At-large evaluations

[aceinthehole]

Its way too early to begin selecting possible teams, but I am wondering how you would evaluate the field for the 8 at-large spots. Let's assume you can place up to 20 teams on the "board."

What simple categories would you use and weight to comapre teams? What format would you use to develop resumes?

For example:

1) Quality wins - How many wins over ranked teams, or I-A opponents?
2) Bad losses - Did the team avoid bad losses to teams with losing records or sub DI teams?
3) Team ranking - Is the team ranked in the I-AA poll?
4) Overall strenght of schedule - how do all opponents on the schedule compare?
5) Overall record - What is the team's overall record?
6) Team stats - Is the team a I-AA leader in a offensive or defensive catagory?

[dbackjon]

1 - I don't think there will be twenty eligible teams....

But, of those on the board, I would look at:

1) Quality wins
2) Bad losses
3) Overall record
4) Schedule strength - including I-A teams played.

The others should have no bearing.

[Tribe4SF]

At-large candidates will have similar records for the most part. Deliberations should begin with strength of schedule. Start by taking the best records with the strongest schedules. That will leave a few to chose from with some 10-1 or 9-2 teams against some 8-3 or even 7-4 teams. Strength of schedule and quality wins results in a team like JMU at 8-3 getting the nod over a team like Central Conn. at 10-1.