Mid-majors

[ktffan]

Over the last two season, the mid-major's records in non-conference games:

Overall:

MWC (33-34-0)--0.493
CUSA (35-45-0)--0.438
WAC (29-43-0)--0.403
MAC (26-59-0)--0.306
Sun Belt (18-57-0)--0.240

Against I-A:

MWC (28-34-0)--0.452
CUSA (25-45-0)--0.357
WAC (21-42-0)--0.333
MAC (15-58-0)--0.205
Sun Belt (6-54-0)--0.100

Against teams that were ranked:

MWC (3-12-0)--0.200
WAC (2-13-0)--0.133
CUSA (2-13-0)--0.133
Sun Belt (1-15-0)--0.063
MAC (0-20-0)--0.000

Against BCS teams:

MWC (15-22-0)--0.405
CUSA (9-36-0)--0.200
WAC (6-29-0)--0.171
MAC (5-47-0)--0.096
Sun Belt (2-35-0)--0.054

Against bowl teams:

MWC (11-26-0)--0.297
CUSA (10-31-0)--0.244
WAC (5-27-0)--0.156
MAC (3-39-0)--0.071
Sun Belt (1-33-0)--0.029

Against mid-majors:

CUSA (16-9-0)--0.640
WAC (15-13-0)--0.536
MWC (13-12-0)--0.520
MAC (10-11-0)--0.476
Sun Belt (4-19-0)--0.174

Against champions from mid-major conferences:

CUSA (6-1-0)--0.857
MWC (2-2-0)--0.500
MAC (1-1-0)--0.500
WAC (0-2-0)--0.000
Sun Belt (0-4-0)--0.000

[Eric]

That sounds pretty convincing that there are different tiers in college football. Look at the Sun Belt, what a pitiful conference. I am a little suprised that the MAC is 0-20 against ranked teams.

Looking at things from a conference prespective is nice, but this doesn't mean every team in the conference is a load of crap. There are good teams in every conference except, annualy, the Sun Belt. The top of every mid-major conference usually has good football teams. There are a couple of exceptions like the MWC this year who only had one real good team. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place finishers were 6-5.

Something tells me this thread will get 90 pages

[colorado_loves_football]

That's information at least that is relevant to the debate we've been having regarding whether or not the MWC deserves a representative to the BCS. I recognize that it isnt necessarily overwhelming evidence in my favor, if at all, nevertheless, if you 'isolate' TCU I think maybe those numbers look better.
Against 'ranked' teams, MWC was 3-13 or something like that. Not overwhelming evidence, I grant you, but I know at least one of those wins was by TCU. I'm guessing Iowa St. wasn't ranked when TCU played them, but they were a BCS regardless.
MWC was 2-2 against 'non-BCS' conference champions. As hard as it might be to believe, that actually might be an argument on behalf of the other conferences being competitive against the MWC.
Now, as to how it applies, I have to admit I don't necessarily think that it gives what I consider to be a 'balanced' perspective. I think anytime you play a ranked team, you are likely playing 'over your head'.
Nevertheless, I still believe that it's possible TCU has 'advantage' given that in 2004 they weren't very competitive within their own conference.
In other words, this information, while valuable still isn't a 'fair' reflection of how one team, TCU, might do in a BCS pairing.
So, I appreciate how the information is assembled, and will give it its fair 'credit' I suppose for how it summarizes one part of the NCAA, but I believe it's still mostly prejudicial against it.
It relies on information particular to all non-BCS teams. 2004 there were more non-BCS teams than 2005. In other words, even if it's accurate it doesn't make an 'exception' for teams that 'left'.
And another thing, Louisville would be a 'non-BCS' champion, 2004.
So a loss to them would only count as a non-conference loss, not a 'major' or BCS loss. Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but that would appear to be a 'drawback' in using this information, without question. TCU wasn't in MWC 2004. Again, maybe just a formality, but that would affect how C-USA is evaluated.

[ktffan]

Nevertheless, I still believe that it's possible TCU has 'advantage' given that in 2004 they weren't very competitive within their own conference.
In other words, this information, while valuable still isn't a 'fair' reflection of how one team, TCU, might do in a BCS pairing.
So, I appreciate how the information is assembled, and will give it its fair 'credit' I suppose for how it summarizes one part of the NCAA, but I believe it's still mostly prejudicial against it.

Does everything have to be about you? I assembled some general information for an unrelated topic and just dumped it here. This is not about you.

[Spence]

I think anytime you play a ranked team, you are likely playing 'over your head'.

That quote, more then any other I have seen, summarizes the difference between major and mid major.

[Jason G]

I've never disagreed about the fact that there is a gap between the BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences. I do believe, however, that it would be a huge positive for college football as a whole if that gap closed a great deal.

The first step toward addressing this gap would be more home games for the non-BCS schools. They still would likely be losing more than winning but the rate would likely improve a great deal.

[Spence]

I've never disagreed about the fact that there is a gap between the BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences. I do believe, however, that it would be a huge positive for college football as a whole if that gap closed a great deal.

The first step toward addressing this gap would be more home games for the non-BCS schools. They still would likely be losing more than winning but the rate would likely improve a great deal.

I don't think giving the non-BCS schools more home and aways with BCS schools is a bad idea either. My concern would be can they afford to host more major schools?

[colorado_loves_football]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it is already necessarily 'slanted'. I don't necessarily object to posting relevant information, and drawing reasonable conclusions, when necessary.

There is a 'slant' against teams that aren't traditionallly part of the BCS, whether or not you call them 'mid-major's or 'non-BCS' I guess is trivial.

But, this would lead one to believe that the so-called 'mid-majors' aren't competitive against the rest of the NCAA. I have a problem with that.

I think the evidence, such as it is, is 'slanted' to reflect a particular point-of-view. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, I have before.

Now, if this is in fact, 'objective' information, simply presented to allow us to draw our own individual conclusions, then I should mind my own business. But, I'm inclined to believe it's more fodder for the grain hopper, myself. Nevertheless I'm an open-minded person, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

[billybud]

Look CLF..the records are what they are.....mid majors are not competitive with upper level BCS teams...it's no slant, it's what it is.

Is it slanted to report that 498 of the 500 fastest times recorded in the 100 meter dash are from people who have West African ancestry? Or is it just a reporting of fact? Draw your own conclusions from the data.

If anything, your posts are the ones that are wildly slanted....you have no data that stands up...you flail around trying, without avail, to convince us of the validity of your position.

You have a major problem..many of us are fairly sophisticated, have a knowledge of the college game, and are rational....

[mountainman]

I don't necessarily object to posting relevant information, and drawing reasonable conclusions, when necessary.

Exactly how much thought when into this statement?

[Spence]

You get the feeling that there was going to be a "but" in there somewhere.

[Jason G]

Whether or not non-BCS schools are competitive with BCS schools to some degree depends on your definition of competitive and your perspective.

For example, let's say there are 10 games played between BCS schools and non-BCS schools. If the results are that the BCS schools win all ten games however seven or eight of the games were decided by less than 14 points. Were the non-BCS schools competitive with the BCS schools?

I mean they were 0-10, that doesn't seem too competitive. However, with just a few things going a different way the non-BCS schools could have won a decent number of the games. Those games certainly would have to be considered competitive.
In fact, I don't know that you can even always go by the score of a game since we've all seen games that were tight all the way through until the end when a team scores three touchdowns in the last four or five minutes of the game.

I don't know to what degree that example can be applied here but my point here is that I can see where different people could look at the same games and information in different ways.

[Spence]

You can be competitive in a game, but not competitive in the season as a whole. 0-10 isn't competitive even if you played evey game tight. 8-5 including a couple really close games with very good teams would be.

The main point in being competitive on a national level, I think, is to determine how well you stack up with your peers in other conferences. In other words (I'll use Akron as an example), How well would Akron do against the top half of the SEC, B-10, or one of the others. If the answer is "pretty well", then they would be competitive on a national level. I'm not talking getting an upset here or there, but being able to compete for a championship in any of those conferences, or any other conference, for that matter. That is what I call being competitve on a national level. That is what I think you have to do to be in the BCS.

I'm not saying a being a from a major conference excludes anyone, just that you need to play on the same level as the top programs if you want to be invited to the big games.

I still think that, especially during bowl season, they should add more upper end mid majors to the regular bowls instead of taking mediocre major conference schools. They need to be given a stage that people can give them a fair shot. Thay just shouldn't be included into the BCS unless they prove they can play at that level for a season.

[mountainman]

Of course there are different perspectives applied to, values assigned to, and conclusions drawn from the same information.

Definitions of terms that are not defined in context and not quantifiable will cause that to happen most of the time.

The issue then becomes that everybody thinks they are right. That's O.K. in my book, but the truth of the matter is what anyone knows for certain is which team won the game.

All the other stuff comes down to whatever an individual believes it to be.

It's fun to talk about that kind of stuff with others and exchange evaluations and perspectives, make points and counterpoints, but in the final analysis, it comes down to which team wins the game.

My favorite counterpunch line that I've heard on that is, "They didn't win it, we lost it."

[Spence]

It's fun to talk about that kind of stuff with others and exchange evaluations and perspectives, make points and counterpoints, but in the final analysis, it comes down to which team wins the game.

I agree. It is hard to say you are better then the team that just beat you. Well, not hard just wrong. Sometimes you just have to take your lumps.

My favorite counterpunch line that I've heard on that is, "They didn't win it, we lost it."

I agree again. When two teams are close in talent and are playing a close game the one who makes the fewest mistakes wins. You can turn it around and say we lost it, but the fact always remain that the other team did what they needed to do and you didn't.

Also, most of the time the other team has a hand in you "losing it".