Could local schools like Tech, Baylor and TCU be casualties of college football's next big realignment?

untjim1995 · May 19, 2016

27 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Clearly is an overstatement.

For 2016's upcoming season, preseason rankings within the G5, taken from a CFN post-spring total FBS ranking list:

UH (AAC), SDSU (MWC), Boise State (MWC), USF (AAC), WMU (MAC), AFA (MWC), Toledo (MAC), Navy (AAC), NIU (MAC), USM (CUSA), Marshall (CUSA), WKU (CUSA), Temple (AAC), Appalachian State (SBC), Memphis (AAC), Bowling Green (MAC), Georgia Southern (SBC), Cincy (AAC), UConn (AAC), East Carolina (AAC), Central Michigan (MAC), Utah State (MWC), New Mexico (MWC), Ohio (MAC), Nevada (MWC), La Tech (CUSA), UNLV (MWC), Colorado State (MWC), Arkansas State (SBC), MUTS (CUSA), Tulsa (AAC), UCF (AAC), Rice (CUSA), Wyoming (MWC), San Jose (MWC), Buffalo (MAC), ULL (SBC), Akron (MAC), FIU (CUSA), Old Dominion (CUSA), UTEP (CUSA), South Alabama (SBC), Troy (SBC), Fresno State (MWC), UTSA (CUSA), SMU (AAC), Kent State (MAC), FAU (CUSA), Miami (OH) (MAC), Tulane (AAC), Hawaii (MWC), Ball State (MAC), Army (Independent), Georgia State (SBC), Idaho (Independent/about to be FCS), Texas State (SBC), NMSU (Independent), Charlotte (CUSA), Eastern Michigan (MAC), North Texas (CUSA), ULM (SBC), and UMass (Independent)

The AAC has 1,4,8,13,15,18,19, 20, 31, 32, 46, and 50 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (21)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams(70.67)

The MWC has 2, 3, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 44, and 51 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (24)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (82.58)

The MAC has 5, 7, 9, 16, 21, 24, 36, 38, 47, 49, 52, and 59 of the 62 G5 teams--avg. rank (29)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (84.75)

CUSA has 10, 11, 12, 26, 30, 33, 39, 40, 41, 45, 48, 58, and 60 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (33)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (98.85)

SBC has 14, 17, 29, 37, 42, 43, 54, 56, and 61 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (39)--avg. rank within all of 128 FBS teams (103.89)

Independents--53, 55, 57, and 62 avg rank of the 62 G5 teams(57)--avg rank within all 128 FBS teams (122.75)

Overall, in all of FBS, the AAC has the only top 20 team in UH(20th). From 21-30, the MWC has SDSU (28th) and Boise State (29th). From 31-50, the AAC adds in USF (49). From 51-64, the MAC shows up with WMU (53rd), the MWC has AFA (56th), the MAC adds in Toledo (60th), then the AAC adds in Navy (61) and the MAC adds in NIU (62). Finally at 64, exactly at the halfway point of all FBS, CUSA shows up with USM at 64th.

At the halfway point, the AAC has 3 teams listed (UH, USF, and Navy), the MWC has 3 teams listed (SDSU, Boise, and AFA), the MAC has 3 teams listed (WMU, Toledo, and NIU), and then CUSA gets in USM at 64th.

Now, it gets a bit more even, as we get into the bottom half of FBS.

From 65- 80: CUSA gets Marshall and WKU at 71 and 72, the AAC gets Temple and Memphis, at 73 and 75, the MAC gets Bowling Green at 76th, and the SBC adds in Appy State and Georgia Southern at 74 and 78. No teams from the MWC ranked in this area for this upcoming year.

From 81 -96, the last group ranked above the bottom quartile of FBS: The AAC has Cincy, UConn, ECU, and Tulsa at 81, 82, 83, and 96. The MAC adds in Central Michigan and Ohio at 84 and 89. The MWC adds in Utah State, New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, and Colorado State at 87, 88, 90, 92, and 93. CUSA adds in La Tech at 91 and MUTS at 95. The SBC adds in Arkansas State at 94.

That leaves the Bottom Quartile of the upcoming season to be ranked 97-128 as the AAC having three (UCF, SMU, and Tulane) at 98, 112, and 116. The MWC has 4 (Wyoming, SJSU, Fresno and Hawaii) at 100, 101, 110, and 117. The MAC has 6 ( Buffalo, Akron, Kent State, Miami (OH), Ball State, and Eastern Michigan) at 102, 104, 113, 115, 118, and 125. CUSA adds in 8 (Rice, FIU, ODU, UTEP, UTSA, FAU, Charlotte, and UNT) at 99, 105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 124, and 126. The SBC has 6 (ULL, USA, Troy, Georgia State, Texas State, and ULM) at 103, 108, 109, 120, 122, and 127. And the independents are 4 (Army at 119, Idaho at 121, NMSU at 123, and UMass at 128).

I'll let you resident College Football experts analyze this as to where each conference currently sits within the hierarchy of our current FBS system and where things will go in the future.

Ben Gooding · May 19, 2016

8 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

For 2016's upcoming season, preseason rankings within the G5, taken from a CFN post-spring total FBS ranking list:

UH (AAC), SDSU (MWC), Boise State (MWC), USF (AAC), WMU (MAC), AFA (MWC), Toledo (MAC), Navy (AAC), NIU (MAC), USM (CUSA), Marshall (CUSA), WKU (CUSA), Temple (AAC), Appalachian State (SBC), Memphis (AAC), Bowling Green (MAC), Georgia Southern (SBC), Cincy (AAC), UConn (AAC), East Carolina (AAC), Central Michigan (MAC), Utah State (MWC), New Mexico (MWC), Ohio (MAC), Nevada (MWC), La Tech (CUSA), UNLV (MWC), Colorado State (MWC), Arkansas State (SBC), MUTS (CUSA), Tulsa (AAC), UCF (AAC), Rice (CUSA), Wyoming (MWC), San Jose (MWC), Buffalo (MAC), ULL (SBC), Akron (MAC), FIU (CUSA), Old Dominion (CUSA), UTEP (CUSA), South Alabama (SBC), Troy (SBC), Fresno State (MWC), UTSA (CUSA), SMU (AAC), Kent State (MAC), FAU (CUSA), Miami (OH) (MAC), Tulane (AAC), Hawaii (MWC), Ball State (MAC), Army (Independent), Georgia State (SBC), Idaho (Independent/about to be FCS), Texas State (SBC), NMSU (Independent), Charlotte (CUSA), Eastern Michigan (MAC), North Texas (CUSA), ULM (SBC), and UMass (Independent)

The AAC has 1,4,8,13,15,18,19, 20, 31, 32, 46, and 50 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (21)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams(70.67)

The MWC has 2, 3, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 44, and 51 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (24)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (82.58)

The MAC has 5, 7, 9, 16, 21, 24, 36, 38, 47, 49, 52, and 59 of the 62 G5 teams--avg. rank (29)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (84.75)

CUSA has 10, 11, 12, 26, 30, 33, 39, 40, 41, 45, 48, 58, and 60 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (33)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (98.85)

SBC has 14, 17, 29, 37, 42, 43, 54, 56, and 61 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (39)--avg. rank within all of 128 FBS teams (103.89)

Independents--53, 55, 57, and 62 avg rank of the 62 G5 teams(57)--avg rank within all 128 FBS teams (122.75)

Overall, in all of FBS, the AAC has the only top 20 team in UH(20th). From 21-30, the MWC has SDSU (28th) and Boise State (29th). From 31-50, the AAC adds in USF (49). From 51-64, the MAC shows up with WMU (53rd), the MWC has AFA (56th), the MAC adds in Toledo (60th), then the AAC adds in Navy (61) and the MAC adds in NIU (62). Finally at 64, exactly at the halfway point of all FBS, CUSA shows up with USM at 64th.

At the halfway point, the AAC has 3 teams listed (UH, USF, and Navy), the MWC has 3 teams listed (SDSU, Boise, and AFA), the MAC has 3 teams listed (WMU, Toledo, and NIU), and then CUSA gets in USM at 64th.

Now, it gets a bit more even, as we get into the bottom half of FBS.

From 65- 80: CUSA gets Marshall and WKU at 71 and 72, the AAC gets Temple and Memphis, at 73 and 75, the MAC gets Bowling Green at 76th, and the SBC adds in Appy State and Georgia Southern at 74 and 78. No teams from the MWC ranked in this area for this upcoming year.

From 81 -96, the last group ranked above the bottom quartile of FBS: The AAC has Cincy, UConn, ECU, and Tulsa at 81, 82, 83, and 96. The MAC adds in Central Michigan and Ohio at 84 and 89. The MWC adds in Utah State, New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, and Colorado State at 87, 88, 90, 92, and 93. CUSA adds in La Tech at 91 and MUTS at 95. The SBC adds in Arkansas State at 94.

That leaves the Bottom Quartile of the upcoming season to be ranked 97-128 as the AAC having three (UCF, SMU, and Tulane) at 98, 112, and 116. The MWC has 4 (Wyoming, SJSU, Fresno and Hawaii) at 100, 101, 110, and 117. The MAC has 6 ( Buffalo, Akron, Kent State, Miami (OH), Ball State, and Eastern Michigan) at 102, 104, 113, 115, 118, and 125. CUSA adds in 8 (Rice, FIU, ODU, UTEP, UTSA, FAU, Charlotte, and UNT) at 99, 105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 124, and 126. The SBC has 6 (ULL, USA, Troy, Georgia State, Texas State, and ULM) at 103, 108, 109, 120, 122, and 127. And the independents are 4 (Army at 119, Idaho at 121, NMSU at 123, and UMass at 128).

I'll let you resident College Football experts analyze this as to where each conference currently sits within the hierarchy of our current FBS system and where things will go in the future.

So our suck, sucks worse than their suck. And their best slightly bests ours.

MeanGreenTexan · May 19, 2016

16 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

For 2016's upcoming season, preseason rankings within the G5, taken from a CFN post-spring total FBS ranking list:

UH (AAC), SDSU (MWC), Boise State (MWC), USF (AAC), WMU (MAC), AFA (MWC), Toledo (MAC), Navy (AAC), NIU (MAC), USM (CUSA), Marshall (CUSA), WKU (CUSA), Temple (AAC), Appalachian State (SBC), Memphis (AAC), Bowling Green (MAC), Georgia Southern (SBC), Cincy (AAC), UConn (AAC), East Carolina (AAC), Central Michigan (MAC), Utah State (MWC), New Mexico (MWC), Ohio (MAC), Nevada (MWC), La Tech (CUSA), UNLV (MWC), Colorado State (MWC), Arkansas State (SBC), MUTS (CUSA), Tulsa (AAC), UCF (AAC), Rice (CUSA), Wyoming (MWC), San Jose (MWC), Buffalo (MAC), ULL (SBC), Akron (MAC), FIU (CUSA), Old Dominion (CUSA), UTEP (CUSA), South Alabama (SBC), Troy (SBC), Fresno State (MWC), UTSA (CUSA), SMU (AAC), Kent State (MAC), FAU (CUSA), Miami (OH) (MAC), Tulane (AAC), Hawaii (MWC), Ball State (MAC), Army (Independent), Georgia State (SBC), Idaho (Independent/about to be FCS), Texas State (SBC), NMSU (Independent), Charlotte (CUSA), Eastern Michigan (MAC), North Texas (CUSA), ULM (SBC), and UMass (Independent)

The AAC has 1,4,8,13,15,18,19, 20, 31, 32, 46, and 50 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (21)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams(70.67)

The MWC has 2, 3, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 44, and 51 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (24)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (82.58)

The MAC has 5, 7, 9, 16, 21, 24, 36, 38, 47, 49, 52, and 59 of the 62 G5 teams--avg. rank (29)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (84.75)

CUSA has 10, 11, 12, 26, 30, 33, 39, 40, 41, 45, 48, 58, and 60 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (33)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (98.85)

SBC has 14, 17, 29, 37, 42, 43, 54, 56, and 61 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (39)--avg. rank within all of 128 FBS teams (103.89)

Independents--53, 55, 57, and 62 avg rank of the 62 G5 teams(57)--avg rank within all 128 FBS teams (122.75)

Overall, in all of FBS, the AAC has the only top 20 team in UH(20th). From 21-30, the MWC has SDSU (28th) and Boise State (29th). From 31-50, the AAC adds in USF (49). From 51-64, the MAC shows up with WMU (53rd), the MWC has AFA (56th), the MAC adds in Toledo (60th), then the AAC adds in Navy (61) and the MAC adds in NIU (62). Finally at 64, exactly at the halfway point of all FBS, CUSA shows up with USM at 64th.

At the halfway point, the AAC has 3 teams listed (UH, USF, and Navy), the MWC has 3 teams listed (SDSU, Boise, and AFA), the MAC has 3 teams listed (WMU, Toledo, and NIU), and then CUSA gets in USM at 64th.

Now, it gets a bit more even, as we get into the bottom half of FBS.

From 65- 80: CUSA gets Marshall and WKU at 71 and 72, the AAC gets Temple and Memphis, at 73 and 75, the MAC gets Bowling Green at 76th, and the SBC adds in Appy State and Georgia Southern at 74 and 78. No teams from the MWC ranked in this area for this upcoming year.

From 81 -96, the last group ranked above the bottom quartile of FBS: The AAC has Cincy, UConn, ECU, and Tulsa at 81, 82, 83, and 96. The MAC adds in Central Michigan and Ohio at 84 and 89. The MWC adds in Utah State, New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, and Colorado State at 87, 88, 90, 92, and 93. CUSA adds in La Tech at 91 and MUTS at 95. The SBC adds in Arkansas State at 94.

That leaves the Bottom Quartile of the upcoming season to be ranked 97-128 as the AAC having three (UCF, SMU, and Tulane) at 98, 112, and 116. The MWC has 4 (Wyoming, SJSU, Fresno and Hawaii) at 100, 101, 110, and 117. The MAC has 6 ( Buffalo, Akron, Kent State, Miami (OH), Ball State, and Eastern Michigan) at 102, 104, 113, 115, 118, and 125. CUSA adds in 8 (Rice, FIU, ODU, UTEP, UTSA, FAU, Charlotte, and UNT) at 99, 105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 124, and 126. The SBC has 6 (ULL, USA, Troy, Georgia State, Texas State, and ULM) at 103, 108, 109, 120, 122, and 127. And the independents are 4 (Army at 119, Idaho at 121, NMSU at 123, and UMass at 128).

I'll let you resident College Football experts analyze this as to where each conference currently sits within the hierarchy of our current FBS system and where things will go in the future.

Heck, right now, why would MWC even consider UNT? The only thing we bring to the table is the DFW market and competitive Olympic sports.

untjim1995 · May 19, 2016

13 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

So our suck, sucks worse than their suck. And their best slightly bests ours.

Their best is rated 28th, 29th, and 56th, representing San Diego, Boise, and all of Colorado, if not the entire nation...

our best is ranked 64th and 71st and represent the attractive markets known as Hattiesburg, MS and Bowling Green, KY.

real close comparison...

Ben Gooding · May 19, 2016

1 hour ago, untjim1995 said:

Their best is rated 28th, 29th, and 56th, representing San Diego, Boise, and all of Colorado, if not the entire nation...

our best is ranked 64th and 71st and represent the attractive markets known as Hattiesburg, MS and Bowling Green, KY.

real close comparison...

But in the G5 rankings they are much closer than this. Also, let's talk match ups.

San Diego vs. Marshal

Boise vs. So Miss

Colorado St vs. WKU

As a fan of CUSA, I can honestly say I am comfortable with all of those match ups. We can take it a step further...

Air Force vs. Middle Tennessee

Nevada vs. La Tech

Are you comfortable with those 2 games? I am.

Get it? Where's the huge differential that you keep posting about? I get what the media is telling you to tell us all...but the eye test just isn't there. Would we win all of them? No, probably not. But like I said, I am comfortable with all of those match ups.

RaiderEagle · May 19, 2016

It boils down to money and politics. OSU and Tech are both little brothers to OU and UT respectively where the private schools don't have that luxury. There will be political pressure from each state that their little brother state-funded-school isn't left behind. Also, OSU and Tech are top 30 in terms of value so they do have monetary appeal...granted nothing compared to their big brothers but still better than over 100 other FBS programs. They also have large alumni pools and stadiums that house just over $60K which doesn't hurt their odds of tagging along with OU and UT. And of course if a conference wants OU ad UT for the money that comes along you once again have political pressure for the little brothers to tag along. It will be just like it was in 2011 where the PAC was willing to take OU, UT, OSU and Tech and made it painfully clear that Baylor would not be part of the deal. Had it not been for the Longhorn network already being in the works those four schools might currently be out west.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesheadlines/2011/09/18/report-pac-12-finalizing-details-to-add-ut-ou-osu-and-texas-tech

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-your-favorite-college-football-team-worth-1452473476

But I am not holding my breath this will happen. I think the Big 12 is willing to do whatever it takes to remain on life support for the foreseeable future.

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · May 19, 2016

46 minutes ago, RaiderEagle said:

It boils down to money and politics. OSU and Tech are both little brothers to OU and UT respectively where the private schools don't have that luxury. There will be political pressure from each state that their little brother state-funded-school isn't left behind. Also, OSU and Tech are top 30 in terms of value so they do have monetary appeal...granted nothing compared to their big brothers but still better than over 100 other FBS programs. They also have large alumni pools and stadiums that house just over $60K which doesn't hurt their odds of tagging along with OU and UT. And of course if a conference wants OU ad UT for the money that comes along you once again have political pressure for the little brothers to tag along. It will be just like it was in 2011 where the PAC was willing to take OU, UT, OSU and Tech and made it painfully clear that Baylor would not be part of the deal. Had it not been for the Longhorn network already being in the works those four schools might currently be out west.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesheadlines/2011/09/18/report-pac-12-finalizing-details-to-add-ut-ou-osu-and-texas-tech

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-your-favorite-college-football-team-worth-1452473476

But I am not holding my breath this will happen. I think the Big 12 is willing to do whatever it takes to remain on life support for the foreseeable future.

Sand Aggie and Oklahoma Aggie have no pull academically or athletically. They will be left behind when OU and Texas decided to jump. KU will be saved by their academic and basketball reputations.

And, if politicians couldn't keep A&M and Texas from separating, It's comical to think they'll keep Texas and Texas Tech from separating or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

At that point, expect the P5 to become the P4, and the P4 will give the Big East treatment to the Big 12. Big 12, at that point will be SWC 2.0, severely watered down without old Arkansas, Texas, and Texas A&M to lead it.

I expect the NCAA to either blow up or for the four major conference to just split off and do their own thing, leaving everyone else with the NCAA.

Whether any of this is right or wrong is irrelevant. I personally hate it. But, there really nothing the schools with no pull can do.

Ben Gooding · May 19, 2016

27 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Sand Aggie and Oklahoma Aggie have no pull academically or athletically. They will be left behind when OU and Texas decided to jump. KU will be saved by their academic and basketball reputations.

And, if politicians couldn't keep A&M and Texas from separating, It's comical to think they'll keep Texas and Texas Tech from separating or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

At that point, expect the P5 to become the P4, and the P4 will give the Big East treatment to the Big 12. Big 12, at that point will be SWC 2.0, severely watered down without old Arkansas, Texas, and Texas A&M to lead it.

I expect the NCAA to either blow up or for the four major conference to just split off and do their own thing, leaving everyone else with the NCAA.

Whether any of this is right or wrong is irrelevant. I personally hate it. But, there really nothing the schools with no pull can do.

I disagree. There is something that can be done about it. Regional programs, with or without the same current conference affiliation, need to bond together and break themselves away and dictate what happens to them rather than having someone dictate what happens. That is what can be done about it and to be honest it wouldn't be that difficult to do.

RaiderEagle · May 20, 2016

Having aggie join another P5 isn't a bad thing. Having a state funded school who is currently in a P5 get left out is. It's very simple and that's why aggie leaving is apples to oranges here.

Aquila_Viridis · May 20, 2016

Regional is BS. There's Friday night for that. SA is OK but otherwise we should get with the other lowlife city schools in CUSA and other conferences. That maybe in a couple decades has a chance of being interesting. With the leadership we have, there ain't gonna be no crowds.

The best we can hope for is to get out of any games we have against big conference schools so we aren't always showing our rears to the world. Honestly, whatever it takes, please stop playing those games.

NTXCoog · May 20, 2016

19 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

For 2016's upcoming season, preseason rankings within the G5, taken from a CFN post-spring total FBS ranking list:

UH (AAC), SDSU (MWC), Boise State (MWC), USF (AAC), WMU (MAC), AFA (MWC), Toledo (MAC), Navy (AAC), NIU (MAC), USM (CUSA), Marshall (CUSA), WKU (CUSA), Temple (AAC), Appalachian State (SBC), Memphis (AAC), Bowling Green (MAC), Georgia Southern (SBC), Cincy (AAC), UConn (AAC), East Carolina (AAC), Central Michigan (MAC), Utah State (MWC), New Mexico (MWC), Ohio (MAC), Nevada (MWC), La Tech (CUSA), UNLV (MWC), Colorado State (MWC), Arkansas State (SBC), MUTS (CUSA), Tulsa (AAC), UCF (AAC), Rice (CUSA), Wyoming (MWC), San Jose (MWC), Buffalo (MAC), ULL (SBC), Akron (MAC), FIU (CUSA), Old Dominion (CUSA), UTEP (CUSA), South Alabama (SBC), Troy (SBC), Fresno State (MWC), UTSA (CUSA), SMU (AAC), Kent State (MAC), FAU (CUSA), Miami (OH) (MAC), Tulane (AAC), Hawaii (MWC), Ball State (MAC), Army (Independent), Georgia State (SBC), Idaho (Independent/about to be FCS), Texas State (SBC), NMSU (Independent), Charlotte (CUSA), Eastern Michigan (MAC), North Texas (CUSA), ULM (SBC), and UMass (Independent)

The AAC has 1,4,8,13,15,18,19, 20, 31, 32, 46, and 50 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (21)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams(70.67)

The MWC has 2, 3, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 44, and 51 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (24)--overall avg ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (82.58)

The MAC has 5, 7, 9, 16, 21, 24, 36, 38, 47, 49, 52, and 59 of the 62 G5 teams--avg. rank (29)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (84.75)

CUSA has 10, 11, 12, 26, 30, 33, 39, 40, 41, 45, 48, 58, and 60 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (33)--overall avg. ranking within all of 128 FBS teams (98.85)

SBC has 14, 17, 29, 37, 42, 43, 54, 56, and 61 of the 62 G5 teams--avg rank (39)--avg. rank within all of 128 FBS teams (103.89)

Independents--53, 55, 57, and 62 avg rank of the 62 G5 teams(57)--avg rank within all 128 FBS teams (122.75)

Overall, in all of FBS, the AAC has the only top 20 team in UH(20th). From 21-30, the MWC has SDSU (28th) and Boise State (29th). From 31-50, the AAC adds in USF (49). From 51-64, the MAC shows up with WMU (53rd), the MWC has AFA (56th), the MAC adds in Toledo (60th), then the AAC adds in Navy (61) and the MAC adds in NIU (62). Finally at 64, exactly at the halfway point of all FBS, CUSA shows up with USM at 64th.

At the halfway point, the AAC has 3 teams listed (UH, USF, and Navy), the MWC has 3 teams listed (SDSU, Boise, and AFA), the MAC has 3 teams listed (WMU, Toledo, and NIU), and then CUSA gets in USM at 64th.

Now, it gets a bit more even, as we get into the bottom half of FBS.

From 65- 80: CUSA gets Marshall and WKU at 71 and 72, the AAC gets Temple and Memphis, at 73 and 75, the MAC gets Bowling Green at 76th, and the SBC adds in Appy State and Georgia Southern at 74 and 78. No teams from the MWC ranked in this area for this upcoming year.

From 81 -96, the last group ranked above the bottom quartile of FBS: The AAC has Cincy, UConn, ECU, and Tulsa at 81, 82, 83, and 96. The MAC adds in Central Michigan and Ohio at 84 and 89. The MWC adds in Utah State, New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, and Colorado State at 87, 88, 90, 92, and 93. CUSA adds in La Tech at 91 and MUTS at 95. The SBC adds in Arkansas State at 94.

That leaves the Bottom Quartile of the upcoming season to be ranked 97-128 as the AAC having three (UCF, SMU, and Tulane) at 98, 112, and 116. The MWC has 4 (Wyoming, SJSU, Fresno and Hawaii) at 100, 101, 110, and 117. The MAC has 6 ( Buffalo, Akron, Kent State, Miami (OH), Ball State, and Eastern Michigan) at 102, 104, 113, 115, 118, and 125. CUSA adds in 8 (Rice, FIU, ODU, UTEP, UTSA, FAU, Charlotte, and UNT) at 99, 105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 124, and 126. The SBC has 6 (ULL, USA, Troy, Georgia State, Texas State, and ULM) at 103, 108, 109, 120, 122, and 127. And the independents are 4 (Army at 119, Idaho at 121, NMSU at 123, and UMass at 128).

I'll let you resident College Football experts analyze this as to where each conference currently sits within the hierarchy of our current FBS system and where things will go in the future.

On top of the mean, look at the median of the G5 rankings.

The AAC median is higher than their mean indicating they have some bottom dwellers really dragging the conference down. MWC and MAC mean and median are about the same. CUSA and SBC, the median is higher than the mean indicating they have a few good teams that pull the average up.

While the mean and median are about the same for the MAC, they have the highest standard deviation indicating they have the widest distribution of rankings.

oldguystudent · May 20, 2016

17 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

San Diego vs. Marshal

Just for clarification because as a Southern Californian, this kinda jumped off the screen at me.

San Diego is a non-scholarship FCS football program that plays in the like-minded non-scholarship FCS football conference, The Pioneer Football League.

San Diego St. is an FBS program that plays in the Mountain West Conference.

The former is a private Catholic School that otherwise plays in the West Coast Conference, and is located on a hill above Old Town San Diego.

The latter is a public school, part of the Cal State system, located just west of San Diego proper in Interstate 8, and known for its hard partying student bodies.

All apologies for being so pedantic. To me, seeing San Diego vs San Diego St is akin to you seeing Texas vs Texas St.

Ben Gooding · May 20, 2016

1 hour ago, oldguystudent said:

Just for clarification because as a Southern Californian, this kinda jumped off the screen at me.

San Diego is a non-scholarship FCS football program that plays in the like-minded non-scholarship FCS football conference, The Pioneer Football League.

San Diego St. is an FBS program that plays in the Mountain West Conference.

The former is a private Catholic School that otherwise plays in the West Coast Conference, and is located on a hill above Old Town San Diego.

The latter is a public school, part of the Cal State system, located just west of San Diego proper in Interstate 8, and known for its hard partying student bodies.

All apologies for being so pedantic. To me, seeing San Diego vs San Diego St is akin to you seeing Texas vs Texas St.

I'm familiar with both of these schools and their locations within San Diego. I've toured them both and even went to a Mark Twain festival in Old Town last Summer. However, I was referencing SDSU.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Ben Gooding

untjim1995 · May 20, 2016

20 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

But in the G5 rankings they are much closer than this. Also, let's talk match ups.

San Diego vs. Marshal

Boise vs. So Miss

Colorado St vs. WKU

As a fan of CUSA, I can honestly say I am comfortable with all of those match ups. We can take it a step further...

Air Force vs. Middle Tennessee

Nevada vs. La Tech

Are you comfortable with those 2 games? I am.

Get it? Where's the huge differential that you keep posting about? I get what the media is telling you to tell us all...but the eye test just isn't there. Would we win all of them? No, probably not. But like I said, I am comfortable with all of those match ups.

Anybody can be comfortable with matchups, since the game is played on the field, but the MWC has sent its champion to a BCS Bowl Game on 5 occasions, 4 of which were not automatic. The AAC has sent two (UCF and UH), while the MAC has also sent one (NIU). CUSA and SBC are at zero...

SDSU is preseason ranked 28th. USM is 64th. Boise is ranked 29th, Marshall is 71st. AFA is ranked 53rd, WKU is ranked 72nd. Utah State is ranked 87th, La Tech is 91st. New Mexico is ranked 88th, MUTS is 95th. Nevada is 90th, Rice is 99th. UNLV is 92nd, FIU is 105th. CSU is 93rd, ODU is 106th. Wyoming is 100, UTEP is 107. SJSU is 101, UTSA is 111. Fresno is 110, FAU is 114. Hawaii is 117, Charlotte is 124. And finally, UNT is 126.

The spreads between the top 12 of each league are 36, 42, and 19 for the top three comparisons that favor the MWC over CUSA. The next 3 spreads are 4, 7, and 9 in the favor of the MWC. The next 3 spreads are 13, 13, and 7, all in favor of the MWC. Finally, the last three spreads are 10, 4, and 7, all in favor of the MWC. That doesn't count the absolute embarrassment that is UNT at 126th.

Just food for thought. The other gigantic advantage that the MWC has over CUSA, SBC, and MAC is that they are made up of major schools within these western states, getting their full backing. Nevada and UNLV, Hawaii, Colorado State and AFA, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah State, and Boise State represent the #1, #2, or #3 schools in their state. In CUSA, Marshall is a #2 in WV, La Tech is probably #3 in Louisiana (which means nothing behind LSU) and USM is clearly #3 in Mississippi. Rice, UTEP, UTSA, and UNT are nowhere near the top three in Texas, nor are the F_Us in Florida. ODU MIGHT be #3 in Virginia, but Charlotte is nowhere near that in North Carolina. WKU is clearly #3 in Kentucky. MUTS is clearly #4 in Tennessee IOW, the first conference has legislative pull to go with its programs that are historically better by a long ways than the current CUSA, SBC, and MAC. None of these last three teams have the media, the legislative pull, or devoted large fanbases to compare with the MWC and AAC when looked at as a whole.

Ben Gooding · May 20, 2016

2 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

Anybody can be comfortable with matchups, since the game is played on the field, but the MWC has sent its champion to a BCS Bowl Game on 5 occasions, 4 of which were not automatic. The AAC has sent two (UCF and UH), while the MAC has also sent one (NIU). CUSA and SBC are at zero...

SDSU is preseason ranked 28th. USM is 64th. Boise is ranked 29th, Marshall is 71st. AFA is ranked 53rd, WKU is ranked 72nd. Utah State is ranked 87th, La Tech is 91st. New Mexico is ranked 88th, MUTS is 95th. Nevada is 90th, Rice is 99th. UNLV is 92nd, FIU is 105th. CSU is 93rd, ODU is 106th. Wyoming is 100, UTEP is 107. SJSU is 101, UTSA is 111. Fresno is 110, FAU is 114. Hawaii is 117, Charlotte is 124. And finally, UNT is 126.

The spreads between the top 12 of each league are 36, 42, and 19 for the top three comparisons that favor the MWC over CUSA. The next 3 spreads are 4, 7, and 9 in the favor of the MWC. The next 3 spreads are 13, 13, and 7, all in favor of the MWC. Finally, the last three spreads are 10, 4, and 7, all in favor of the MWC. That doesn't count the absolute embarrassment that is UNT at 126th.

Just food for thought. The other gigantic advantage that the MWC has over CUSA, SBC, and MAC is that they are made up of major schools within these western states, getting their full backing. Nevada and UNLV, Hawaii, Colorado State and AFA, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah State, and Boise State represent the #1, #2, or #3 schools in their state. In CUSA, Marshall is a #2 in WV, La Tech is probably #3 in Louisiana (which means nothing behind LSU) and USM is clearly #3 in Mississippi. Rice, UTEP, UTSA, and UNT are nowhere near the top three in Texas, nor are the F_Us in Florida. ODU MIGHT be #3 in Virginia, but Charlotte is nowhere near that in North Carolina. WKU is clearly #3 in Kentucky. MUTS is clearly #4 in Tennessee IOW, the first conference has legislative pull to go with its programs that are historically better by a long ways than the current CUSA, SBC, and MAC. None of these last three teams have the media, the legislative pull, or devoted large fanbases to compare with the MWC and AAC when looked at as a whole.

Again, your rankings are media related. Media drives college football and its rankings. And for the record, I am not saying that CUSA is a better conference than MWC. As far as the state rankings...duh. We are a South and Southeastern dominated conference..Where the best football is played in the country with the largest populations. Of course our schools are going to be ranked within the respective states where they are. And of course some of the MWC schools will be 1 or 2 in their states. You are for crying out loud comparing the states of Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming to Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Duh. Nevada is essentially a 1 or 2 school state as is Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, etc. Where you see this as a strength for the MWC and a weakness towards CUSA, I see it as quite the opposite. We have bigger pools of alum in CUSA, potentially more everything. But, CUSA is a young conference as is which started in the mid-90's I believe. But now we have an almost entirely new set of teams within. MWC has continuity within their conference whereas we do not. Conference realignment is a swinging pendulum and there will be more changes in the near future. CUSA and the teams within must do everything that they can to ensure that its teams are positioned as best as they can be.