I'm not down. UConn fans should look forward to a good conference... | Page 2 | The Boneyard

I'm not down. UConn fans should look forward to a good conference...

Status
Not open for further replies.
upstater said:
I realize that. I also understand that when Utah, BYU, TCU were in the MWC, they were wroth $400k, and when Boise St. was in the WAC, they were worth two frozen packages of fishsticks. The point is, win and fans will come.
Expand ...

I think the difference is the gap between the 400K and the BCS conferences money was not that great. Pretty soon we will be making 2 mil for basketball AND football (geezus I still cant believe that) and Rutgers will be making 35 to 40 mil per season. The haves and the have nots will be even further separated. At some point when the financial gap is that large the "have nots" wont be able to keep up.
 
Vuce said:
I think the difference is the gap between the 400K and the BCS conferences money was not that great. Pretty soon we will be making 2 mil for basketball AND football (geezus I still cant believe that) and Rutgers will be making 35 to 40 mil per season. The haves and the have nots will be even further separated. At some point when the financial gap is that large the "have nots" wont be able to keep up.
Expand ...

It was $400k versus $14k for the ACC and $20-25k for B1G and SEC. But Rutgers isn't getting $35-40m anytime soon.
Also, 5 or 6 years ago, UConn ws not making what it makes now in its tier 3 and licensing contract. You can see the rise there and it's pretty large. I wrote this in another thread, but UConn is now making $24.X million from that. That's over $14 million more than it used to make.
 
whaler11 said:
Uh no they won't be in the playoff. One will get an invite to a decent bowl.
Expand ...

The playoff selections will hew close to an RPI type index. If you look at the past decade, undefeated teams like Boise St. would have qualified in the top 4 of such an index. What you need then is a reason for excluding a team like Boise despite their ranking. But regardless, even if they're not in the playoff, they will still have the same opportunity Boise did, which is a big bowl game against top competition.
 
Whale22 said:
Boise State created that brand by getting access to the big game and beating Oklahoma in arguably one of the most exciting bowl games ever. That access will no longer exist. We are used as an excuse for why that system no longer exists.
Expand ...

Boise didn't have an auto bid when they beat Oklahoma, they earned that appearance by having a great team with a great record. The Auto bid that got UCONN into the Fiesta bowl no longer exists, but the earned bid Boise got is still there and available for UCONN, we just need to earn it with a top 10 team, which is exactly the way it should be, the top Bowl's should go to the best teams, 8-4 teams need not apply.
 
upstater said:
The playoff goes according to rankings. Not conference.
Expand ...

Clueless as always. It's not based on rankings. It's based on a selection committee. So you can forget those conferences being involved.

The new Big East couldn't put together a Top 4 SEC team nevermind one nationally anyway.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
It won't.

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=8927686

If you think they are letting a computer put Boise in one of those games....
Expand ...

It's not a computer. It's a formula. Big difference. It's back of the napkin stuff.

But you're clueless about this discussion anyway since the real topic and my point all along has been that UConn will have the same opportunity Boise did, which is to play top competition in a bowl game. Don't forget that the Boise bowl in question WAS not for all the marbles. It was just one of 5 BCS games. That's it.
 
whaler11 said:
LOL if you read your posted article and think that means an RPI like system is how the teams are selected.
Expand ...

Apparently, you didn't read it. Your point is irrelevant anyway since the initial discussion was about having the same opportunity Boise did. UConn has that opportunity.
 
upstater said:
It's not a computer. It's a formula. Big difference. It's back of the napkin stuff.

But you're clueless about this discussion anyway since the real topic and my point all along has been that UConn will have the same opportunity Boise did, which is to play top competition in a bowl game. Don't forget that the Boise bowl in question WAS not for all the marbles. It was just one of 5 BCS games. That's it.
Expand ...

One team from the conferences will play in a bowl game. Whooptie damn do.

Honestly I'm shocked that you could be so stupid to believe that a 'back of the napkin' formula is going to be used to give MWC, CUSA, NBE, SB or the MAC a payday worth tens of millions.

Yeah the big conferences spent years killing off those conferences and putting billions of dollars between them to let them back into a big playoff payday. That's what's going to happen.
 
whaler11 said:
It won't.

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=8927686

If you think they are letting a computer put Boise in one of those games....
Expand ...

Your own link contradicts you: "In ranking the teams, the committee will consider strength of schedule, where the games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players."

This is exactly what a bball selection committee does. That's RPI at the beginning (i.e. won/loss, SOS, home wins/away wins) and then external factors like injuries or late season streaks.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
One team from the ty conferences will play in a bowl game. Whooptie damn do.

Honestly I'm shocked that you could be so stupid to believe that a 'back of the napkin' formula is going to be used to give MWC, CUSA, NBE, SB or the MAC a payday worth tens of millions.

Yeah the big conferences spent years killing off those conferences and putting billions of dollars between them to let them back into a big playoff payday. That's what's going to happen.
Expand ...

One team from the non-BCS conferences played in the Fiesta Bowl!!! That's what the original post was about. How dense can you be? Boise got that opportunity! And would still get that opportunity.

Your own link from ESPN showed the back of the napkin formula, so the New Orleans writer from a month ago was right; he made a good prediction. They are using RPI to weigh the teams before they select them. Your own link contradicts you.
 
upstater said:
One team from the non-BCS conferences played in the Fiesta Bowl!!! That's what the original post was about. How dense can you be? Boise got that opportunity! And would still get that opportunity.

Your own link from ESPN showed the back of the napkin formula, so the New Orleans writer from a month ago was right; he made a good prediction. They are using RPI to weigh the teams before they select them. Your own link contradicts you.
Expand ...

First of all three times I've said a low conference team gets a bid to a bigger bowl. We all know that. The Group of 5 or whatever the hell they call it now.


Are you calling this RPI? You think this is going to end with a MWC or Big East team in a four team playoff? Have you lost your mind? Strength of schedule immediately disqualifies the Group of 5. No access.

The selection committee will receive a "jury charge" from the commissioners. In ranking the teams, the committee will consider strength of schedule, where the games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players.
 
whaler11 said:
First of all three times I've said a low conference team gets a bid to a bigger bowl. We all know that. The Group of 5 or whatever the hell they call it now.

That's the original point! Halleluia. Someone wrote that UConn couldn't be Boise because they wouldn't get a chance to play Oklahoma in a big (but meaningless) bowl game. I said UConn would still get that opportunity. Beyond that, if there aren't enough 1 loss teams from the big conferences, an undefeated team from the small ones will almost certainly land in the playoffs.

Are you calling this RPI? You think this is going to end with a MWC or Big East team in a four team playoff? Have you lost your mind? Strength of schedule immediately disqualifies the Group of 5. No access.

The selection committee will receive a "jury charge" from the commissioners. In ranking the teams, the committee will consider strength of schedule, where the games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players.
Expand ...

The article you linked to described a formula which is exactly RPI!! won/loss, SOS, away wins. That's RPI!
 
This is simple.

As much as the Big Conferences would like to lock out everyone ... And eliminate the Boise or Northern Illinois ... There little game of starting a 4 team playoff is going to backfire. I predict it goes to 8 teams within 5 years. At that point, there will be a Boise every year. Maybe two.
 
upstater said:
The article you linked to described a formula which is exactly RPI!! won/loss, SOS, away wins. That's RPI!
Expand ...

Except RPI is only one of those things and is a very specific mathematical equation. This is a bunch of guys sitting around picking teams from 4 conferences unless Florida State or Clemson goes undefeated.

You only think that is RPI because you don't know what RPI is.
 
Pudge said:
This is simple.

As much as the Big Conferences would like to lock out everyone ... And eliminate the Boise or Northern Illinois ... There little game of starting a 4 team playoff is going to backfire. I predict it goes to 8 teams within 5 years. At that point, there will be a Boise every year. Maybe two.
Expand ...

It is simple. There is no access for anyone but the power elite at 4 teams. Maybe there is access at 8 if 8 happens, but that's more wishcasting and has nothing to do with today's reality.
 
.-.
The Funster said:
I hate to say it but I'm getting very discouraged.

It's like in "Lethal Weapon" when the General is telling Danny Glover that there are no heroes anymore.

I'm waiting for Mel Gibson to break the neck of the guy that is torturing him and busts into the room and gets Glover and his daughter free.

Someone please tell me that Mel Gibson is coming. Please?
Expand ...

When are we getting a dislike option?
 
whaler11 said:
Except RPI is only one of those things and is a very specific mathematical equation. This is a bunch of guys sitting around picking teams from 4 conferences unless Florida State or Clemson goes undefeated.

You only think that is RPI because you don't know what RPI is.
Expand ...

You're making absolutely no sense now. The article you linked to said they will be choosing by criteria which are precisely the RPI parameters. In other words, they are duplicating what the NCAA bball tourney committee does. And your own article showed that of the 14 selectors, at least 6 will be coming from the smaller conferences including the BE.
 
upstater said:
You're making absolutely no sense now. The article you linked to said they will be choosing by criteria which are precisely the RPI parameters. In other words, they are duplicating what the NCAA bball tourney committee does. And your own article showed that of the 14 selectors, at least 6 will be coming from the smaller conferences including the BE.
Expand ...

They are not. You have no idea what RPI is.

RPi is a mathematical formula that measures your w/l, your opponents w/l and their opponents w/l. That is all it measures.

It does not measure home versus away. It does not take injuries into account.

Just saying strength of schedule is a piece of the criteria means nothing. Strength of schedule determined how, by whom.

You are honestly just clueless if you think anyone from the Group of 5 is playing in the four team playoff. That you've decided that the criteria is like RPI just shows you have no idea what the RPI is or the difference between a mathematical equation and the broad definition of 'strength of schedule'.

Seriously please stop. You have no idea why you are talking about. I have no idea how anyone could see what they have created and fool themselves into thinking the Group of 5 have access to the playoff - but here we are, you really seem to believe it.

And it's five of maybe fourteen. That gives you about as much say as a democratic state rep in Texas.
 
whaler11 said:
They are not. You have no idea what RPI is.

RPi is a mathematical formula that measures your w/l, your opponents w/l and their opponents w/l. That is all it measures.

It does not measure home versus away. It does not take injuries into account.

Just saying strength of schedule is a piece of the criteria means nothing. Strength of schedule determined how, by whom.

You are honestly just clueless if you think anyone from the Group of 5 is playing in the four team playoff. That you've decided that the criteria is like RPI just shows you have no idea what the RPI is or the difference between a mathematical equation and the broad definition of 'strength of schedule'.

Seriously please stop. You have no idea why you are talking about. I have no idea how anyone could see what they have created and fool themselves into thinking the Group of 5 have access to the playoff - but here we are, you really seem to believe it.

And it's five of maybe fourteen. That gives you about as much say as a democratic state rep in Texas.
Expand ...

LOL, you're the ignorant one on RPI. Unbelievable. I've been writing about RPI on this site for a while. You seem unaware of its basic parameters.

First, stop with the strawmen. I never said injuries are counted in RPI. Stop with your lies.

Second, look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index


In its current formulation, the index comprises a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponents' winning percentage (50%), and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents (25%). The opponents' winning percentage and the winning percentage of those opponents' opponents both comprise the strength of schedule (SOS).
Expand ...


This is what I was referrring to when I mentioned Strength of Schedule!

Next you write that it doesn't account for home and away games.

LOL.

For Division 1 NCAA Men's basketball, the WP factor of the RPI was updated in 2004 to account for differences in home, away, and neutral games. A home win now counts as 0.6 win, while a road win counts as 1.4 wins. Inversely, a home loss equals 1.4 losses, while a road loss counts as 0.6 loss. A neutral game counts as 1 win or 1 loss.
Expand ...

Brush up, whaler, brush up.
 
upstater said:
LOL, you're the ignorant one on RPI. Unbelievable. I've been writing about RPI on this site for a while. You seem unaware of its basic parameters.

First, stop with the strawmen. I never said injuries are counted in RPI. Stop with your lies.

Second, look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index




This is what I was referrring to when I mentioned Strength of Schedule!

Next you write that it doesn't account for home and away games.

LOL.



Brush up, whaler, brush up.
Expand ...

You are comparing an actual formula that attempts to get at SOS (poorly) with the broad idea of people determining SOS.

The basketball formula has ridiculous factors for home and away that don't vet at the actual worth of home and away - which doesn't come close to valuing football home and away correctly.

The AP Top 25 includes strength of schedule by the playoff definition, the people voting think they understand the SOS and vote accordingly.

Answer a simple question: do the 5 conference have realistic access to the playoff? The entire world but you understands that they don't.
 
.-.
upstater said:
You're making absolutely no sense now. The article you linked to said they will be choosing by criteria which are precisely the RPI parameters. In other words, they are duplicating what the NCAA bball tourney committee does. And your own article showed that of the 14 selectors, at least 6 will be coming from the smaller conferences including the BE.
Expand ...

This devolved rather quickly since I last checked. I think the point is more there are going to be far less Boise opportunities in this new model. It will be much more difficult to build your brand if you're in the "have not" pool which besides "upstater" I think everyone on this site agrees we are currently aligned with. Again, I understand and appreciate upstater's positive energy. I'm just reiterating I cannot get excited for the teams in this league no matter how hard I try. I naturally think Kate Upton is attractive. You can't force me to think Hillary Clinton is attractive. Most of America feels the same way when it comes to Michigan vs Memphis football.
 
Whale22 said:
This devolved rather quickly since I last checked. I think the point is more there are going to be far less Boise opportunities in this new model. It will be much more difficult to build your brand if you're in the "have not" pool which besides "upstater" I think everyone on this site agrees we are currently aligned with. Again, I understand and appreciate upstater's positive energy. I'm just reiterating I cannot get excited for the teams in this league no matter how hard I try. I naturally think Kate Upton is attractive. You can't force me to think Hillary Clinton is attractive. Most of America feels the same way when it comes to Michigan vs Memphis football.
Expand ...

Many points to make here.

1. Boise was in the WAC. They had no BCS tie. They got that BCS bid by being ranked high. The same opportunity is available to them now. So what has changed again? Precisely? Why are things more difficult as you say?

2. The discussion largely is related to all the moaning I hear about the CYO7. This week's game against Seton Hall was a dud. Last week's game against St. John's was a dud. These games have never moved the needle, just like games against Houston and UCF won't move the needle. It doesn't matter. Marquette and Georgetown and Villanova are interesting, but so are games against Cincy and Temple and Memphis.

This is really a silly argument. No one here prefers playing Memphis to Michigan. That's just strawman stuff.

And anyone who looks at the current set-up for football bowls cannot make the argument that the opportunities that Boise had are not still out there. You say I'm the only on this board that thinks that. I'd say you're very mistaken. Not only that, but it's another strawman argument to say that I claimed being in the "have not" pool does not hurt the brand. Where did you get that?
 
whaler11 said:
You are comparing an actual formula that attempts to get at SOS (poorly) with the broad idea of people determining SOS.

The basketball formula has ridiculous factors for home and away that don't vet at the actual worth of home and away - which doesn't come close to valuing football home and away correctly.

The AP Top 25 includes strength of schedule by the playoff definition, the people voting think they understand the SOS and vote accordingly.

Answer a simple question: do the 5 conference have realistic access to the playoff? The entire world but you understands that they don't.
Expand ...

Ha ha, so do you admit you were absolutely wrong on RPI? It does have a formula that measures SOS, and it does home and away weighting. You took issue when I wrote the very link that you sent me to listed criteria that were the key components of RPI. The New Orleans writer that I linked to was right all along--and you accused me of ignorance of the RPI. This is rich.
 
"This is really a silly argument. No one here prefers playing Michigan to Memphis. That's just strawman stuff." - upstater

In football? You're delusional if you think that.
 
Whale22 said:
"This is really a silly argument. No one here prefers playing Michigan to Memphis. That's just strawman stuff." - upstater

In football? You're delusional if you think that.
Expand ...

Hilarious. You edited your post. I read the first iteration. So I went back to clarify things for you.

Let's do this again:

1. Boise was in the WAC when it got to its BCS bowl game. It is in no worse shape today in the MWC. It can still make the very same bowl game from its current position by having the same record it did back then.

2. I never said UConn's brand is not hurt by being in a weak conference.

3. No one here is arguing that Ohio State or Georgia Tech or heck, NC State! wouldn't make for a better football game than anyone we will play in conference (excepting Cincy, since an argument can be made that that will be a better game than a game against half the B1G and half the ACC).

The points I made are simple.
 
upstater said:
Hilarious. You edited your post. I read the first iteration. So I went back to clarify things for you.

Let's do this again:

1. Boise was in the WAC when it got to its BCS bowl game. It is in no worse shape today in the MWC. It can still make the very same bowl game from its current position by having the same record it did back then.

2. I never said UConn's brand is not hurt by being in a weak conference.

3. No one here is arguing that Ohio State or Georgia Tech or heck, NC State! wouldn't make for a better football game than anyone we will play in conference (excepting Cincy, since an argument can be made that that will be a better game than a game against half the B1G and half the ACC).

The points I made are simple.
Expand ...

Upstater answer the question. Getting to BCS bowl by being in the top 16 by an ACTUAL formula. Is this similar to getting into a 4 team playoff selected by people who are told to consider SOS in whatever way they want to determine SOS. You are living in a dreamland. There is no access.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,322
Messages
4,563,851
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom