AGS Top 25 - How They Fared Week 6 2017

[superman7515]

Good evening everyone,

Still waiting on a close one between #11 Eastern Washington and #38 UC Davis, but everything else is updated for the time being, so might as well post it up...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ECvOiZNPEdl9aLbuuVmTXL2LR6iDvuYCa2dRiX-UFlM/edit?usp=sharing

Again this week there are some hidden columns at the end of the spreadsheet (columns P through T) that break down the home/away/neutral record against FCS teams only along with points for and points against in FCS games only. Just something I'm interested in myself, so it's hidden for those who want their normal spreadsheet, but if you highlight columns O and U, right click, and "Unhide columns", you can see the info as well if you are interested.

[TheKingpin28]

As usual, Supe, you come to the rescue with this work you do.

[BEAR]

Awesome Supe....

[caribbeanhen]

This could be the week the Hens claw themselves back into the AGS top 25

[fansincehighschool]

Good evening everyone,


Again this week there are some hidden columns at the end of the spreadsheet (columns P through T) that break down the home/away/neutral record against FCS teams only along with points for and points against in FCS games only. Just something I'm interested in myself, so it's hidden for those who want their normal spreadsheet, but if you highlight columns O and U, right click, and "Unhide columns", you can see the info as well if you are interested.

We get spreadsheet 'how to do' pointers too. Thanks Super.
xlolx

[WestCoastAggie]

This could be the week the Hens claw themselves back into the AGS top 25

They'll replace the Citadel, I believe. A better question is, "Will Grambling Replace UT-Martin in the top 25?"

Also, how do voters feel about the undefeated Ivies?

Lastly, has South Dakota done enough to garner top-3 considerations? Will past performance come into play, or does the "eye test" overrule all?

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

I generally do not vote for teams from conferences not participating in the playoffs. Delaware should be in this week. A lot of traffic 15-25. The tough schedule vs. W/L record debates will begin about now.

What about Northern Arizona with the big upset over Illinois St.?

[Mayville Bison]

Seriously considering a new #1 not named JMU or NDSU this week.

Delaware and NAU should at the very least be in consideration for everyone if not for sure in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[POD Knows]

This could be the week the Hens claw themselves back into the AGS top 25I already had them in my top 25,

[kalm]

I generally do not vote for teams from conferences not participating in the playoffs. Delaware should be in this week. A lot of traffic 15-25. The tough schedule vs. W/L record debates will begin about now.

What about Northern Arizona with the big upset over Illinois St.?

This. I'll consider a MEAC or SWAC because the #2 will play in the post season, but never an Ivy.

And schedule needs to be considered. E.G.: EWU's defense has given up a ton of points and yards but we've also faced the # 5,7,16, and 33 offenses in FCS and the #7 in FBS.

For comparison, JSU has faced the #22 FBS offense and the next best is the #65 in FCS.

[dbackjon]

This is the week NAU should be in

three straight 18 or more point wins

only losses are to a good Arizona team and a good WIU.

[caribbeanhen]

What about Northern Arizona with the big upset over Illinois St.?

was it really a big upset? Don't drink the MVFC Kool aid

[KPSUL]

was it really a big upset? Don't drink the MVFC Kool aid

Was it a big upset? A really big upset? or a really, really big upset?

[caribbeanhen]

Was it a big upset? A really big upset? or a really, really big upset?

None of the above

[ST_Lawson]

Was it a big upset? A really big upset? or a really, really big upset?

Redbird fans were probably a bit upset.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KPSUL]

None of the above
It was an excellent win for Northern Arizona. There were several teams in the 20 -25 range that lost so there is probably room to consider several teams in the 26-30 range to move into the top 25; including Northern Arizona. But Delaware? Didn't you guys lose "really big" to NC A&T ?

[Cocky]

They'll replace the Citadel, I believe. A better question is, "Will Grambling Replace UT-Martin in the top 25?"

Also, how do voters feel about the undefeated Ivies?

Lastly, has South Dakota done enough to garner top-3 considerations? Will past performance come into play, or does the "eye test" overrule all?
Martin is not in the top 25

[Serpentor]

Was it a big upset? A really big upset? or a really, really big upset?

Worse than an upset stomach but not as bad as a nuclear war.

[POD Knows]

None of the aboveIt was a upset, keep in mind that WIU beat NAU by 18 in Arizona and WIU was ranked behind ISUr.

[POD Knows]

It was an excellent win for Northern Arizona. There were several teams in the 20 -25 range that lost so there is probably room to consider several teams in the 26-30 range to move into the top 25; including Northern Arizona. But Delaware? Didn't you guys lose "really big" to NC A&T ?No, Delaware lost to JMU and Virginia Tech. The JMU game was 20-10

[KPSUL]

No, Delaware lost to JMU and Virginia Tech. The JMU game was 20-10

Just trying to get C Hen clucking. NC A&T beat Delaware STATE yesterday, I watched the Delaware @ Stony Brook game and already submitted with Delaware in my Top 25

[POD Knows]

Just trying to get C Hen clucking. NC A&T beat Delaware STATE yesterday, I watched the Delaware @ Stony Brook game and already submitted with Delaware in my Top 25I have both those asshats in my top 25, are either one of them any good. I haven't watched either one of them play yet this year.

[GoBlueHens83]

I have both those asshats in my top 25, are either one of them any good. I haven't watched either one of them play yet this year.

Delaware D? Yes

Delaware O? Absolutely not.

[Reign of Terrier]

The only teams that should drop from the ranking in my opinion are Maine and Albany. And I think NAU and Delaware need to be boosted into the top 25. Every top 25 team that lost, did so to a decent team. As many undefeated, 1 and 2 loss teams there are, there's no justification for Maine and Albany being in the rankings with 3 losses, coming off losses this week

[KPSUL]

I have both those asshats in my top 25, are either one of them any good. I haven't watched either one of them play yet this year.

There's no question that Delaware can play defense. They played inspired yesterday and seemed to want the win more than Stony Brook. Delaware had just enough flashes of offensive proficiency to get out of there with the win. They are a better team than we saw under Brock, how good they are we'll learn in the remaining conference games.

This Stony Brook team is little different than the teams we saw in the first 4 year of their CAA membership. Previously known for lights-out defense and routine, conservative offense. On paper, they look like they should be a playoff team: They've got an experienced 3 year starter at QB, at least one standout receiver and a triad of experienced running backs who are as good any group of RBs I've seen in FCS this season. But the end O product doesn't add up to be as good as the individual pieces indicate. It seems to me that this is a result of Head Coach Chuck Priore total system - after success at the NEC and Big South he's not had a winning conference record in the CAA. The D is good again, but maybe not as good as the previous two seasons.

So it's really too early to say how good these two teams are, either could be in the playoffs, or not. To be fair, there are other teams you could say the same about right now - New Hampshire being one of them and probably Villanova and Albany as well. We've seen enough of Elon and Richmond against quality opponents to know they belong in the Top 25 and JMU is still on a level above the rest of the conference at the present time.

[POD Knows]

There's no question that Delaware can play defense. They played inspired yesterday and seemed to want the win more than Stony Brook. Delaware had just enough flashes of offensive proficiency to get out of there with the win. They are a better team than we saw under Brock, how good they are we'll learn in the remaining conference games.

This Stony Brook team is little different than the teams we saw in the first 4 year of their CAA membership. Previously known for lights-out defense and routine, conservative offense. On paper, they look like they should be a playoff team: They've got an experienced 3 year starter at QB, at least one standout receiver and a triad of experienced running backs who are as good any group of RBs I've seen in FCS this season. But the end O product doesn't add up to be as good as the individual pieces indicate. It seems to me that this is a result of Head Coach Chuck Priore total system - after success at the NEC and Big South he's not had a winning conference record in the CAA. The D is good again, but maybe not as good as the previous two seasons.

So it's really too early to say how good these two teams are, either could be in the playoffs, or not. To be fair, there are other teams you could say the same about right now - New Hampshire being one of them and probably Villanova and Albany as well. We've seen enough of Elon and Richmond against quality opponents to know they belong in the Top 25 and JMU is still on a level above the rest of the conference at the present time.Yea, I have 7 CAA teams in my top 25, weirdly, outside of JMU, I don't think any of them are particularly good. Lots of balance in the conference.

[KPSUL]

Yea, I have 7 CAA teams in my top 25, weirdly, outside of JMU, I don't think any of them are particularly good. Lots of balance in the conference.

I probably have the same 7, average ranking of 16th. I had 6 MVFC teams, with a much higher average Ranking of 7th. I don't think we'll see 7 CAA teams in 2 or 3 weeks from now, probably more like 5. Other than JMU, I don't know who they'll be.

[smallcollegefbfan]

This is the week NAU should be in

three straight 18 or more point wins

only losses are to a good Arizona team and a good WIU.

I definitely have NAU in. I really believe only 5-8 teams should even be receiving votes at this point.

[smallcollegefbfan]

I probably have the same 7, average ranking of 16th. I had 6 MVFC teams, with a much higher average Ranking of 7th. I don't think we'll see 7 CAA teams in 2 or 3 weeks from now, probably more like 5. Other than JMU, I don't know who they'll be.

I only have 4 and JMU is the only one I have in the top 15. I stack my top 40 every week for myself though and I have CAA teams at 26, 28, and 29.

I don't get why folks refuse to rank an Ivy League team. If they are undefeated and have some potential next level talent I don't mind putting them in the top 25. Columbia could end up being that team. They have a pretty good QB and some talented skill guys who are young. If the QB was a junior I would say they should be a top 20 team next year. If they are Dartmouth end the season undefeated I will most definitely have them in my rankings.

[cx500d]

I only have 4 and JMU is the only one I have in the top 15. I stack my top 40 every week for myself though and I have CAA teams at 26, 28, and 29.

I don't get why folks refuse to rank an Ivy League team. If they are undefeated and have some potential next level talent I don't mind putting them in the top 25. Columbia could end up being that team. They have a pretty good QB and some talented skill guys who are young. If the QB was a junior I would say they should be a top 20 team next year. If they are Dartmouth end the season undefeated I will most definitely have them in my rankings.

Maybe because they don't compete at the FCS level...

[PantherRob82]

The only teams that should drop from the ranking in my opinion are Maine and Albany. And I think NAU and Delaware need to be boosted into the top 25. Every top 25 team that lost, did so to a decent team. As many undefeated, 1 and 2 loss teams there are, there's no justification for Maine and Albany being in the rankings with 3 losses, coming off losses this week

I don't care if they have three losses. Albany has proven they are one of the top 25 teams in the country with their win over Villanova and going toted toe with Richmond to double overtime. Their loss against Elon doesn't look bad right now either. Most of the teams that I had outside of the top 25 but was considering also lost this weekend. I would guess Albany stays in my vote

[Reign of Terrier]

I don't care if they have three losses. Albany has proven they are one of the top 25 teams in the country with their win over Villanova and going toted toe with Richmond to double overtime. Their loss against Elon doesn't look bad right now either. Most of the teams that I had outside of the top 25 but was considering also lost this weekend. I would guess Albany stays in my vote

I'm not doubting that they are a good team or that they won't make it back in the top 25, but right now you have two teams with a better resume and more wins. If weekly rankings are a snapshot of who is where at a given point in the year, Albany doesn't deserve it right now because there are a number of teams with similar resumes but more wins.

The whole "they have a so-so record but play in a great conference" argument is good when we're disputing 7-4 bubble teams for playoff positioning at the end of the year, but if you're using that argument for setting rankings, when a team like Albany could very well end up with a 6-5 or 5-6 you basically create a bubble in which a conference can look better than it actually is. That's not to say the CAA isn't really really good (it is), just that we have a default bias to say wins against ranked teams are good, even if a win over a previously ranked team looks less good (a good example would be Jacksonville State's win against Chattanooga). There's a lot of uncertainty in polling, but it's best to go with the sure-things at this point (teams with wins).

Every conference outside the MVFC and CAA has a team or two that they think is really good but may not have the wins to show it (for the Socon it's Furman and maybe Mercer), but the MVFC/CAA gets the benefit of the doubt simply because they play in those conferences. I'm okay with that when we're disputing teams with multiple losses (the playoff performances of these conferences speak for themselves) but it's no excuse to hold back teams with less losses. Again, rankings are a snapshot, and it holds some conferences down if you undersell them, while you inflate other conferences when you oversell them. And the good conferences are good enough to where you don't need that

[KPSUL]

I only have 4 and JMU is the only one I have in the top 15. I stack my top 40 every week for myself though and I have CAA teams at 26, 28, and 29.

I don't get why folks refuse to rank an Ivy League team. If they are undefeated and have some potential next level talent I don't mind putting them in the top 25. Columbia could end up being that team. They have a pretty good QB and some talented skill guys who are young. If the QB was a junior I would say they should be a top 20 team next year. If they are Dartmouth end the season undefeated I will most definitely have them in my rankings.
I can see where someone could conclude that there are only 5 teams in the CAA that warrant ranking, the hard part might be choosing which 5. I also don't see too many non-CAA teams currently out of the Top 25 that deserve to displace them.

I don't think anyone who votes in a poll should say they won't ever rank subdivision teams from a particular conference The Ivy makes it very hard to distinguish or to compare their teams to the top echelon of FCS football due a shortened and insular schedule and not participating in the playoffs. Consequently, I do understand why they are legitimately overlooked in most instances; however, several Ivy teams have stepped up their OOC scheduling. They include Yale, Dartmouth and Penn. I do think there is a sort of glass ceiling for the Ivies somewhere around 15 - we just don't ever have justification to rank them any higher, although I suspect that some of the Harvard teams from 2-5 years ago were that good. It's always disappointed me that Harvard wouldn't have stepped up there OCC scheduling and played New Hampshire or Maine.

[smallcollegefbfan]

Maybe because they don't compete at the FCS level...

The whole doesn't compete in playoffs thing doesn't hold muster. Pioneer League goes to playoffs but Princeton, who isn't even the best team in Ivies right now beat the defending Pioneer League champs. If I have a choice between a 8-0 Ivy League team and 8-0 Pioneer League team I'm going with the Ivy unless the Pioneer League team beat a ranked team or receiving votes team from someone like Big Sky, MVFC, SoCon, CAA, Southland, or OVC or if they win in the first round of playoffs, then I will put them in.

[smallcollegefbfan]

I can see where someone could conclude that there are only 5 teams in the CAA that warrant ranking, the hard part might be choosing which 5. I also don't see too many non-CAA teams currently out of the Top 25 that deserve to displace them.

I don't think anyone who votes in a poll should say they won't ever rank subdivision teams from a particular conference The Ivy makes it very hard to distinguish or to compare their teams to the top echelon of FCS football due a shortened and insular schedule and not participating in the playoffs. Consequently, I do understand why they are legitimately overlooked in most instances; however, several Ivy teams have stepped up their OOC scheduling. They include Yale, Dartmouth and Penn. I do think there is a sort of glass ceiling for the Ivies somewhere around 15 - we just don't ever have justification to rank them any higher, although I suspect that some of the Harvard teams from 2-5 years ago were that good. It's always disappointed me that Harvard wouldn't have stepped up there OCC scheduling and played New Hampshire or Maine.

I agree and most definitely have a glass ceiling for Ivy League. Same for Pioneer League and NEC unless they beat a ranked team or FBS team.

[TheKingpin28]

The CAA is a cluster**** after JMU and Elon. Honestly, can you stop going all MVFC on us and actually establish a heirarchy? That would be great. Thanks.

[caribbeanhen]

The CAA is a cluster**** after JMU and Elon. Honestly, can you stop going all MVFC on us and actually establish a heirarchy? That would be great. Thanks.

and the MVFC is Paul McCartney and Wings....pure gold

[PantherRob82]

I'm not doubting that they are a good team or that they won't make it back in the top 25, but right now you have two teams with a better resume and more wins. If weekly rankings are a snapshot of who is where at a given point in the year, Albany doesn't deserve it right now because there are a number of teams with similar resumes but more wins.

The whole "they have a so-so record but play in a great conference" argument is good when we're disputing 7-4 bubble teams for playoff positioning at the end of the year, but if you're using that argument for setting rankings, when a team like Albany could very well end up with a 6-5 or 5-6 you basically create a bubble in which a conference can look better than it actually is. That's not to say the CAA isn't really really good (it is), just that we have a default bias to say wins against ranked teams are good, even if a win over a previously ranked team looks less good (a good example would be Jacksonville State's win against Chattanooga). There's a lot of uncertainty in polling, but it's best to go with the sure-things at this point (teams with wins).

Every conference outside the MVFC and CAA has a team or two that they think is really good but may not have the wins to show it (for the Socon it's Furman and maybe Mercer), but the MVFC/CAA gets the benefit of the doubt simply because they play in those conferences. I'm okay with that when we're disputing teams with multiple losses (the playoff performances of these conferences speak for themselves) but it's no excuse to hold back teams with less losses. Again, rankings are a snapshot, and it holds some conferences down if you undersell them, while you inflate other conferences when you oversell them. And the good conferences are good enough to where you don't need that

Like I said, everyone I've been considering lost except NAU. Delaware was already in my poll last week. A few teams are falling out of my poll. Albany won't be one of them until someone else has a resume that is better rather than stacking up garbage wins.

[caribbeanhen]

I have both those asshats in my top 25, are either one of them any good. I haven't watched either one of them play yet this year.

Are any teams ranked lower than 15 any good?

I'm Comfortable putting in seven Valley and 7 CAA teams in the playoffs and see what happens. Ha

[KPSUL]

The CAA is a cluster**** after JMU and Elon. Honestly, can you stop going all MVFC on us and actually establish a heirarchy? That would be great. Thanks.

It's actually good for the conference. For years I've watched the CAA promotional hype where a bunch of coaches and All Conference players are quoted saying things like "Every games a tough one" and "no easy games in the CAA", "any team can beat you every weekend" and laughed to myself. But now that is becoming true. It will be a very interesting the remainder of this season.

[Reign of Terrier]

The fact that we can now Elon and JMU in the same sentence makes me want to pour a drink

[DirtyDukes]

i have the Hens in my top 20

[kalm]

The whole doesn't compete in playoffs thing doesn't hold muster. Pioneer League goes to playoffs but Princeton, who isn't even the best team in Ivies right now beat the defending Pioneer League champs. If I have a choice between a 8-0 Ivy League team and 8-0 Pioneer League team I'm going with the Ivy unless the Pioneer League team beat a ranked team or receiving votes team from someone like Big Sky, MVFC, SoCon, CAA, Southland, or OVC or if they win in the first round of playoffs, then I will put them in.

Of course it passes muster, and there are DII teams that could beat 1/2 the FCS. The Ivies choose this and do not deserve to clog up the rankings with a useless team for recognition's sake. It's also similar to a SLC team that plays a DII and a SWAC, finishes 7-4 and fails to get an at-large.

[kalm]

I'm not doubting that they are a good team or that they won't make it back in the top 25, but right now you have two teams with a better resume and more wins. If weekly rankings are a snapshot of who is where at a given point in the year, Albany doesn't deserve it right now because there are a number of teams with similar resumes but more wins.

The whole "they have a so-so record but play in a great conference" argument is good when we're disputing 7-4 bubble teams for playoff positioning at the end of the year, but if you're using that argument for setting rankings, when a team like Albany could very well end up with a 6-5 or 5-6 you basically create a bubble in which a conference can look better than it actually is. That's not to say the CAA isn't really really good (it is), just that we have a default bias to say wins against ranked teams are good, even if a win over a previously ranked team looks less good (a good example would be Jacksonville State's win against Chattanooga). There's a lot of uncertainty in polling, but it's best to go with the sure-things at this point (teams with wins).

Every conference outside the MVFC and CAA has a team or two that they think is really good but may not have the wins to show it (for the Socon it's Furman and maybe Mercer), but the MVFC/CAA gets the benefit of the doubt simply because they play in those conferences. I'm okay with that when we're disputing teams with multiple losses (the playoff performances of these conferences speak for themselves) but it's no excuse to hold back teams with less losses. Again, rankings are a snapshot, and it holds some conferences down if you undersell them, while you inflate other conferences when you oversell them. And the good conferences are good enough to where you don't need that

It's not about the conference, it's about the resume.

[TheKingpin28]

It's actually good for the conference. For years I've watched the CAA promotional hype where a bunch of coaches and All Conference players are quoted saying things like "Every games a tough one" and "no easy games in the CAA", "any team can beat you every weekend" and laughed to myself. But now that is becoming true. It will be a very interesting the remainder of this season.

But then it makes it almost impossible for a poll to be accurate. Take Richmond, Albany, Villanova, Stony Brook, Deleware, and New Hampshire.

-Richmond
----Beat Albany 41-38 2OT at Richmond
----Lost to Elon 36-33 at Richmond
----(Next 2 weeks: AT Towson, AT Deleware, Stony Brook)

-Albany
----Lost to Richmond 41-38 2OT at Richmond
----Lost to Elon 6-0 at Elon
----Beat Villanova 19-10 OT at Albany
----(Next 3 weeks: BYE, VS Maine and VS Rhode Island)

-Villanova
----Lost to Albany 19-10 OT at Albany
----(Next 3 weeks: AT JMU, BYE, VS Elon)

-Stony Brook
----Lost to Deleware 24-20 at Stony Brook
----(Next 3 weeks: VS New Hampshire, BYE, AT Richmond)

-Deleware
----Beat Stony Brook 24-20 at Stony Brook
----(Next 3 weeks: VS W & M, VS Richmond, AT Towson)

-New Hampshire
----Nothing
----(Next 3 weeks: AT Stony Brook, VS Towson, AT JMU)

How do you rank these teams. One of them is not in my poll and it is probably not the one you would guess.

[caribbeanhen]

i have the Hens in my top 20

Enjoy the hen prominence while it last, we could conceivably win every game and or lose every game on our remaining schedule

Rocco finally pulled the plug on Walker last night on the first quarter and the appellations transfer Caruso came in and did a nice job for the remainder of the game

In the first half out defense didn't look like the defense JMU saw, we played soft but in the second half they played very violent defensive football and shut down Stony

not sure what Rocco said at half time but whatever he said it worked

we also got a nice break on a 45 yard fumble recovery for a touchdown by Malcolm Brown
Stony fans, if they're actually was any, might claim that the whistle was slow to blow on that play

[Reign of Terrier]

It's not about the conference, it's about the resume.

Yeah, but when your resume depends on the presumption of conference strength, it inflates your resume at the detriment of others receiving recognition. Again, it would be one thing if we're talking playoff spots, but if #20-25 is a beauty pageant a .500 team isn't that beautiful compared to a 4-2 or 4-1 team

Because of the many many caveats of the FCS level (NEC, patriot, pioneer, Ivys), the lack of media exposure and the fact that some directional state university teams are neglected and suck, rankings are never going to have as much accuracy as the FBS. That means that a lot of it is relative and a logical house of cards that's liable to collapse in the playoffs any given year. Meanwhile I'm not convinced that, when you take out the best 2-4 teams in the division that there's all that much difference between everyone. I think it makes more sense to reward people for wins than to speculate with the transitive property all of the time.

Because honestly I think that speculation is just a well-crafted justification of being a homer for your own conference.

[KPSUL]

But then it makes it almost impossible for a poll to be accurate.

We'll have very little trouble determining what is accurate after all the conference games have been played on November 18th. Until then we may end up with the most competitive conference season ever.

[PantherRob82]

Yeah, but when your resume depends on the presumption of conference strength, it inflates your resume at the detriment of others receiving recognition. Again, it would be one thing if we're talking playoff spots, but if #20-25 is a beauty pageant a .500 team isn't that beautiful compared to a 4-2 or 4-1 team

Because of the many many caveats of the FCS level (NEC, patriot, pioneer, Ivys), the lack of media exposure and the fact that some directional state university teams are neglected and suck, rankings are never going to have as much accuracy as the FBS. That means that a lot of it is relative and a logical house of cards that's liable to collapse in the playoffs any given year. Meanwhile I'm not convinced that, when you take out the best 2-4 teams in the division that there's all that much difference between everyone. I think it makes more sense to reward people for wins than to speculate with the transitive property all of the time.

Because honestly I think that speculation is just a well-crafted justification of being a homer for your own conference.

At this point it isn't a matter of perceived conference strength, it's more a matter of how your conference performed in the nonconference portion of their schedule.

[wcugrad95]

One thing I don't understand is how far a team falls when they lose to a team they are supposed to (i.e. #22 WCU loses to #5 Wofford on the road in overtime yesterday). My bet is WCU certainly falls out of the top-25 even though they lost a game "experts" said they should lose - in a game they easily could have won. Fast forward to this week, and if we win a game we are supposed to (ETSU), in my opinion we would have to do something extraordinary to get back half as many spots as we lose this week. None of it really matters - everybody still has lots of tough conference games left and things will pan out. But can anybody explain the phenomona of dropping when you lose an OT game to a highly-ranked team??? Some on here are defending Albany for the "good losses", but at some point having more losses than other teams should matter. If you lose every game by 1 point you can say you are a good team, but nobody would believe you.

[WestCoastAggie]

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26262&stc=1

If this is any indication of how the Human Polls will go this week, there will be some serious debating here about South Dakota, among other things.

LINK: https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm

[ST_Lawson]

One thing I don't understand is how far a team falls when they lose to a team they are supposed to (i.e. #22 WCU loses to #5 Wofford on the road in overtime yesterday). My bet is WCU certainly falls out of the top-25 even though they lost a game "experts" said they should lose - in a game they easily could have won. Fast forward to this week, and if we win a game we are supposed to (ETSU), in my opinion we would have to do something extraordinary to get back half as many spots as we lose this week. None of it really matters - everybody still has lots of tough conference games left and things will pan out. But can anybody explain the phenomona of dropping when you lose an OT game to a highly-ranked team??? Some on here are defending Albany for the "good losses", but at some point having more losses than other teams should matter. If you lose every game by 1 point you can say you are a good team, but nobody would believe you.

I don't really get it either. I don't vote, but if I did...in the case of WCU@Wofford, I would probably keep WCU right about where they are (possibly even move them up a spot or two depending on how the teams immediately ahead of them did). Like...#18 lost at home to #28, and #20 lost at #6 in OT. By my perspective, that tells me that #20 is actually a little better than #18 because their game was closer and against a better team. I probably would end up dropping #18 down a bit and move #20 up a spot to #19, even though they lost.

[WestCoastAggie]

Question for the voters: Where does "style points" rank in your evaluation of teams?

[KPSUL]

Question for the voters: Where does "style points" rank in your evaluation of teams? I'm not a very stylish person so I don't really know what your getting at ?

[tomq04]

Is anyone else favoring strength of Schedule heavily yet?

[WestCoastAggie]

I'm not a very stylish person so I don't really know what your getting at ?

I think a better way to ask this is do voters here rely more on metrics of strength of schedule, and conference ranking, or do they rely on the "eye test" and how teams win?

[TheKingpin28]

I think a better way to ask this is do voters here rely more on metrics of strength of schedule, and conference ranking, or do they rely on the "eye test" and how teams win?

Don't slot vote and maintain consistency in how you vote. Just cause a team won does not mean they will not drop, and just cause a team lost does not mean they will drop. Hell, I even had a team that lost and they moved up 1 spot, due to who they have played and how their metrics compared to teams around them.

I look at the following, in no specific order, however, certain metrics will weigh more into how I vote.

-Sagarin/Massey
-Head to Head
-SOS
-Conference they play in
-Pts For/Against
-Did they win/stay close on the road against equal competition
-Did they win at home
-Important injuries that may or may not affect a team's outcome

For example: would a 3-2 MVFC/CAA team that beat a top 25 team on the road be rated higher than a 4-1 Southland/Big South team with a win against a top 25 team on the road? If you "slot" voted or looked just at the record, then it would be extremely lazy, but if the metrics were equal, then maybe the record might divide the two teams.

Now when it comes to your Aggies, I will be completely honest, I have not had them above 20, until this week. They finally just crept into the top 20. That is not a slam at your Aggies by any means but the "toughest" team you have played is Charlotte at 193/254!

Gardner-Webb: 207
Mars Hill: LOL
Charlotte: 193
Morgan State: 244
SC State: 214
Delaware St: 246

For reference, the teams surrounding yours toughest teams are: At Georgia (5) and VS The Citadel (135) AND At Virginia Tech (19) and VS James Madison (70). If you do a little research you will be able to figure out who the teams are, but this was using Sagarin Ratings and all 254 teams. This is why a 6-0 NC A & T might not be worthy of a top 15 vote. That is just me though.

[KPSUL]

I think a better way to ask this is do voters here rely more on metrics of strength of schedule, and conference ranking, or do they rely on the "eye test" and how teams win?

Well unless you are fortunate enough to do this full time, and even then I don't think you'd have the time, or ability, to watch every game. So the eye test isn't going to be sufficient. Relying solely on the statistical based SOS is not the best way to do it either - it can be a tie breaker when your looking at teams with very similar results. When you first mentioned style, I thought you might mean passing vs rushing focused offenses, ball control vs op tempo and whether or not that influences how we rank teams - in other words is there a bias towards one style of play vs another. I'd like to think there isn't, but I'd guess most of us prefer watching a more wide open, high scoring team to a grind it out ground and pound team.

[Reign of Terrier]

Don't slot vote and maintain consistency in how you vote. Just cause a team won does not mean they will not drop, and just cause a team lost does not mean they will drop. Hell, I even had a team that lost and they moved up 1 spot, due to who they have played and how their metrics compared to teams around them.

I look at the following, in no specific order, however, certain metrics will weigh more into how I vote.

-Sagarin/Massey
-Head to Head
-SOS
-Conference they play in
-Pts For/Against
-Did they win/stay close on the road against equal competition
-Did they win at home
-Important injuries that may or may not affect a team's outcome

For example: would a 3-2 MVFC/CAA team that beat a top 25 team on the road be rated higher than a 4-1 Southland/Big South team with a win against a top 25 team on the road? If you "slot" voted or looked just at the record, then it would be extremely lazy, but if the metrics were equal, then maybe the record might divide the two teams.

Now when it comes to your Aggies, I will be completely honest, I have not had them above 20, until this week. They finally just crept into the top 20. That is not a slam at your Aggies by any means but the "toughest" team you have played is Charlotte at 193/254!

Gardner-Webb: 207
Mars Hill: LOL
Charlotte: 193
Morgan State: 244
SC State: 214
Delaware St: 246

For reference, the teams surrounding yours toughest teams are: At Georgia (5) and VS The Citadel (135) AND At Virginia Tech (19) and VS James Madison (70). If you do a little research you will be able to figure out who the teams are, but this was using Sagarin Ratings and all 254 teams. This is why a 6-0 NC A & T might not be worthy of a top 15 vote. That is just me though.

What you have here is a solid method but let me (constructively) criticize it really quick. Teams can't help who they play. They can help how well they play against them, but they can't help the *who* of what they play. I think your above method is good for the second half of the football season and for ranking teams in the playoffs. But when it comes to evaluating teams in the first half of the season, this metric could support bubbles and bias. For instance, I think a 2-3 or 2-4 CAA team probably plays a better schedule than the NC A&T schedule listed above. Does that mean they would beat them head to head?

By the logic you're using, the answer may not be yes, but you want to grant the team that has the tougher schedule the benefit of the doubt. Put aside the fact that in the second half of the year they could implode and finish 4-7 or 3-8, the mere fact that they play a tough schedule (not something the team can help!) gives them the benefit of the doubt. It's thus harder for that hypothetical CAA team to fall in the polls than it would for the hypothetical NC A&T team to climb in the polls.

This is what I mean when I say there's an entrenched bias in favor of MVFC and CAA teams in these polls. I'm not disputing that the top teams are good, but it's a heads I win, tails you lose thing. Maybe the likes of Wofford, Sam Houston State or Jacksonville State won't be harmed by that bias, but the mid-tier or bubble teams in those others conferences will not receive the same preferential treatment of a mid-tier team in the CAA/MVFC.

All of this is relative and a crap-shoot right now in the first half of the season (and given the weird nature of FCS structure, it always will be), but I don't think strength of schedule *for the first half of the season* should have *as much* pull as people rank it. Because SOS is pretty fluid and goes up and down every week, and it's not a good enough measure until you have enough data.

We've reached the halfway point or so of the season, so it's becoming somewhat of a null point, but that's just my two pennies worth

[PantherRob82]

What you have here is a solid method but let me (constructively) criticize it really quick. Teams can't help who they play. They can help how well they play against them, but they can't help the *who* of what they play. I think your above method is good for the second half of the football season and for ranking teams in the playoffs. But when it comes to evaluating teams in the first half of the season, this metric could support bubbles and bias. For instance, I think a 2-3 or 2-4 CAA team probably plays a better schedule than the NC A&T schedule listed above. Does that mean they would beat them head to head?

By the logic you're using, the answer may not be yes, but you want to grant the team that has the tougher schedule the benefit of the doubt. Put aside the fact that in the second half of the year they could implode and finish 4-7 or 3-8, the mere fact that they play a tough schedule (not something the team can help!) gives them the benefit of the doubt. It's thus harder for that hypothetical CAA team to fall in the polls than it would for the hypothetical NC A&T team to climb in the polls.

This is what I mean when I say there's an entrenched bias in favor of MVFC and CAA teams in these polls. I'm not disputing that the top teams are good, but it's a heads I win, tails you lose thing. Maybe the likes of Wofford, Sam Houston State or Jacksonville State won't be harmed by that bias, but the mid-tier or bubble teams in those others conferences will not receive the same preferential treatment of a mid-tier team in the CAA/MVFC.

All of this is relative and a crap-shoot right now in the first half of the season (and given the weird nature of FCS structure, it always will be), but I don't think strength of schedule *for the first half of the season* should have *as much* pull as people rank it. Because SOS is pretty fluid and goes up and down every week, and it's not a good enough measure until you have enough data.

We've reached the halfway point or so of the season, so it's becoming somewhat of a null point, but that's just my two pennies worth

You've been around long enough to see dozens of unproven teams win a ton of games in gaudy fashion over the likes of nobody just to be bounced in the first round by a 6-5 or 7-4 team from a proven conference.

[Reign of Terrier]

You've been around long enough to see dozens of unproven teams win a ton of games in gaudy fashion over the likes of nobody just to be bounced in the first round by a 6-5 or 7-4 team from a proven conference.

Did you read my post? I'm not talking about the playoffs I said the method involving SOS was great for playoffs and the late part of the season.

But right now, SOS is being used to say that Albany is worthy of a top 25 slot when they've done nothing but lose close games and beat Villanova. That game could have easily just been a bad night for Villanova and a good night for Albany (call it an outlier). The CAA hasn't played enough of each other even this year to justify the amount of teams they have in the top 25 and their supposed SOS. All I see is a lot of parity in their own ranks and a couple blowouts of Patriot league teams.

All I'm saying is for the first half of the season, given how fluid SOS changes during the year, it's best to look at the clear/cut W-L record (i.e show preference to a 4-1 team to a 2-3 team). SOS is good when you're looking at something close (4-2 v. 5-1 ) but for Christ sakes there's no justifying a 3-3 Albany team at this point.

[TheKingpin28]

What you have here is a solid method but let me (constructively) criticize it really quick. Teams can't help who they play. They can help how well they play against them, but they can't help the *who* of what they play. I think your above method is good for the second half of the football season and for ranking teams in the playoffs. But when it comes to evaluating teams in the first half of the season, this metric could support bubbles and bias. For instance, I think a 2-3 or 2-4 CAA team probably plays a better schedule than the NC A&T schedule listed above. Does that mean they would beat them head to head?

By the logic you're using, the answer may not be yes, but you want to grant the team that has the tougher schedule the benefit of the doubt. Put aside the fact that in the second half of the year they could implode and finish 4-7 or 3-8, the mere fact that they play a tough schedule (not something the team can help!) gives them the benefit of the doubt. It's thus harder for that hypothetical CAA team to fall in the polls than it would for the hypothetical NC A&T team to climb in the polls.

This is what I mean when I say there's an entrenched bias in favor of MVFC and CAA teams in these polls. I'm not disputing that the top teams are good, but it's a heads I win, tails you lose thing. Maybe the likes of Wofford, Sam Houston State or Jacksonville State won't be harmed by that bias, but the mid-tier or bubble teams in those others conferences will not receive the same preferential treatment of a mid-tier team in the CAA/MVFC.

All of this is relative and a crap-shoot right now in the first half of the season (and given the weird nature of FCS structure, it always will be), but I don't think strength of schedule *for the first half of the season* should have *as much* pull as people rank it. Because SOS is pretty fluid and goes up and down every week, and it's not a good enough measure until you have enough data.

We've reached the halfway point or so of the season, so it's becoming somewhat of a null point, but that's just my two pennies worth

The thing is, the SoCon finally decided to show up and play some football again, so their teams will be weighted vs a Pioneer, NEC, Patriot, IVY, or BS team. I'd rather have a 7-4 Valley/CAA/SoCon team over an 8-3/9-2 NEC, Patriot, or BS team. Hell, even the Big Fluffy is good for 2-3 teams every year and they usually show up when they need to.

Teams can control who they schedule. Why won't an IVY, Patriot, MEAC team come to the Valley and play some smashmouth football on a somewhat consistent basis? Both RMU and MVSU did TWICE this season and you know what, I respect the hell out of them knowing they need the money to fund their programs and yet they still come to play with last minute notice (within 1 year). There is no reason why NCAT, Harvard, Yale, Lehigh, etc... can't play UNI, SDSU, YSU, USeD, etc... and do a Home and Home. North Alabama is taking the call by leaving D2 to come to Fargo next year as a BS team. So the whole "they can't control who they play" is somewhat false.

I appreciate your criticism and the first 3/4 weeks are kind of a crap shoot (so I can see your point), but I am more likely to vote for a 2-2 Valley team with an equal resume VS a SWAC, MEAC, etc... team with a 3-1 or 4-0 record. NCAT showed what happened when the played "equal" competition in the final week against NCCU and they got curbed stomped 42-21 and that was with Tarik Cohen and 39-10 against Richmond who was not that good and playing with a banged up Lauletta, who is a top 3 QB in the FCS.

Why do you think the Southland wants to leave the 9 game schedule to go to an 8 game? So that SHSU, UCA, and a few others can get 6 home games or an FBS game and do a H and H with the Valley, CAA, etc... to build up that SOS and get a potential higher seed.

Give me a 3-2 YSU with 2 losses coming on the road by 10 points total against a top 5 USeD and an OT game against Pitt ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over 5-0 NCAT, 4-1 NCCU, 5-1 Grambling St. Anyone who would disagree that YSU is not at least a top 10, if not top 5 team, loses all credibility with me. This is not a defensive post by any means, but once we get past week 4, anyone using record as a main way of voting, is doing what SHSU did last year, and we saw what happened when they finally played a team that has an offense and defense.

[WestCoastAggie]

Well unless you are fortunate enough to do this full time, and even then I don't think you'd have the time, or ability, to watch every game. So the eye test isn't going to be sufficient. Relying solely on the statistical based SOS is not the best way to do it either - it can be a tie breaker when your looking at teams with very similar results. When you first mentioned style, I thought you might mean passing vs rushing focused offenses, ball control vs op tempo and whether or not that influences how we rank teams - in other words is there a bias towards one style of play vs another. I'd like to think there isn't, but I'd guess most of us prefer watching a more wide open, high scoring team to a grind it out ground and pound team.

When I refer to "style" in this sense, I am referring to how teams look during their win.

[PantherRob82]

Did you read my post? I'm not talking about the playoffs I said the method involving SOS was great for playoffs and the late part of the season.

But right now, SOS is being used to say that Albany is worthy of a top 25 slot when they've done nothing but lose close games and beat Villanova. That game could have easily just been a bad night for Villanova and a good night for Albany (call it an outlier). The CAA hasn't played enough of each other even this year to justify the amount of teams they have in the top 25 and their supposed SOS. All I see is a lot of parity in their own ranks and a couple blowouts of Patriot league teams.

All I'm saying is for the first half of the season, given how fluid SOS changes during the year, it's best to look at the clear/cut W-L record (i.e show preference to a 4-1 team to a 2-3 team). SOS is good when you're looking at something close (4-2 v. 5-1 ) but for Christ sakes there's no justifying a 3-3 Albany team at this point.

I did read your post, but the playoffs is where we can finally prove things. It’s where highly ranked teams who played nobody normally prove voters like me correct. Time corrects everything. Albany can’t go on losing forever and stay in my poll, but I think they are better than teams like Monmouth.

[Reign of Terrier]

The thing is, the SoCon finally decided to show up and play some football again, so their teams will be weighted vs a Pioneer, NEC, Patriot, IVY, or BS team. I'd rather have a 7-4 Valley/CAA/SoCon team over an 8-3/9-2 NEC, Patriot, or BS team. Hell, even the Big Fluffy is good for 2-3 teams every year and they usually show up when they need to.

Teams can control who they schedule. Why won't an IVY, Patriot, MEAC team come to the Valley and play some smashmouth football on a somewhat consistent basis? Both RMU and MVSU did TWICE this season and you know what, I respect the hell out of them knowing they need the money to fund their programs and yet they still come to play with last minute notice (within 1 year). There is no reason why NCAT, Harvard, Yale, Lehigh, etc... can't play UNI, SDSU, YSU, USeD, etc... and do a Home and Home. North Alabama is taking the call by leaving D2 to come to Fargo next year as a BS team. So the whole "they can't control who they play" is somewhat false.

I appreciate your criticism and the first 3/4 weeks are kind of a crap shoot (so I can see your point), but I am more likely to vote for a 2-2 Valley team with an equal resume VS a SWAC, MEAC, etc... team with a 3-1 or 4-0 record. NCAT showed what happened when the played "equal" competition in the final week against NCCU and they got curbed stomped 42-21 and that was with Tarik Cohen and 39-10 against Richmond who was not that good and playing with a banged up Lauletta, who is a top 3 QB in the FCS.

Why do you think the Southland wants to leave the 9 game schedule to go to an 8 game? So that SHSU, UCA, and a few others can get 6 home games or an FBS game and do a H and H with the Valley, CAA, etc... to build up that SOS and get a potential higher seed.

Give me a 3-2 YSU with 2 losses coming on the road by 10 points total against a top 5 USeD and an OT game against Pitt ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over 5-0 NCAT, 4-1 NCCU, 5-1 Grambling St. Anyone who would disagree that YSU is not at least a top 10, if not top 5 team, loses all credibility with me. This is not a defensive post by any means, but once we get past week 4, anyone using record as a main way of voting, is doing what SHSU did last year, and we saw what happened when they finally played a team that has an offense and defense.

On the point about "you can control who you play" you're attributing/equivocating too much to the teams in the sense that the 63 scholarship players + walk ons have 0 say in who lines up against them on any given saturday. The administration may suck, but it's not fair to the players to punish them for it, and it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of the quality of the teams. We're ranking teams, after all, and not programs.

The good thing about these teams with bad SOS is that they are also bad teams, and to be clear I don't think there are any teams in the SWAC, etc who should be ranked. They gain nothing by being in the rankings and we lose clarity by having them there. There's something of a phantom hypothetical in the sense that everyone's afraid the MEAC or some other sub-par conference will suddenly crank out some undefeated teams or something like that and alter the warrant of their rankings.

Their teams are usually bad, so bad that it's not an issue. The problem arises when you reach this awkward second month in the season where some teams have 2-3 losses and are arguably still solid and some teams only have one loss or better and aren't getting recognition. It seems that many people are of the mindset that SOS justifies keeping the meh teams ranked, but the one loss teams of alleged less SOS lower. I don't think that's right, because if the lesser team truly is lesser, regression to the mean will make sure they fall, and the better team truly is better, the same principle applies.

[PantherRob82]

When I refer to "style" in this sense, I am referring to how teams look during their win.

For sure. I’m dropping some teams who won because I thought they looked like garbage. If someone blows the doors and executed against a team I thought looked solid I definitely consider giving them a bump.

[Reign of Terrier]

I did read your post, but the playoffs is where we can finally prove things. It’s where highly ranked teams who played nobody normally prove voters like me correct. Time corrects everything. Albany can’t go on losing forever and stay in my poll, but I think they are better than teams like Monmouth.

Again, I'm not talking about the playoffs. I'm talking about rankings as a snapshot to team quality at this point in time. How do you justify keeping a 3 loss team in the rankings when there are teams with better records in the Big Sky and even the CAA? Logically and statistically, Albany can win themselves back in (say they finish 7-4/8/3). As a representation of how teams are playing *right now* how is there any justification to keeping Albany in?

[WestCoastAggie]

Teams can control who they schedule. Why won't an IVY, Patriot, MEAC team come to the Valley and play some smashmouth football on a somewhat consistent basis? Both RMU and MVSU did TWICE this season and you know what, I respect the hell out of them knowing they need the money to fund their programs and yet they still come to play with last minute notice (within 1 year). There is no reason why NCAT, Harvard, Yale, Lehigh, etc... can't play UNI, SDSU, YSU, USeD, etc... and do a Home and Home. North Alabama is taking the call by leaving D2 to come to Fargo next year as a BS team. So the whole "they can't control who they play" is somewhat false.

I appreciate your criticism and the first 3/4 weeks are kind of a crap shoot (so I can see your point), but I am more likely to vote for a 2-2 Valley team with an equal resume VS a SWAC, MEAC, etc... team with a 3-1 or 4-0 record. NCAT showed what happened when the played "equal" competition in the final week against NCCU and they got curbed stomped 42-21 and that was with Tarik Cohen and 39-10 against Richmond who was not that good and playing with a banged up Lauletta, who is a top 3 QB in the FCS.

With regards to this comment, at a week before the NCCU game, Lamar Raynard unexplainably tore a pectoral muscle. This took away a major portion of our game, as the Aggies were down to our 3rd QB. NCCU and Richmond were pretty much able to load the box and systematically remove Cohen from the game. Being unable to get the ball to our playmakers at Wideout led to the teams demise.

This season, both Lamar Raynard is healthy and completing 70% of his passes, and our backup Kylil Carter are fully healthy. A fully healthy A&T team with Raynard and Carter healthy removes the pressure off of Cohen, and allows them to play a much better game against NCCU and possibly Grambling or Richmond.

The coaching staff recognized this, and made the necessary adjustments to keep a balanced attack. It was one of the reasons we looked at Jaquil Capel coming in as a Grad Transfer from App. State. Not only is he balling out at WR, and runs our "WildDog" formations, he can come in and play QB should the Injury bug strike again.

The coaching staff also dramatically improved the passing defense, which was ranked as one of the worst in 2016.

As a result, we have been raking up major style points in the wins we have this year. At this point, we just gotta let the chips fall as they may. These stats don't mean anything if we can't have a similar performance against a quality team like NCCU. The toughest challenges we had (Charlotte and SC State), our offense averaged 420 yards and the defense created turnovers.

The only thing we can do is to keep chasing "perfection," and win the game in front of us.

[kalm]

Yeah, but when your resume depends on the presumption of conference strength, it inflates your resume at the detriment of others receiving recognition. Again, it would be one thing if we're talking playoff spots, but if #20-25 is a beauty pageant a .500 team isn't that beautiful compared to a 4-2 or 4-1 team

Because of the many many caveats of the FCS level (NEC, patriot, pioneer, Ivys), the lack of media exposure and the fact that some directional state university teams are neglected and suck, rankings are never going to have as much accuracy as the FBS. That means that a lot of it is relative and a logical house of cards that's liable to collapse in the playoffs any given year. Meanwhile I'm not convinced that, when you take out the best 2-4 teams in the division that there's all that much difference between everyone. I think it makes more sense to reward people for wins than to speculate with the transitive property all of the time.

Because honestly I think that speculation is just a well-crafted justification of being a homer for your own conference.

What if your resume depends on multiple factors rather than just your conference?

What if beauty is more than just wins and losses?

[ElCid]

What if your resume depends on multiple factors rather than just your conference?

What if beauty is more than just wins and losses?


Hmm. Interesting thought. But I am pretty sure at least we are still ugly after the last two weeks.xlolx

[TheKingpin28]

With regards to this comment, at a week before the NCCU game, Lamar Raynard unexplainably tore a pectoral muscle. This took away a major portion of our game, as the Aggies were down to our 3rd QB. NCCU and Richmond were pretty much able to load the box and systematically remove Cohen from the game. Being unable to get the ball to our playmakers at Wideout led to the teams demise.

This season, both Lamar Raynard is healthy and completing 70% of his passes, and our backup Kylil Carter are fully healthy. A fully healthy A&T team with Raynard and Carter healthy removes the pressure off of Cohen, and allows them to play a much better game against NCCU and possibly Grambling or Richmond.

The coaching staff recognized this, and made the necessary adjustments to keep a balanced attack. It was one of the reasons we looked at Jaquil Capel coming in as a Grad Transfer from App. State. Not only is he balling out at WR, and runs our "WildDog" formations, he can come in and play QB should the Injury bug strike again.

The coaching staff also dramatically improved the passing defense, which was ranked as one of the worst in 2016.

As a result, we have been raking up major style points in the wins we have this year. At this point, we just gotta let the chips fall as they may. These stats don't mean anything if we can't have a similar performance against a quality team like NCCU. The toughest challenges we had (Charlotte and SC State), our offense averaged 420 yards and the defense created turnovers.

The only thing we can do is to keep chasing "perfection," and win the game in front of us.

If you want to prove yourselves, send a letter to the AD, asking to withdraw from consideration for the Celebration Bowl, or as Jay Walker calls it, the TRUE NATIONAL D1 Championship, and petition to join a new conference/gain a bid from the FCS committee. I get it that teams have injuries, but good teams find a way to overcome that. NDSU did when Carson Wentz went down and a rFR named Easton Stick went 8-0 in the games he needed to win. Good teams will sidestep injuries and play with a next man up mentality. If you go undefeated, I could possibly see you moving into the top 15, but until the MEAC, SWAC, and IVY teams join the rest of the FCS, I will NEVER vote for them above 15. Yeah, you can say I am biased, and that is fine, but if you do not want to play against the rest of the sub-division, then you do not deserve the accolades that come with it.

If that bars me from voting, then fine, but a top 15 team says to me that they could win the championship on any given saturday. That means, they play in the playoffs and go up against the XDSUs, UM, JMU, Nova, JSU, etc... year in and year out and win games to build a resume that says they are legit contenders.

I understand that your ADs voted and this is what you are stuck with, but if you want to be valued more when it comes to votes, petition to play challenging teams whose SOS is higher that 190 out 254.

[nevadagriz]

Does Montana have a chance to make the top 25 this week? To road conference victories and only losses to Washington and ewu.

[TheKingpin28]

Does Montana have a chance to make the top 25 this week? To road conference victories and only losses to Washington and ewu.

I had them at 25 last week and I do not see how they do not sit at at least 25 collectively.

[Reign of Terrier]

What if your resume depends on multiple factors rather than just your conference?

What if beauty is more than just wins and losses?

None of these rhetorical questions invalidate my argument:)

[kalm]

None of these rhetorical questions invalidate my argument:)

Yes they do. Your assumptions....

[Reign of Terrier]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that some mid-tier SWAC team needs to be ranked, just that when you cut through all the fat, "strength of schedule" is being used as a firewall to keep some teams from dropping from the rankings while also being used as an obstacle preventing others from climbing them.

There should be no .500 teams in the rankings after week 4.xnodx

[RootinFerDukes]

Question for the voters: Where does "style points" rank in your evaluation of teams?

Not at all. I like wins. Impressive wins get more weight but it’s important to just win. I don’t punish teams for winning or reward teams for losing.

[PantherRob82]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that some mid-tier SWAC team needs to be ranked, just that when you cut through all the fat, "strength of schedule" is being used as a firewall to keep some teams from dropping from the rankings while also being used as an obstacle preventing others from climbing them.

There should be no .500 teams in the rankings after week 4.xnodx

What a silly absolute. So if you beat #16 and #22, but lose to an FBS team, #3 and #10, then you can't be ranked? xflaggedx

[WestCoastAggie]

Here's an interesting team to debate: UC Davis.

They lost by 3 to a E. Washington squad that most believed would win in a much more convincing manner. They are 3-3 and played a tough schedule.

[RootinFerDukes]

Here's an interesting team to debate: UC Davis.

They lost by 3 to a E. Washington squad that most believed would win in a much more convincing manner. They are 3-3 and played a tough schedule.

3-3 is probably not good enough regardless of who you are. It’s definitely not good enough if you want to enter the poll, not try to stay in it. Not worth ranking imo, 3 pt loss to a good team or not.

[Reign of Terrier]

Yes they do. Your assumptions....

Statistically speaking, the only time a 3 loss team will likely stay at that number and be a good team is if they've reached that threshold in November or late October. Albany could well go on a run and finish 8-3. They could have a meh remainder of the year and go 6-5. They got **** the bed and go 3-8. The problem with people who are homers is that they're assuming the first scenario when they put them there, and when they see a team like NAU or Monmouth they assume they'll crash and burn soon enough.

Statistically speaking, all outcomes are possible and perhaps have an equal probability, but to assume that a team like Albany will do the first (thus we keep them ranked) while the others will **** the bed is the definition of bias. Because if they *do* **** the bed, we'd move them out.

Again, we're not talking about moving around the top 10 or even 15. We're talking about the disputable gray area that is 18 or 20 to 25. We're not talking about playoff spots, we're talking about teams worthy of our attention. I just don't see how you can say Albany is right now, at 3-3 (or Maine, at 1-3) and not someone like Monmouth, NAU or Delaware.

I agree that some teams (MEAC, SWAC, Ivy) need to either be approached with skepticism or not getting rankings at all, but that doesn't take away from the fact that .500 teams are getting the benefit of the doubt when they probably shouldn't.

[grizband]

Part of this argument is rooted in whether you believe polls rank a team's current position, or where they will end the season.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[PantherRob82]

Here's an interesting team to debate: UC Davis.

They lost by 3 to a E. Washington squad that most believed would win in a much more convincing manner. They are 3-3 and played a tough schedule.

nah. The verdict is out on EWU in 2017 and UC Davis got annihilated by Weber State.

[TheKingpin28]

nah. The verdict is out on EWU in 2017 and UC Davis got annihilated by Weber State.

I would not put EWU higher than middle of the pack and Weber State above EWU. Where though, anywhere from 6-12 and I think it would be hard to argue against it, as long as EWU was below Weber St due to their results against a common opponent and WSU preforming more consistently against competition than EWU.

[Reign of Terrier]

Part of this argument is rooted in whether you believe polls rank a team's current position, or where they will end the season.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Exactly. I think they should rank current position, otherwise you're just postulating a hypothesis that could be wrong and the consequences are inflating ratings for some teams and an overall un-representative ranking.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Exactly. I think they should rank current position, otherwise you're just postulating a hypothesis that could be wrong and the consequences are inflating ratings for some teams and an overall un-representative ranking.

I think it is fine to do this with the preseason poll but outside of that poll this sort of thing should rapidly diminish over the fist few weeks and be completely gone by now. Right now I think anyone not ranking on what is now as opposed to what is possibly coming is just not doing this thing justice.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

nah. The verdict is out on EWU in 2017 and UC Davis got annihilated by Weber State.

Weber State is pretty f'n good too. I honestly did not expect them to be as solid as they are.

[PantherRob82]

Weber State is pretty f'n good too. I honestly did not expect them to be as solid as they are.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but I don't think Top 25 teams get throttled 41-3 by anyone.

[TheKingpin28]

I'm not disagreeing with that, but I don't think Top 25 teams get throttled 41-3 by anyone.

What about 65-7? xdrunkyx

[kalm]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that some mid-tier SWAC team needs to be ranked, just that when you cut through all the fat, "strength of schedule" is being used as a firewall to keep some teams from dropping from the rankings while also being used as an obstacle preventing others from climbing them.

There should be no .500 teams in the rankings after week 4.xnodx

Sure, that sometimes happens but not for everyone. Absolutes like you just suggested should be avoided. Just like there may be deserving teams from weak conferences who have a couple of nice OOC wins, there can be .500 teams who have solid wins against a hard schedule and are deserving.

[PantherRob82]

What about 65-7? xdrunkyx

I should drop them 3 spots this week for remembering that beatdown.

[TheKingpin28]

I should drop them 3 spots this week for remembering that beatdown.

And raise The Citadel while your at it? Just for Citdog?

[kalm]

Statistically speaking, the only time a 3 loss team will likely stay at that number and be a good team is if they've reached that threshold in November or late October. Albany could well go on a run and finish 8-3. They could have a meh remainder of the year and go 6-5. They got **** the bed and go 3-8. The problem with people who are homers is that they're assuming the first scenario when they put them there, and when they see a team like NAU or Monmouth they assume they'll crash and burn soon enough.

Statistically speaking, all outcomes are possible and perhaps have an equal probability, but to assume that a team like Albany will do the first (thus we keep them ranked) while the others will **** the bed is the definition of bias. Because if they *do* **** the bed, we'd move them out.

Again, we're not talking about moving around the top 10 or even 15. We're talking about the disputable gray area that is 18 or 20 to 25. We're not talking about playoff spots, we're talking about teams worthy of our attention. I just don't see how you can say Albany is right now, at 3-3 (or Maine, at 1-3) and not someone like Monmouth, NAU or Delaware.

I agree that some teams (MEAC, SWAC, Ivy) need to either be approached with skepticism or not getting rankings at all, but that doesn't take away from the fact that .500 teams are getting the benefit of the doubt when they probably shouldn't.

Didnt Monmouth lose to Albany?

[Reign of Terrier]

You're missing the point

[cx500d]

Didnt Monmouth lose to Albany?


Lucky loss, like New Hampshire getting throttled by Holy Cross

[wcugrad95]

Back to my question strictly for the pollsters. How will a top-25 team's loss in OT on the road to a team ranked higher than them be viewed? I expect WCU to maybe hang in on the AGS poll, but I fully expect us to drop in the other polls for reasoning I can't understand. I had the one very smart reply that Western should actually be rewarded for their showing against a top-10 team. Any other comments from actual voters?

[BisonTru]

Back to my question strictly for the pollsters. How will a top-25 team's loss in OT on the road to a team ranked higher than them be viewed? I expect WCU to maybe hang in on the AGS poll, but I fully expect us to drop in the other polls for reasoning I can't understand. I had the one very smart reply that Western should actually be rewarded for their showing against a top-10 team. Any other comments from actual voters?

Western Carolina didn't move in my poll. Honestly if anything I wanted to move them up it's just everyone ahead of them is also looking very good. On the road close loss to a top 10 team doesn't warrant dropping at all IMO.

[PantherRob82]

I’d have to doublecheck, but I think the catamounts might have actually moved up one in my poll.

[POD Knows]

Back to my question strictly for the pollsters. How will a top-25 team's loss in OT on the road to a team ranked higher than them be viewed? I expect WCU to maybe hang in on the AGS poll, but I fully expect us to drop in the other polls for reasoning I can't understand. I had the one very smart reply that Western should actually be rewarded for their showing against a top-10 team. Any other comments from actual voters?I had WCU in my top 25 and have them at #24 this week. Pretty good showing against a top 10 team in Wofford although Wofford might be the weakest top 10 team in recent memory.

[kalm]

You're missing the point

Well then, please explain.

[citdog]

And raise The Citadel while your at it? Just for Citdog?

You can't raise them with a crane. They'll show up next week and at least LOOK like a football team if I know anything about them...

[SU DOG]

I had WCU in my top 25 and have them at #24 this week. Pretty good showing against a top 10 team in Wofford although Wofford might be the weakest top 10 team in recent memory.

Wofford will surprise you. Recent memory should include last year, and how they were such a tough out.

[kalm]

I had WCU in my top 25 and have them at #24 this week. Pretty good showing against a top 10 team in Wofford although Wofford might be the weakest top 10 team in recent memory.

Yep. I actually moved them up a spot despite the SoCon appearing down right now. Just like I will move a team that wins down if those behind them have impressive wins.

And I too had trouble ranking Wofford high but did anyway because their w/l and resume is better than those below.

[BisonTru]

For the second week in a row the top 17 we're a breeze. Honestly not a lot of movement. And then comes 18-25. Ugh.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Back to my question strictly for the pollsters. How will a top-25 team's loss in OT on the road to a team ranked higher than them be viewed? I expect WCU to maybe hang in on the AGS poll, but I fully expect us to drop in the other polls for reasoning I can't understand. I had the one very smart reply that Western should actually be rewarded for their showing against a top-10 team. Any other comments from actual voters?

I don't think that they should be rewarded but I am not sure they will be penalized at all either. But the thing about this poll is that you could actually win and drop a spot if the other teams around you were seen to do better. It is fairly dynamic compared to the other polls that do more of what you are suggesting in that they just sort of move a team up or down via a strict w/l deal each week as opposed to looking at how other teams might have done.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Western Carolina didn't move in my poll. Honestly if anything I wanted to move them up it's just everyone ahead of them is also looking very good. On the road close loss to a top 10 team doesn't warrant dropping at all IMO.

That is exactly what I was talking about right there.

[TheKingpin28]

You can't raise them with a crane. They'll show up next week and at least LOOK like a football team if I know anything about them...

I hope they do, but as of right now, I do not see a top 25 team in The Cadets.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Compiled some game highlights on Twitter of the key games and put them on one easy place to reference:

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/fcs-week-6-top-ten-twitter-highlights/

[Southern Bison]

Back to my question strictly for the pollsters. How will a top-25 team's loss in OT on the road to a team ranked higher than them be viewed? I expect WCU to maybe hang in on the AGS poll, but I fully expect us to drop in the other polls for reasoning I can't understand. I had the one very smart reply that Western should actually be rewarded for their showing against a top-10 team. Any other comments from actual voters?We've discussed ad nauseam why the other polls are crap...AD work-study or grad students filling out the vote, extreme regional bias by the media, the list goes on...

AGS has been & will continue to be the most accurate measure of FCS football.

(Even Lawrence Smith's FCS Football Fans facebook poll has some serious work to do.)

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[REALBird]

I generally do not vote for teams from conferences not participating in the playoffs. Delaware should be in this week. A lot of traffic 15-25. The tough schedule vs. W/L record debates will begin about now.

What about Northern Arizona with the big upset over Illinois St.?

NAU looked impressive in the time I watched, while trying to enjoy my Sister's wedding. But if anything they've shown Illinois State has benefitted from a rather easy Non-Conference schedule. Take nothing away, they won hands down. But I think Illinois State has really been a middling 10-15 ranked team all year.

If they don't figure out the offensive line issues and run block, and the receivers can't catch the damn balls thrown in their direction I see another potential 6 win season. Not sure 6-5 gets you in this year if your name is Illinois State. Reminds me a lot of last years team. Flashes at times, but never enough to make you confident they will consistently perform week in/week out.

[Professor Chaos]

NAU looked impressive in the time I watched, while trying to enjoy my Sister's wedding. But if anything they've shown Illinois State has benefitted from a rather easy Non-Conference schedule. Take nothing away, they won hands down. But I think Illinois State has really been a middling 10-15 ranked team all year.

If they don't figure out the offensive line issues and run block, and the receivers can't catch the damn balls thrown in their direction I see another potential 6 win season. Not sure 6-5 gets you in this year if your name is Illinois State. Reminds me a lot of last years team. Flashes at times, but never enough to make you confident they will consistently perform week in/week out.
10-15 is pretty generous ranking for Illinois St right now IMO after that NAU game. Unless you think NAU is a top 15 team I can't see how Illinois St is. That was a shellacking all around, NAU dominated that game in more categories than just the score. I was torn because I didn't even have NAU as a fringe top 25 team last week and I had Illinois St in my top 10. It was clear I was wrong about both but trying to figure out where to slot each of them in relation to each other and all the other teams in the bottom half of my poll was pretty much a shot in the dark for me.

[dewey]

10-15 is pretty generous ranking for Illinois St right now IMO after that NAU game. Unless you think NAU is a top 15 team I can't see how Illinois St is. That was a shellacking all around, NAU dominated that game in more categories than just the score. I was torn because I didn't even have NAU as a fringe top 25 team last week and I had Illinois St in my top 10. It was clear I was wrong about both but trying to figure out where to slot each of them in relation to each other and all the other teams in the bottom half of my poll was pretty much a shot in the dark for me.

I dropped Illinois State hard. Their non conference was weak and they hadn't played anyone good so far. They were severely overrated (in my poll too) and Northern Arizona was underrated based off getting beaten by western Illinois. I dropped Illinois State below Northern Arizona.

Dewey

[Professor Chaos]

I dropped Illinois State hard. Their non conference was weak and they hadn't played anyone good so far. They were severely overrated (in my poll too) and Northern Arizona was underrated based off getting beaten by western Illinois. I dropped Illinois State below Northern Arizona.

Dewey
Yeah, I ended up putting Illinois St about 5 spots in front of NAU. I'm already regretting it.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

That was a brutally difficult poll!! I needed all the available time this week!

[REALBird]

10-15 is pretty generous ranking for Illinois St right now IMO after that NAU game. Unless you think NAU is a top 15 team I can't see how Illinois St is. That was a shellacking all around, NAU dominated that game in more categories than just the score. I was torn because I didn't even have NAU as a fringe top 25 team last week and I had Illinois St in my top 10. It was clear I was wrong about both but trying to figure out where to slot each of them in relation to each other and all the other teams in the bottom half of my poll was pretty much a shot in the dark for me.

Oh don't get me wrong, I said they've BEEN a 10-15 middling team all year. I don't think they should have been rated higher than 10 and could justify the rationale for being anywhere as low as 15 even with being 4-0 before the NAU loss. #7 or anything in the top 10 was a gift IMHO, they're about where they should be now and should have been all season around #16.

[POD Knows]

Yeah, I ended up putting Illinois St about 5 spots in front of NAU. I'm already regretting it.Don't worry about NAU will NAU and you will be fine.