FlyYtown WAS RIGHT!!!

[Reed Rothchild]

The system is messed up. YSU should have gotten in last year and UNI this year, but the committee is willing to take inferior teams in order to have balance among the conferences.

I thought the process was about selecting the 16 best teams? Not about getting enough teams in from each conference.:bang:

Why does UNI and YSU get penalized from playing in a superior conference? Should we bolt for a different league like EIU so we can make the playoffs every year?

[PantherRob82]

Let's join the MEAC. xlolx

[Reed Rothchild]

F that! I'll take the Big Sky anyday!

[putter]

So how do you handle it? Look at March Madness where the power conferences get 5-6 out of 10 teams into the bracket. With only 16 teams what should be the cutoff? Go .500 or better in your conference to be considered? Or .600 or better? Taking the Big Sky this year Montana St was 6-2 and Montana was 8-0. I have been hearing for the last couple of years how weak our conference is overall and then Northern Arizona goes and beats #1 McNeese on the road and then Eastern Washington goes on the road and beats #1 SIU on the road. We all are biased towards our conference but conference play is difficult now matter which conference you play in.

[BDKJMU]

The system is messed up. YSU should have gotten in last year and UNI this year, but the committee is willing to take inferior teams in order to have balance among the conferences.

I thought the process was about selecting the 16 best teams? Not about getting enough teams in from each conference.:bang:

Why does UNI and YSU get penalized from playing in a superior conference? Should we bolt for a different league like EIU so we can make the playoffs every year?

The biggest crock was Lafayette getting in. 6-5 against a very weak schedule. 1-4 OOC, 0-4 against Ivy League. Only played and beat one schlorship team- Sacred Heart- a very weak (2-9) partial schlorship team from the NEC. IMHO the minimum 7 Div I win recquirement should be enforced for ALL playoff participants- AQs and at large. Also IMHO these non schlorship PL league teams, who have 6 league games and 5 OOC and that are often only scheduling 1 or 2 schlorship OOC should IMHO have a minimum of 2 wins against schlorship teams to get in. That way they'd schedule 3-5 OOC schlorship teams and maybe only 0-2 non schlorship teams and not all these non schlorship patsies OOC, which now that the NEC has gone partial schlorship in the northeast is mostly the Ivy League.

[BDKJMU]

We all are biased towards our conference but conference play is difficult now matter which conference you play in.

Yeah, conference play is really difficult in that cupcake league the USD plays in. :rolleyes:

[FlyYtown]

I WAS RIGHT!!!

Wow that took 2 years of posting on here!
If UNI was in, I'd have them favored against anyone except Appy and Montana.

[Reed Rothchild]

So how do you handle it? Look at March Madness where the power conferences get 5-6 out of 10 teams into the bracket. With only 16 teams what should be the cutoff? Go .500 or better in your conference to be considered? Or .600 or better? Taking the Big Sky this year Montana St was 6-2 and Montana was 8-0. I have been hearing for the last couple of years how weak our conference is overall and then Northern Arizona goes and beats #1 McNeese on the road and then Eastern Washington goes on the road and beats #1 SIU on the road. We all are biased towards our conference but conference play is difficult now matter which conference you play in.

So, can you still tell me what QUALITY I-AA wins that Montana ST has?

[JohnStOnge]

The biggest crock was Lafayette getting in. 6-5 against a very weak schedule. .

That was not a crock because Lafayette won its conference's automatic bid. It's league has proven over the years that it deserves an automatic bid. Maybe it had a down season but that doesn't mean the automatic bid can or should be taken away.

The crock is having a selection committee at all. There ought to be an objective, purely mathematical system everybody agrees to before the season. Basically: Pick a power ratings system or combination thereof and let the chips fall where they may. The 8 highest rated eligible that aren't already auto bids get the 8 at large spots.

Only problem is that if you'd have done that this year San Diego would've had a real good shot of being in and I can see that a lot of people wouldn't have liked that.

If you'd have taken the system listed at http://tbeck.freeshell.org/fb/iaaresults06.txt that had the highest percent correct in predicting winners this regular season, the 8 at large bids would've been:

San Diego
James Madison
New Hampshire
Illinois State
Portland State
Northern Iowa
Southern Illinois
Cal Poly

If you'd have taken the system that did the best job of "retrodiction" with respect to the games played thus far (explaining past results), the 8 at large bids would've been:

James Madison
New Hampshire
Portland State
Southern Illinois
San Diego
Northern Iowa
Illinois State
Maine

The same teams except for one would've picked Maine while the other would've picked Cal Poly.

[BDKJMU]

That was not a crock because Lafayette won its conference's automatic bid. It's league has proven over the years that it deserves an automatic bid. Maybe it had a down season but that doesn't mean the automatic bid can or should be taken away.

I didn't say the auto bid should be taken away (as in permanently) but rather the 7 Div I win miniumum threshold should apply to ALL AQ conferences. So in that rare once in a while case the AQ from a weaker conference didn't meet the threshold a much more deserving team would get the bid. Either that, or get rid of the 7 win threshold. It should apply to ALL, or NONE. Not just at large.

[skinny_uncle]

I WAS RIGHT!!!

Wow that took 2 years of posting on here!
If UNI was in, I'd have them favored against anyone except Appy and Montana.
Ahem!
You might want to add SIU to that list.
:D

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

I didn't say the auto bid should be taken away (as in permanently) but rather the 7 Div I win miniumum threshold should apply to ALL AQ conferences. So in that rare once in a while case the AQ from a weaker conference didn't meet the threshold a much more deserving team would get the bid. Either that, or get rid of the 7 win threshold. It should apply to ALL, or NONE. Not just at large.

I strongly disagree. The AQ is the AQ. Not the Pards fault their competition crumbled against them. So what if they lose some OOC games, really. I put a whole lot of stock in AQs, and I believe it says something regardless what league you are from. The conferences that have AQs are deserving when looked at through a historical lense. Even the MEAC has FAMU that won it all in '78 (I think).

[FlyYtown]

Ahem!
You might want to add SIU to that list.
:D

I have them destroying UT-MARTIN by 28..

[Reed Rothchild]

FWIW, I wouldn't be complaining if UNI had a 7-4 record with NO wins against the top Gateway teams. BUT, UNI beat Illinois St soundly and autobid YSU on the road! Had UNI not beaten any top Gateway team like in 2004, I wouldn't be saying a word.

[JohnStOnge]

I didn't say the auto bid should be taken away (as in permanently) but rather the 7 Div I win miniumum threshold should apply to ALL AQ conferences. So in that rare once in a while case the AQ from a weaker conference didn't meet the threshold a much more deserving team would get the bid. Either that, or get rid of the 7 win threshold. It should apply to ALL, or NONE. Not just at large.

I don't like the 7 "D-I" win threshold. The reason I don't like it is that there's a lot of overlap between CS (gosh, I sure liked "I-AA" better) and D-II. As I've said before, it's ridiculous to have a system that assumes Northern Iowa played a weaker opponent in North Dakota than, say, Coastal Carolina played in playing Savannah State. I think it even extends into D-III. Would anybody here favor Savannah State to beat Mount Union? I think Wisconsin LaCrosse kind of told us something by beating South Dakota State too. South Dakota State was a pretty good I-AA team this past season.

To me, assuming "lower Division" means weaker opponent in every case is complete fallacy and any system that incorporates such an assumption is flawed.

[bandl]

I don't like the 7 "D-I" win threshold. The reason I don't like it is that there's a lot of overlap between CS (gosh, I sure liked "I-AA" better) and D-II. As I've said before, it's ridiculous to have a system that assumes Northern Iowa played a weaker opponent in North Dakota than, say, Coastal Carolina played in playing Savannah State. I think it even extends into D-III. Would anybody here favor Savannah State to beat Mount Union? I think Wisconsin LaCrosse kind of told us something by beating South Dakota State too. South Dakota State was a pretty good I-AA team this past season.

To me, assuming "lower Division" means weaker opponent in every case is complete fallacy and any system that incorporates such an assumption is flawed.
Thennnnnnnnnnnnnn..........don't schedule a DII if you don't think your team can secure 7 DI wins. It's that simple. xcoffeex

[Reed Rothchild]

UNI did secure 7 DI one wins this year. A win against a DII would have been moot when considering the # of DI WINS.

[BDKJMU]

Just for the record, I don't think the Patriot is the weakest autobid league-that would be the MEAC. I don't think the field, unless it was expanded to 24 like DIII (not a good idea in my mind), should have more than 8 autobids/less that 8 at large. In order to keep that, if say the NEC continues to get stronger, esp if they ever to to the full 63 schlorship from the 30 limit they put in this season, or say the Big South got alot stronger, and one of these conferences was being considered for an autobid, IMHO that autobid should come from the weakest current autobid conference, not at the expense of one of the at large bids. If the autobid system will always be there, I don't think it should ever be more than half the field

[MiloCat]

Just for the record, I don't think the Patriot is the weakest autobid league-that would be the MEAC. I don't think the field, unless it was expanded to 24 like DIII (not a good idea in my mind), should have more than 8 autobids/less that 8 at large. In order to keep that, if say the NEC continues to get stronger, esp if they ever to to the full 63 schlorship from the 30 limit they put in this season, or say the Big South got alot stronger, and one of these conferences was being considered for an autobid, IMHO that autobid should come from the weakest current autobid conference, not at the expense of one of the at large bids. If the autobid system will always be there, I don't think it should ever be more than half the field

I think there is a rule saying autobids can't make up more than half the field.

[Tailbone]

F that! I'll take the Big Sky anyday!

And play for conference runner-up every year?
Why would you want to do that?

[kardplayer]

I don't like the 7 "D-I" win threshold. The reason I don't like it is that there's a lot of overlap between CS (gosh, I sure liked "I-AA" better) and D-II. As I've said before, it's ridiculous to have a system that assumes Northern Iowa played a weaker opponent in North Dakota than, say, Coastal Carolina played in playing Savannah State. I think it even extends into D-III. Would anybody here favor Savannah State to beat Mount Union? I think Wisconsin LaCrosse kind of told us something by beating South Dakota State too. South Dakota State was a pretty good I-AA team this past season.

To me, assuming "lower Division" means weaker opponent in every case is complete fallacy and any system that incorporates such an assumption is flawed.

The point of the 7 win rule is to encourage teams to play others in their own classification. Its hard enough to schedule when some schools are locked up OOC years in advance, when others refuse to play OOC I-AA teams on the road, and when many/most teams are using one OOC to play money games against I-AA.

I don't disagree that North Dakota is probably/actually better than Savannah State - but if they want to play I-AA schools, they should have to actually step up to I-AA...

[Reed Rothchild]

And play for conference runner-up every year?
Why would you want to do that?

Because as the runner-up you would ALWAYS make the playoffs, duh!

[Chi Panther]

And play for conference runner-up every year?
Why would you want to do that?

Montana probably wouldn't have 50 BSC Championships having to play in CF every other year......

[putter]

Montana probably wouldn't have 50 BSC Championships having to play in CF every other year......

Right, we would have 47! :smiley_wi

[BearsCountry]

Its alright the MVC/Gateway is always good at getting screw jobs by the NCAA.

[AZGrizFan]

So, can you still tell me what QUALITY I-AA wins that Montana ST has?

Seven. One against Colorado, and six against the fellow members of the Big Sky Conference. You're starting to sound like the YSU dorks last year, Reed. You need to give it up. Every other UNI poster realized from the get go that their selection was iffy, and if you're going to leave it in the hands of the committee this is what you get. You want to say you got "Woffed", fine. But all you had to do was take the suspense out of it and WIN another game, and this would be a non issue. This crying over spilt milk is getting real old.

And BTW, although this might have been a down year for the BSC, in any other year (if UNI replaced UNC), you guys would go 5-3. It ain't no picnic, pal. I think EWU proved that to your guys last year.

Go to Crapsville where you belong. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Khan4Cats]

If all the committee did was compare wins, I still think UNI stacks up better in that department. We certainly fared better in the loss department. But that is not the information that was given by the committee. It was a POLITICAL decision to not award a bid because of how many our conference had already been awarded and had NOTHING to do with picking the next best team. That is what is blatantly wrong and hard to swallow. Had Montana State beaten Montana and earned the bid, you would not have heard any complaining with our exclusion, but this was not an earned bid.

[BearsCountry]

If all the committee did was compare wins, I still think UNI stacks up better in that department. We certainly fared better in the loss department. But that is not the information that was given by the committee. It was a POLITICAL decision to not award a bid because of how many our conference had already been awarded and had NOTHING to do with picking the next best team. That is what is blatantly wrong and hard to swallow. Had Montana State beaten Montana and earned the bid, you would not have heard any complaining with our exclusion, but this was not an earned bid.

Same BS happened in basketball, Missouri State should have been instead of freaking Utah State or Air Force.