On the surface, I like the hire. His most important coaching decisions will be made in the next couple of weeks.dbackjon wrote:GSU has a new coach - from CSU
DC from Colorado State
And thanks to the existence of the MAC.AshevilleApp wrote:Sun Belt goes 2-2 in Bowls.
Thanks to the SoCon newbies!
Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's. BGSU probaly could name its score.JohnStOnge wrote:And thanks to the existence of the MAC.AshevilleApp wrote:Sun Belt goes 2-2 in Bowls.
Thanks to the SoCon newbies!
The MAC has 6 teams in bowl games. They must be real good.Baldy wrote:Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's. BGSU probaly could name its score.JohnStOnge wrote:
And thanks to the existence of the MAC.
I don't know about that.Baldy wrote:Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's. BGSU probaly could name its score.JohnStOnge wrote:
And thanks to the existence of the MAC.
I think Bowling Green would have been a much tougher matchup for this year's McNeese team than Ohio would've been. But it doesn't matter. When you play at a certain level you look at the context of that level. When it comes down to it, only about half the programs in the FBS really belong there. When you look at resource levels, fan support levels, etc., the rest are really closer to FCS than they are to the Big 5 conferences.Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's. BGSU probaly could name its score.
Oh yeah I agree and I might throw the Mountain West in there too. To me the mainstream of FBS is the Big 5. If you use Sagarin's conference strength ratings, for instance, the strengths of the Big 5 range from 75.3 through 79.8.Like I have said before, the problem comes when someone tries to single out the Sun Belt as being the FCS league of the FBS. Can't do that without also condemning at least the MAC and the CUSA, too.
Thank you for clearing that up, Commissioner.JohnStOnge wrote:Oh yeah I agree and I might throw the Mountain West in there too. To me the mainstream of FBS is the Big 5. If you use Sagarin's conference strength ratings, for instance, the strengths of the Big 5 range from 75.3 through 79.8.Like I have said before, the problem comes when someone tries to single out the Sun Belt as being the FCS league of the FBS. Can't do that without also condemning at least the MAC and the CUSA, too.
CUSA, the MAC, the MWC and the Sun Belt are all rated much closer to the top of FCS than they are to the bottom of the Big 5. The top of FCS is the MVFC at 58.3. The Sun Belt is at 54.3, CUSA is at 55.4, the MAC is at 59.8, and the MWC is at 61.4.
The American Athletic is kind of in a netherworld about halfway between the top of FCS and the bottom of the Big 5. It's rated 67.6.
Anyway, to me, there are only a handful of schools outside of the Big 5 that arguably really belong in FBS. One of them is Notre Dame, of course. And I think there's an argument for Brigham Young. The rest of them are either in the American Athletic or Mountain West. None of the programs in CUSA, the MAC, or the Sun Belt really belong in FBS.
Glad that's settled.93henfan wrote:Thank you for clearing that up, Commissioner.JohnStOnge wrote:
Oh yeah I agree and I might throw the Mountain West in there too. To me the mainstream of FBS is the Big 5. If you use Sagarin's conference strength ratings, for instance, the strengths of the Big 5 range from 75.3 through 79.8.
CUSA, the MAC, the MWC and the Sun Belt are all rated much closer to the top of FCS than they are to the bottom of the Big 5. The top of FCS is the MVFC at 58.3. The Sun Belt is at 54.3, CUSA is at 55.4, the MAC is at 59.8, and the MWC is at 61.4.
The American Athletic is kind of in a netherworld about halfway between the top of FCS and the bottom of the Big 5. It's rated 67.6.
Anyway, to me, there are only a handful of schools outside of the Big 5 that arguably really belong in FBS. One of them is Notre Dame, of course. And I think there's an argument for Brigham Young. The rest of them are either in the American Athletic or Mountain West. None of the programs in CUSA, the MAC, or the Sun Belt really belong in FBS.
If you go by Sagarin ratings as they are now to try to get an idea as to what the line would have been before those two MAC teams lost to Sun Belt teams, Bowling Green would be a 19 point favorite over McNeese and Ohio would be a 4 point favorite over the Cowboys on a neutral field. Once the numbers are updated to include what happened to Bowling Green against a Georgia Southern (right now it's updated through games of December 19) the line for Bowling Green will probably shrink a little.Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's.
I'll counter your MTSU/McNeese argument with two examples from the 2015 season. 4-8 5th place Troy destroyed FCS playoff team Big South Champion Charleston Southern 44-16 and 9-4 3rd place Georgia Southern destroyed So Con Champion FCS playoff team The Citadel 48-13. Neither game was as close as the score indicates.JohnStOnge wrote:If you go by Sagarin ratings as they are now to try to get an idea as to what the line would have been before those two MAC teams lost to Sun Belt teams, Bowling Green would be a 19 point favorite over McNeese and Ohio would be a 4 point favorite over the Cowboys on a neutral field. Once the numbers are updated to include what happened to Bowling Green against a Georgia Southern (right now it's updated through games of December 19) the line for Bowling Green will probably shrink a little.Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's.
But McNeese's actual experience with MAC and Sun Belt teams is consistent with my belief about the level of competition. The "sample sizes" are small, but nevertheless the outcomes fit the belief that they are basically FCS or close to FCS caliber leagues. McNeese as a I-AA/FCS team is 1-1 vs. the MAC and 3-0 vs. the Sun Belt. They split with Toledo and beat Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Lafayette, and Middle Tennessee State while the Blue Raiders were in the Sun Belt. They beat a 6-5 Toledo team and lost to a 5-6 Toledo team. And the McNeese teams that played Toledo were OK but not great. 6-5 and 7-5.
Two of the Sun Belt teams they beat were bad while McNeese had some of its best team. A 13-2 McNeese team beat a 3-9 Louisiana Monroe team and an 11-1 McNeese team beat a 3-9 Louisiana Lafayette squad. But after they beat Middle Tennessee the Blue Raiders went on to finish 8-4 and 6-2 in the Sun Belt. They got a big win over Georgia Tech and went into the last game of the regular season with Arkansas State with a chance to win the conference championship. They lost to Arkansas State. But they were clearly a Sun Belt conference title contender. They were in the mix. McNeese, meanwhile, went on to finish 7-4 and 4-3 in the Southland.
If McNeese has one of its better teams and it's playing ANY MAC or Sun Belt team I'm going to feel like they have a shot. I'm going to feel like if they're as good as I would like for them to be...which is good enough to win the conference and have some shot in the playoffs to do something...they should have a shot to play with and beat any MAC or Sun Belt team.
I agree with JSO here. Just look at how elite FCS teams fared this year against FBS this year alone. Off the top of my head:JohnStOnge wrote:If you go by Sagarin ratings as they are now to try to get an idea as to what the line would have been before those two MAC teams lost to Sun Belt teams, Bowling Green would be a 19 point favorite over McNeese and Ohio would be a 4 point favorite over the Cowboys on a neutral field. Once the numbers are updated to include what happened to Bowling Green against a Georgia Southern (right now it's updated through games of December 19) the line for Bowling Green will probably shrink a little.Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's.
But McNeese's actual experience with MAC and Sun Belt teams is consistent with my belief about the level of competition. The "sample sizes" are small, but nevertheless the outcomes fit the belief that they are basically FCS or close to FCS caliber leagues. McNeese as a I-AA/FCS team is 1-1 vs. the MAC and 3-0 vs. the Sun Belt. They split with Toledo and beat Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Lafayette, and Middle Tennessee State while the Blue Raiders were in the Sun Belt. They beat a 6-5 Toledo team and lost to a 5-6 Toledo team. And the McNeese teams that played Toledo were OK but not great. 6-5 and 7-5.
Two of the Sun Belt teams they beat were bad while McNeese had some of its best team. A 13-2 McNeese team beat a 3-9 Louisiana Monroe team and an 11-1 McNeese team beat a 3-9 Louisiana Lafayette squad. But after they beat Middle Tennessee the Blue Raiders went on to finish 8-4 and 6-2 in the Sun Belt. They got a big win over Georgia Tech and went into the last game of the regular season with Arkansas State with a chance to win the conference championship. They lost to Arkansas State. But they were clearly a Sun Belt conference title contender. They were in the mix. McNeese, meanwhile, went on to finish 7-4 and 4-3 in the Southland.
If McNeese has one of its better teams and it's playing ANY MAC or Sun Belt team I'm going to feel like they have a shot. I'm going to feel like if they're as good as I would like for them to be...which is good enough to win the conference and have some shot in the playoffs to do something...they should have a shot to play with and beat any MAC or Sun Belt team.
The MAC was so-so this year. All of the bowl eligible teams were decent but there were no really good teams at the top who were clearly better than the middle like they've had the past couple of years.kalm wrote:The MAC has 6 teams in bowl games. They must be real good.Baldy wrote:
Either one of the MAC teams who lost to the Sun Belt teams would destroy McNeese by 3 or 4 TD's. BGSU probaly could name its score.
...and 7-1 against FCS teams.kalm wrote:I agree with JSO here. Just look at how elite FCS teams fared this year against FBS this year alone. Off the top of my head:JohnStOnge wrote:
If you go by Sagarin ratings as they are now to try to get an idea as to what the line would have been before those two MAC teams lost to Sun Belt teams, Bowling Green would be a 19 point favorite over McNeese and Ohio would be a 4 point favorite over the Cowboys on a neutral field. Once the numbers are updated to include what happened to Bowling Green against a Georgia Southern (right now it's updated through games of December 19) the line for Bowling Green will probably shrink a little.
But McNeese's actual experience with MAC and Sun Belt teams is consistent with my belief about the level of competition. The "sample sizes" are small, but nevertheless the outcomes fit the belief that they are basically FCS or close to FCS caliber leagues. McNeese as a I-AA/FCS team is 1-1 vs. the MAC and 3-0 vs. the Sun Belt. They split with Toledo and beat Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Lafayette, and Middle Tennessee State while the Blue Raiders were in the Sun Belt. They beat a 6-5 Toledo team and lost to a 5-6 Toledo team. And the McNeese teams that played Toledo were OK but not great. 6-5 and 7-5.
Two of the Sun Belt teams they beat were bad while McNeese had some of its best team. A 13-2 McNeese team beat a 3-9 Louisiana Monroe team and an 11-1 McNeese team beat a 3-9 Louisiana Lafayette squad. But after they beat Middle Tennessee the Blue Raiders went on to finish 8-4 and 6-2 in the Sun Belt. They got a big win over Georgia Tech and went into the last game of the regular season with Arkansas State with a chance to win the conference championship. They lost to Arkansas State. But they were clearly a Sun Belt conference title contender. They were in the mix. McNeese, meanwhile, went on to finish 7-4 and 4-3 in the Southland.
If McNeese has one of its better teams and it's playing ANY MAC or Sun Belt team I'm going to feel like they have a shot. I'm going to feel like if they're as good as I would like for them to be...which is good enough to win the conference and have some shot in the playoffs to do something...they should have a shot to play with and beat any MAC or Sun Belt team.
PSU - win aganst P5, CUSA win
JMU - win against AAC
JSU - close P5 loss
SHSU - close P5 loss
CIT - P5 win
SDSU - P5 win
SUU - close loss to MWFC
And the Sun Belt was 0-19 against the P5 and 7-32 OOC overall?
Oof.
The Southland victories do indeed tend to be distributed towards older games. But part of that, I think, is that in recent years the match ups have been better for the Sun Belt in that they've been playing weaker Southland teams. There's no doubt that the Sun Belt is tougher than the Southland overall. But the point is that it's not like "another level."If your 14-12 Sun Belt vs. Southland record is accurate, I'd be curious to see how many of those 12 victories are five years old or older.
Toledo and BGSU were the class of the conference. Both had two P5 wins and boith were ranked at some point in the season (Toledo will most likely be ranked in the final poll).UNI88 wrote:The MAC was so-so this year. All of the bowl eligible teams were decent but there were no really good teams at the top who were clearly better than the middle like they've had the past couple of years.kalm wrote:
The MAC has 6 teams in bowl games. They must be real good.
JohnStOnge wrote:The Southland victories do indeed tend to be distributed towards older games. But part of that, I think, is that in recent years the match ups have been better for the Sun Belt in that they've been playing weaker Southland teams. There's no doubt that the Sun Belt is tougher than the Southland overall. But the point is that it's not like "another level."If your 14-12 Sun Belt vs. Southland record is accurate, I'd be curious to see how many of those 12 victories are five years old or older.
Another thing is that if we are going to compare scores we might as well use the Sagarin Ratings because that's what that system is based on. It's comparing all the scores in comprehensive way. And when you do that this is what you get in terms of conference strength ratings as of yesterday (I say that because yesterday is when I did the math to combine divisions of conferences because Sagarin doesn't report them combined) starting with the weakest Big 5 conference:
Atlantic Coast Conference 75.3
Mid American Conference 59.8
Missouri Valley Football Conference 58.33
Conference USA 55.45
Sun Belt 54.34
Big Sky 48.36
Southern 46.82
Colonial 45.90
The MAC, CUSA, and the Sun Belt are clearly more like top level FCS leagues in caliber than they are like the conferences that form the mainstream of FBS. And it would never be a shock to see even the best teams in any of those leagues as they are now lose to a top FCS team.
Take a look at the Sun Belt in particular since that is what this thread is about. It's rated about 4 points below the strongest FCS conference and about 6 points higher than the second strongest FCS conference. Meanwhile it's rated about 21 points lower than the weakest conference among those 5 that form the mainstream of FBS. It clearly "fits" in better with FCS than it does with real FBS football. There is clearly a much bigger difference between the Sun Belt and the Big 5 conferences than there is between the Sun Belt and FCS. In fact the Sun Belt is right there in the midst of the upper range of FCS conferences.
Class of the conference by a hair. Neither was as good as NIU and Toledo in 2014, Bowling Green and NIU in 2013 or Kent St and NIU in 2012. The separation between the top 2 teams and the next 4 was much narrower and it wasn't because the next 4 were better than in years past it was because the top 2 weren't that much better.Baldy wrote:Toledo and BGSU were the class of the conference. Both had two P5 wins and boith were ranked at some point in the season (Toledo will most likely be ranked in the final poll).UNI88 wrote:
The MAC was so-so this year. All of the bowl eligible teams were decent but there were no really good teams at the top who were clearly better than the middle like they've had the past couple of years.
Toledo finished 9-4 last year with no P5 wins. This year they had two P5 wins, and finished 10-2 with a convincing win over a ranked Temple team.UNI88 wrote:Class of the conference by a hair. Neither was as good as NIU and Toledo in 2014, Bowling Green and NIU in 2013 or Kent St and NIU in 2012. The separation between the top 2 teams and the next 4 was much narrower and it wasn't because the next 4 were better than in years past it was because the top 2 weren't that much better.Baldy wrote: Toledo and BGSU were the class of the conference. Both had two P5 wins and boith were ranked at some point in the season (Toledo will most likely be ranked in the final poll).
Ok I looked up the last five years and the Sun Belt has gone 8-2 vs. the Southland over the past 5 years. Lots of catch up. However, 6 of those wins came against teams that finished a combined 7-36 in the Southland Conference. Three were Nicholls State teams that had 0 conference wins and another was a pre-Roberts Southeastern Louisiana team that finished 1-6 in conference play. There were four games between Southland Conference teams that finished at 0.500 or better in conference play and the Sun Belt was 2-2 in those games.If your 14-12 Sun Belt vs. Southland record is accurate, I'd be curious to see how many of those 12 victories are five years old or older.
Sorry Baldy, I was picked those teams off of memory. My opinion is based on what I've seen on game days and is subjective. I watch some MAC football, especially NIU, since I live around a bunch of NIU alumni. NIU has been the standard bearer for the MAC and their level of play has dropped off in the last couple of years. IMO, 2015 NIU wasn't as good as 2014 NIU which wasn't as good as 2013 or 2012 NIU. In prior years, the 2015 NIU team would not have been good enough to win the MAC West and play for the conference championship. It's all eye-test, but the 2015 MAC isn't as good as prior years.Baldy wrote:Toledo finished 9-4 last year with no P5 wins. This year they had two P5 wins, and finished 10-2 with a convincing win over a ranked Temple team.UNI88 wrote:
Class of the conference by a hair. Neither was as good as NIU and Toledo in 2014, Bowling Green and NIU in 2013 or Kent St and NIU in 2012. The separation between the top 2 teams and the next 4 was much narrower and it wasn't because the next 4 were better than in years past it was because the top 2 weren't that much better.
NIU beat Northwestern, but got blown out by Arkansas, Central Michigan, and Marshall in 2014. Bowling Green also had two wins vs P5 teams, beat NIU in the MAC Championship game.
Please tell me again how a 9-4 Toledo team with no P5 wins is better than a 10-2 Toledo team with two P5 wins and a win over a ranked opponent???
If you have time, also explain how a 2014 11-3 NIU squad with no P5 wins and 3 blowout losses, 2 to G5 teams is better than a 2015 Bowling Green with two P5 wins and a MAC Championship.
). BG was the class of a down MAC and GaSo pounded them.
