Big Sky Depth

[kalm]

The Big Sky might be down a little this year, but from an eyeball test, some of the worst teams in the league seem to have more talent and athletes than the bottom dwellers historically have. In looking at the schedules of the bottom three BSC teams who are a combined 2-20, there's obviously more to the story than win-loss record.

UC Davis has played:

#11 Stanford
Colorado State
Ranked EWU
Ranked Montana
Ranked Montana State

Weber State has played:

#19 Arizona State
#1 NDSU
5-2 SFA
4-3 Cal Poly
4-4 Sac St.
Ranked Montana State

Southern Utah has played:

Nevada
Ranked Southeastern Louisiana
Ranked South Dakota State
Fresno State
Ranked Eastern Washington
4-3 Cal Poly
4-3 Idaho State

These three teams have played way more FBS and FCS ranked teams than teams with a losing record.

Some things to consider:

1) It's still really difficult to schedule out West in regards to giving your team a chance at receiving an at-large playoff bid. Southern Utah goes from a playoff team last year to basically having no chance before they even start conference play. Idaho State has been scheduling two FBS and two sub-DI games lately, basically guaranteeing they have to get to 9 wins for consideration.

2) Conference depth and records alone can be deceiving in both poll voting and playoff consideration.

3) How much does opponents SoS figure into computer ratings vs. opponents win-loss record?

[thebootfitter]

Good post for some perspective, kalm. I haven't seen enough of those games to add more real perspective, but is your position backed up by the box scores and stats? Or are these teams getting blown out on the field?

I know Weber played NDSU closer than expected. And they passed the eyeball test for a pretty respectable team, if you ask me. [Funny... autocorrect kept trying to turn my "test" into "teat." Ha ha!]

Regarding your point #3, I wish the computer ratings folks would publish more of their baseline assumptions. Though, I can appreciate that they don't want their special sauce known to the world either. And even if they did offer more details into their methodology, I suspect it would be a bit beyond the grasp of most of the football viewing audience. Myself included, and I fancy myself a fair hand at statistics and mathematics and such.

[catbob]

Weber and Davis both seemed to have pretty good athletes. But being an athlete doesn't necessarily make you a good football player.

I think it comes down to coaching - I don't think there is great coaching across the board in the conference. There is some inexperienced coaches as well this year:

UND - 1st year
SAC - 1st year
UCD - 2nd year
Weber - 1st year

Then you have two guys entering their 4th and 5th year, who aren't making the strides you'd like to see at this point - Burton at PSU (4) and Collins and UNC (5).

Kramer seems to finally have ISU headed in the right direction in his 4th year after inheriting the dumpster fire that was ISU football.

Then you have the stalwarts in Soeurs (17th year!), Baldwin (7th), Ash (8th), and Lamb (7th).

Delaney just in his 3rd at UM but as they like to say, UM coaches and recruits itself.

So arguably the worst 4 teams in the conference all have 1st or 2nd year head coaches. Burton isn't winning at PSU but no one has been able to do that for quite a while - same with UNC.

[slostang]

Weber and Davis both seemed to have pretty good athletes. But being an athlete doesn't necessarily make you a good football player.

I think it comes down to coaching - I don't think there is great coaching across the board in the conference. There is some inexperienced coaches as well this year:

UND - 1st year
SAC - 1st year
UCD - 2nd year
Weber - 1st year

Then you have two guys entering their 4th and 5th year, who aren't making the strides you'd like to see at this point - Burton at PSU (4) and Collins and UNC (5).

Kramer seems to finally have ISU headed in the right direction in his 4th year after inheriting the dumpster fire that was ISU football.

Then you have the stalwarts in Soeurs (17th year!), Baldwin (7th), Ash (8th), and Lamb (7th).

Delaney just in his 3rd at UM but as they like to say, UM coaches and recruits itself.

So arguably the worst 4 teams in the conference all have 1st or 2nd year head coaches. Burton isn't winning at PSU but no one has been able to do that for quite a while - same with UNC.
You forgot Tim Walsh who is in his 6th year at Cal Poly and 20th in the Big Sky (14 years at Portland State).

[cpalum]

The Big Sky might be down a little this year, but from an eyeball test, some of the worst teams in the league seem to have more talent and athletes than the bottom dwellers historically have. In looking at the schedules of the bottom three BSC teams who are a combined 2-20, there's obviously more to the story than win-loss record.

UC Davis has played:

#11 Stanford
Colorado State
Ranked EWU
Ranked Montana
Ranked Montana State

Weber State has played:

#19 Arizona State
#1 NDSU
5-2 SFA
4-3 Cal Poly
4-4 Sac St.
Ranked Montana State

Southern Utah has played:

Nevada
Ranked Southeastern Louisiana
Ranked South Dakota State
Fresno State
Ranked Eastern Washington
4-3 Cal Poly
4-3 Idaho State

These three teams have played way more FBS and FCS ranked teams than teams with a losing record.

Some things to consider:

1) It's still really difficult to schedule out West in regards to giving your team a chance at receiving an at-large playoff bid. Southern Utah goes from a playoff team last year to basically having no chance before they even start conference play. Idaho State has been scheduling two FBS and two sub-DI games lately, basically guaranteeing they have to get to 9 wins for consideration.

2) Conference depth and records alone can be deceiving in both poll voting and playoff consideration.

3) How much does opponents SoS figure into computer ratings vs. opponents win-loss record?


Great post and very true. When Cal Poly was in the Great West with NDSU, UND, Davis, SDSU etc. it was much worse. It's better in the BSC but suffice to say teams out west have a much tougher time with scheduling out of conference

[rokamortis]

These three teams have played way more FBS and FCS ranked teams than teams with a losing record.


At some point don't you have to drop the 'good loss' argument and start looking at ability to win? Sure they may have some tough schedules, but it isn't nothing but world beaters. They've had some easier games.

The three teams have 2 wins combined. 1 win is against one of these teams, the other is against a bad DII.

They are losing against mediocre teams too. They aren't winning and aren't very good. That is the reality.

When I see a team schedule 2-3 FBS schools I feel sorry for them. Not for the SOS but that they are selling themselves out for a payday. One money game, ok fine - but when you start to put 2-3 FBS teams on your schedule then you are doing it to yourself. I saw your reasoning / excuse that it is hard to schedule but a lot of conferences / teams can say that. The reality is there are ways to avoid these games if you want to, but they don't want to as they want / need the money.

[Silenoz]

I have a hard time defending anyone who gives up 77 at home