šŸ“” AAC commissioner alleges 'double standard' in College Football Playoff rankings- ESPN

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bama News
  • Start date Start date
B

Bama News


American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco said the 13-member College Football Playoff selection committee has ranked the teams in his conference using a "double standard," not just when measured against the Power 5 conferences but also the other Group of 5 leagues.

"Each time I've watched the release of the rankings, I've seen an unfortunate predictability, and why wouldn't I be upset?" Aresco said Wednesday. "I'm not criticizing the committee personally, I've never done that, but what I'm doing is I'm trying to take the committee to task on their methodology and their conclusions. I want to point out the facts. My feeling is this conference has been undervalued and disrespected since the CFP began."

While the lower portion of the committee's top 25 doesn't typically garner much attention, it's vital to the Group of 5 conferences because the highest-ranked champion is guaranteed a lucrative spot in a New Year's Six Bowl. This year, that team will earn a trip to the Goodyear Cotton Bowl Classic.

No. 18 Memphis is currently the front-runner, followed by No. 19 Cincinnati -- one-loss AAC teams that play each other Nov. 29 and likely again in the conference championship game.

Aresco took particular exception to No. 25 SMU's ranking behind No. 24 Appalachian State this week. He also disagreed with the Mustangs sitting behind No. 20 Boise State and two four-loss Power 5 teams, No. 22 Iowa State and No. 23 USC.

"We've been fighting what I think is a P5 preference," Aresco said. "We've been fighting it for years and we're fighting now a double standard when it comes to evaluating G5 teams."

When asked for a comment in response, CFP executive director Bill Hancock said, "Certainly, I feel that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion."

Aresco had multiple facts at his fingertips in a call with ESPN on Wednesday to help illustrate the strength of the AAC, which is 14-1 this year against the other Group of 5 conferences (4-0 against the Sun Belt, 3-0 against the Mountain West, 6-0 vs. C-USA and 1-1 vs. MAC). The only loss was Temple's loss to Buffalo.

Aresco also said the AAC has 44 wins against Power 5 opponents since 2014, five top-10 wins during that span, and three New Year's Day bowl wins over top-10 teams. He was particularly frustrated SMU wasn't ranked ahead of Appalachian State, considering the Mustangs' lone loss was to a ranked Memphis team.

"Appalachian State loses to Georgia Southern at home," he said. "SMU plays in a much tougher conference. It's not even close."

He also wondered why Boise State, whose only loss was Oct. 19 at BYU, moved up in the ranking and SMU moved down.

"SMU beat TCU on the road and didn't need three overtimes to do it," Aresco quipped.

Aresco is already prepping for the fact that Memphis and Cincinnati will finish with multiple losses because of the regular-season matchup.

"A two-loss champion from our league ... they should be a lock," Aresco said. "If the CFP standard is to identify and rank the best teams -- and it is -- there's no question in my mind that our champion, whoever it turns out to be, will be the best team in the G5 and better than many P5 teams that are ranked ahead of them."
 
Has a point IMO with the complaint over the 2 4-loss teams ISU and USC
"A two-loss champion from our league ... they should be a lock," Aresco said.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Aresco is implying here. I am not sure. I think he's saying "lock" in regard to a team from his conference being awarded the G5's spot in the NY6.

That said I'm not sure Memphis is a team you want to hang your hat on here. It was certainly a good win to open the season over Ole Miss (won by five.) Then again, a loss by the Tigers to the sixth place team in the AAC (Temple) doesn't bode real well for a resume.
 
they would need to arrange their conference schedules to a number where the 4-5 other non-conference games are all against mid tier or higher teams from SEC, ACC, PAC, Big eleventeen, etc... Otherwise, you're going to be perpetually in the smaller bowls. Not sure why this is even debated but....
 
I just glanced at UCF over the period Aresco mentions:

Their wins are against:

ACC: Pitt (7-7)
B1G: Maryland (4-8)
SEC: Auburn (10-4)

So, three.

By my count 42... you missed one for UCF (Stanford).

NAVY
2015: Pittsburgh (ACC)
2016: Notre Dame (Indy/do we count this?)
2017: Virginia (ACC)
2018: None
2019: None (so far)

MEMPHIS
2014: None
2015: Ole Miss (SEC)
2016: None
2017: UCLA (Pac-12)
2018: None
2019: Ole Miss (SEC)

HOUSTON
2014: Pittsburgh (ACC)
2015: Louisville (ACC), Vanderbilt (SEC) and Florida State (ACC)
2016: Oklahoma (Big 12), Louisville (ACC)
2017: Arizona (Pac 12)
2018: Arizona (Pac 12)
2019: None

TEMPLE
2014: Vanderbilt (SEC)
2015: Penn State (Big 10)
2016: None
2017: None
2018: Maryland (Big 10)
2019: Maryland (Big 10), Georgia Tech (ACC)

CINCINNATI
2014: None
2015: Miami (ACC)
2016: Purdue (Big 10)
2017: None
2018: UCLA (Pac-12), Virginia Tech (ACC)
2019: UCLA (Pac-12)

SOUTH FLORIDA
2014: None
2015: Syracuse (ACC)
2016: Syracuse (ACC), South Carolina (SEC)
2017: Illinois (Big 10), Texas Tech (Big 12)
2018: Georgia Tech (ACC), Illinois (Big 10)
2019: None

TULSA
2014: None
2015: None
2016: None
2017: None
2018: None
2019: None

TULANE
2014: None
2015: None
2016: None
2017: None
2018: None
2019: None

SMU
2014: None
2015: None
2016: None
2017: None
2018: None
2019: TCU (Big 12)

EAST CAROLINA
2014: Virginia Tech (ACC), North Carolina (ACC)
2015: Virginia Tech (ACC)
2016: NC State (ACC)
2017: None
2018: North Carolina (ACC)
2019: None

UCONN
2014: None
2015: None
2016: Virginia (ACC)
2017: None
2018: None
2019: None

UCF
2014: None
2015: None
2016: None
2017: Maryland (Big 10, Auburn (SEC)
2018: Pittsburgh (ACC)
2019: Stanford (Pac-12)
 
This is just my opinion...
The group of 5 need their own playoff. NONE of the G5 teams play a schedule week to week to week against teams that physically beat them up to the point that depth becomes the issue. Take any of them and place them in a P5 conference and everything changes for them.
A team that I think should have been placed in a G5 conference, Rutgers in the big10, has yet to be competitive.
Again, this is my opinion.
I just get tired of hearing talking heads (and, in this case a commish) crying for the "rights" of the G5 to be considered for playoffs. And worried about a new year's six bowl.
 
Back
Top Bottom