utah instead.  IMHO, Utah's best teams were probably better than Boise State's best teams, but the Broncos have been a more consistently good program.  A bad season for Utah is 6-6, while a bad season for Boise is 8-4.  
With that being said, BSU is hardly an academic powerhouse, but I think it has potential to become respectable.  I think the real reason why the PAC took Utah over BSU is the SLC market.  It's not as big as Portland or Denver, but at over 1M, it's still twice as big as Boise, so naturally more eyes will be glued to the TV.  Boise is still an extremely fast-growing market, so if the PAC ever finds itself forced to expand again, they may take a harder look at Boise, especially as it approaches the "magical" 1M market threshold.
And if the PAC still thumbs its nose at Boise, the Big 12 may actually be a better fit, especially if they can get BYU in a package deal.

And the Mountain West would then take NDSU, which would then take BSU's place as the premier G5 program.

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2516
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #51 on: September 16, 2018, 07:31:07 PM »
agree.. BSU has been better than Utah.   PAC wasn't interested in a small state/school that did not have a great academic reputation.    BSU would have been more competitive than Utah, but both would have need a couple recruiting years to build the depth needed for a power 5 schedule.   IMO, you don't get the depth of players outside the power 5 that you do within... easier to recruit within the power 5.    Doesn't mean they don't have good players, just the depth.  
Let's run through this
A. Those are college schedules. Until one of them says something like 500th, they're college schedules. Florida did not host a high school a few weeks back. It hosted a damn college.  Sigh.  Are you limited to being so literal?  A "high school schedule" simply means it's a weak schedule.
B. This does not mean those are robust schedules by any measure. It reflects the basic unbalances of the sport. It reflects that FBS is really a two-class system, with a lot of variance within.
C. Calling those schedules embarrassing for Iowa is a good piece of context-less hot takery. If you give me some sort of nuance beyond, loogit them numbers, I'll read something into it. If not, I'll assume it's shooting from the hip.  We know there are 65ish P5 schools, so one of them having a SOS in the 70s is, in any context you want, embarrassing for them.
D. App State will win lots of game against non-P5 teams. That's who it's allowed to play.
E. The schedule flip game is always just an avenue to say what we want. Most counter factuals are bad. I dunno if Iowa would have hardware. I've seen it lose to NIU and a great FCS team. It's the same silly game of "if team X were in Conference Y" and then we say whatever our worldview supports.
F. You're playing this game that schools have some kind of control over their schedules. They don't. Historically, they've controlled, what? One third or one fourth of the schedule depending on a historical rivalry. And even that you have limited control of because of the sports ups and downs. Lets say a team controls three games because of a historical rivalry, and it picks Western Carolina, Southern Miss and a 4-win UCF team. Then let's say they schedule Western Kentucky, Troy and FAU the next year. That's how you get back-to-back Top-5 schedules.
G. The final question is this defense or support of Boise. What it, and this is just an idea, we assume Boise is a perfectly good football programs maximizing a situation that puts a cap on what it is? Not that it's some fraud. But that it's simply a program that because of the structures of the sport has little way to escape the kids table. Boise doesn't WANT to have a MWC schedule. But no one's offering anything else. SOS is a nice crutch, a sort of washing of the hands of a simple truth: The sport is built to ensure more than half the teams in FBS have no path to compete at the highest level. Boise could have a dang NFL team, and it couldn't change its situation. (Interestingly, the team with the worst SOS in the NFC last year won the Super Bowl, so perhaps, maybe just maybe, a team with poor SOS can actually be worth something)  Reeeeally poor example - the weak SOS allowed them to have a good record and get into the playoffs.
Let's run through this
A. Those are college schedules. Until one of them says something like 500th, they're college schedules. Florida did not host a high school a few weeks back. It hosted a damn college.
B. This does not mean those are robust schedules by any measure. It reflects the basic unbalances of the sport. It reflects that FBS is really a two-class system, with a lot of variance within.
C. Calling those schedules embarrassing for Iowa is a good piece of context-less hot takery. If you give me some sort of nuance beyond, loogit them numbers, I'll read something into it. If not, I'll assume it's shooting from the hip.
D. App State will win lots of game against non-P5 teams. That's who it's allowed to play.
E. The schedule flip game is always just an avenue to say what we want. Most counter factuals are bad. I dunno if Iowa would have hardware. I've seen it lose to NIU and a great FCS team. It's the same silly game of "if team X were in Conference Y" and then we say whatever our worldview supports.
F. You're playing this game that schools have some kind of control over their schedules. They don't. Historically, they've controlled, what? One third or one fourth of the schedule depending on a historical rivalry. And even that you have limited control of because of the sports ups and downs. Lets say a team controls three games because of a historical rivalry, and it picks Western Carolina, Southern Miss and a 4-win UCF team. Then let's say they schedule Western Kentucky, Troy and FAU the next year. That's how you get back-to-back Top-5 schedules.
G. The final question is this defense or support of Boise. What it, and this is just an idea, we assume Boise is a perfectly good football programs maximizing a situation that puts a cap on what it is? Not that it's some fraud. But that it's simply a program that because of the structures of the sport has little way to escape the kids table. Boise doesn't WANT to have a MWC schedule. But no one's offering anything else. SOS is a nice crutch, a sort of washing of the hands of a simple truth: The sport is built to ensure more than half the teams in FBS have no path to compete at the highest level. Boise could have a dang NFL team, and it couldn't change its situation. (Interestingly, the team with the worst SOS in the NFC last year won the Super Bowl, so perhaps, maybe just maybe, a team with poor SOS can actually be worth something)
Gators chomp Nazis

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2516
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #52 on: September 16, 2018, 07:32:26 PM »
If you dropped Boise into the PAC, they would be ho-hum in 3 years, if not sooner.  They'd lose their 'biggest fish in the small pond' status.  They'd start playing back-to-back difficult games, which they've never done before.  All while the PAC is really down.
Gators chomp Nazis

Online bayareabadger

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2018, 11:42:23 PM »
If you dropped Boise into the PAC, they would be ho-hum in 3 years, if not sooner.  They'd lose their 'biggest fish in the small pond' status.  They'd start playing back-to-back difficult games, which they've never done before.  All while the PAC is really down.
It depends how you define ho hum. IF ho hum is good, occasionally very good, than that sounds somewhat likely. Sometimes that's how ho-hum feels.
(People think the big fish and difficult back-to-backs are some kind of magic thing. The last two mid-major call-ups have been either very good or pretty good. Maybe Boise bucks that trend, but chances are, we'll never know and all the discussion will be make believe)

Online bayareabadger

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2018, 12:13:03 AM »
OAM, it won't let me quote that, so I'll answer the three things. 

Sigh.  Are you limited to being so literal?  A "high school schedule" simply means it's a weak schedule.


We're in this college football world where everything has to be sort of extreme. Your schedule can't be mostly good. It has to be high school teams or UTTERLY BRUTAL. A coach has a very narrow window between trash and great. Everything is bombastic. I try to keep a more even keel. Thus, I roll my eyes at the idea that a weak schedule should be characterized as high school. It's also an outgrowth of the fact most people have the most trouble understanding what Division I is. If that wasn't a thing, I'd probably be easier on it. 

We know there are 65ish P5 schools, so one of them having a SOS in the 70s is, in any context you want, embarrassing for them.

Reeeeally poor example - the weak SOS allowed them to have a good record and get into the playoffs.

So these kind of go together. You throw around the 70s as if you know what it means. And you don't. And in truth, you don't want to dig, and have context. You want a number that sounds extreme. We know this because you think the Eagles' schedule was the reason they made the playoffs. Which is silly and inaccurate. But you're not super interested in that part. You want to find the number and have it mean what you want it to mean. (Interestingly college football reference doesn't seem to have season-by-season lists of SOS, so we can't go into how numbers can bunch in the middle)

So here's a hint of background. That SOS is a bastardized NFL metric. It pairs with a simple rating system. The point of the SOS is to say how many points per game your schedule is above or below average and then cross that with MOV. So last year, the Eagles with the bad SOS were the best team in the conference. The Pats were the best team in the other conference. The gaps the spots in SOS are variable and probably pretty thin at points. In short, it's not the magic number that says what you think it says. 

Online OrangeAfroMan

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2516
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #55 on: September 18, 2018, 01:01:35 AM »
If the NFL's SOS is that convoluted, then why did you bring it up in the first place?!?



I'm perfectly even keeled.  I could do a deep dive and look at the middle 8 teams of Boise's schedule vs the middle 8 vs Iowa's (or whoever else's) schedule, trimming off the extremes and really reveal the difference between a real schedule and a HIGH SCHOOL schedule, but I didn't deem it a worthwhile use of my time.  Because it's obvious.


I keep forgetting nothing is obvious anymore.  Everything's a damn debate - teach the controversy, right?!?
Gators chomp Nazis

Online bayareabadger

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #56 on: September 18, 2018, 07:51:46 AM »
If the NFL's SOS is that convoluted, then why did you bring it up in the first place?!?



I'm perfectly even keeled.  I could do a deep dive and look at the middle 8 teams of Boise's schedule vs the middle 8 vs Iowa's (or whoever else's) schedule, trimming off the extremes and really reveal the difference between a real schedule and a HIGH SCHOOL schedule, but I didn't deem it a worthwhile use of my time.  Because it's obvious.


I keep forgetting nothing is obvious anymore.  Everything's a damn debate - teach the controversy, right?!?
The NFL SOS isn’t so convoluted. It’s the same SOS system you referenced earlier. But you’re treating SOS like a matter of choice, rather than mostly a reality imprinted on a team.

Now it looks like we’re at an impasse as to the meaning of even keeled. I argue that deciding half the sport isn’t even worth calling college football is at best only somewhat bombastic. Your disagree. That seems obvious to me.

And for even keeled, you seem a hint mad at the end. In truth, we’re not so far apart. I think a mid-major SOS is worst than a major conference one. I think the SEC east schedule is better than a few division schedules but worst than a lot, But I don’t get too wrapped up in which is “real” or “embarrassing” or “high school,” because it’s obvious the sport is unbalanced and teams have limited control over such things. I also don’t treat it as a fully disqualifying factor for a team’s quality, although with the current system, I acknowledge it is a disqualifying factor in just about all scenarios for the playoffs, which is fine.

Offline Brutus Buckeye

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2849
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #57 on: September 18, 2018, 08:20:16 AM »
Yeah, Louisville, Utah and TCU have all been good to great since moving up (not every season of course). Cincy and SFU both spent some time in the top 10 during their brief stint in a BCS Conference. Schools like Boise and BYU could probably do the same if given a chance.

Hell, even UConn found their way into a BCS Bowl game, and they moved up (from 1AA, no less) not due to their FB prowess, but because their Basketball teams were in the Big East, who needed a replacement for Temple FB.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2018, 08:23:59 AM by Brutus Buckeye »
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Offline Big Beef Tacosupreme

  • Recruit
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked:
Re: Appalachian State thread
« Reply #58 on: September 22, 2018, 07:37:37 PM »
App State won today, 72-7. Wow. 

 

Support the Site:
Please Search Amazon from here! No cost to you yet covers some of our expenses!