How to measure cannibalization ??

[Redbird 4th & short]

My team didn't make playoffs, so i had a little more free time than some of you. but the playoff results got me thinking about conference cannibalization.

And before I throw some stats out there which I think will help meaure conference cannibalization as it relates to FCS selection committee peformance this year .. I want to first congratulate the selection committee for doing a decent job in a very tough year. There were some mistakes, but it seemed like there were far less glaring mistakes than in past seasons. I also want to say it is still generally improving since the utter stupidity that went on from 2011-13 that saw MVFC get 2, 3, and 2 teams. Biggest mistake this year did come at expense of MVFC .. getting just 3 teams, but again ... far less glaring issues in a year that will go down as the "Year of Parity".

So here is a measure of conference cannibalization I think fairly/objectively represents how much a conference cannibalizes itself. The committe should pay much closer attention to this .. it is simple math, nothing more, if you accept Massey picking the top 6 teams from each conference. I'll only use the top 3 conferences with arguable premise these 3 are equally good if you focus ONLY on their top 6 teams .. granted it is per Massey, but if you look these 6 teams, you could maybe argue 1 or 2 of the 18 not being top 6 in their respective conferences .. those 6 teams are in Massey order:

- MVFC: NDSU, SDSU, UNI, ISUb, ISUr, WIU
- CAA: Maine, JMU, Delaware, Towson, SB, Elon
- Big Sky: EWU, Weber, UCD, Mont St, Idaho St, Mont

So the measure is simply to count the # of games played by each of the above teams against the other 5 top 6 teams in each conference. So each team can play a max of 5 games against top 6 teams ... you can't play yourself, it's frowned upon (on airplanes anyway, thanks a lot Bin Laden xeyebrowx ). So counting by conference:

- MVFC has 10 total teams, so our top 6 teams logically played the most at 27 of 30 possible games against each other (90%), and went 14-13 in those 27 games; for entire MVFC it is on avg 8 of 9 = 89% ... close enough

- CAA has 12 total teams, so their top 6 teams played 2nd most at 20 of 30 possible games against each other (67%), and went 10-10 in those 20 games; for entire league it is on avg 8 of 11 = 73% .. close enough

- Big Sky has 14 teams, so their top 6 teams logically played the least at just 18 of 30 possible games against each other (60%), and went 9-9 in those 18 games; for entire league ist is on avg 8 of 13 = 62% .. close enough

So the obvious point being if we on-leveled the top 6 teams records so that all cannibalized each other at same % ... take MVFC at 90% ....

- MVFC would have same # of losses
- CAA would have 7 more games with 7 more losses shared among those 6 teams
- Big Sky would have 9 more games with 9 more losses shared among those 6 teams

How would that have impacted playoff selections ??

The math is very simple and objective .. the only aspect that can really be argued is picking top 6 per Massey and my assumption the 3 conferences are pretty equal in their top 6. Also, this does not factor anything in for OOC results or SOS.

Thoughts on this ? Any flaws in my thinking ?

[Redbird 4th & short]

I should add, the inference of on-leveling the cannibalization % to MVFC at 90% being as follows:

- CAA would play 7 more games against top 6 teams and therefore 7 less games against the bottom 6 teams .... and assumes as a block, they would win 50% of those 7 games against top 6, instead of winning maybe 90% of those games against bottom 6 teams.
- Big Sky would play 9 more games against top 6 and therefore 9 less games against the bottom 8 teams .. similarly winning 50% against top 6 instead of 90% against bottom 8

[MR. CHICKEN]

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=29652&stc=1

[Reign of Terrier]

Here's the thing. In the FCS, there is NDSU and everyone else.

There are probably no more than 15-20 teams/programs who are capable of winning a playoff game. Who the characters are, rotates every few years.

Below NDSU there are 2 or so teams every year that rotate randomly who can beat them or at least compete with them. In the past it's been EWU, JMU, SHSU (at least in 2011-2012) and maybe currently SDSU. Maybe Kennesaw is among them, we still don't know.

Below them, there are the playoff stalwarts who have either gone on a deep run in years past and not gotten back, or consistently go 1-1 every year. These teams include UNI, Illinois State, Wofford, Jacksonville State and others.

I think a lot of talks about cannibalization and conference strength are just attempts to dumb down the conversation to a simple heuristic of "my team deserves to be in because of who we play." In reality, the bubble in the AQ conferences are pretty comparable with each other, so much so that the difference is so marginal that there's not enough certainty to favor any conference with such a heuristic.

Everyone plays a tough conference slate. FCS is competitive outside of Fargo.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Redbird 4th & short]

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=29652&stc=1
xscanxv... a tad heavy on numbers, yes .. but come on, I did the math for you ! xrulesx

[Redbird 4th & short]

Here's the thing. In the FCS, there is NDSU and everyone else.

There are probably no more than 15-20 teams/programs who are capable of winning a playoff game. Who the characters are, rotates every few years.

Below NDSU there are 2 or so teams every year that rotate randomly who can beat them or at least compete with them. In the past it's been EWU, JMU, SHSU (at least in 2011-2012) and maybe currently SDSU. Maybe Kennesaw is among them, we still don't know.

Below them, there are the playoff stalwarts who have either gone on a deep run in years past and not gotten back, or consistently go 1-1 every year. These teams include UNI, Illinois State, Wofford, Jacksonville State and others.

I think a lot of talks about cannibalization and conference strength are just attempts to dumb down the conversation to a simple heuristic of "my team deserves to be in because of who we play." In reality, the bubble in the AQ conferences are pretty comparable with each other, so much so that the difference is so marginal that there's not enough certainty to favor any conference with such a heuristic.

Everyone plays a tough conference slate. FCS is competitive outside of Fargo.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

not sure it dumbs it down, and I did put all 3 conferences on an even plane with their top 6 teams each.

In case this helps explain for anyone else ... The point was to highlight the mathematical implications on SOS with conferences that have 10 vs 12 vs 14 teams. I realize this math doesn't 100% necessarily prove my point because it presumes the remaining teams are all easy wins for most part ... certainly all are "easier" than playing the top 6, but not all are "easy". So acknowledging that partial flaw in my assumptions, I still think the math makes a clear point on the benefit of playing less "top 6" teams in these 3 conferences in terms of the # of losses for each conferences playoff-contending teams. This suggests you could add a little over 1 loss on average to each of the CAA and Big Sky "top 6" teams, if they had played 90% of the top 6 teams instead of just 60 or 67% of them ... surely they would have lost more games as a group .. that can't be argued. So how would that have impacted playoff selections .. odds are, most of those 4 loss teams would have had 5 losses .. somebody has to lose when top 6 teams play each other.

[PAllen]

Did you win your conference? If not, what can you point to as being the best team in your conference? If you're not the best team in your conference, then you're not the best team in the country. Stop looking for a playoff participation trophy. I think schools that list playoff appearances on banners in their stadiums, or "finalist" or "quarterfinalist" are tacky. Yes Colgate, I'm looking at you. Conference titles are OK. National titles should be prominent. Everything else just makes you look weak.

[Herder]

As I posted previously, I think strength of Conf is more clearly shown by looking at Sagarin Ratings. The worst team in the MVFC had a higher sagarin than the bottom 7 in the Sky and was right with the 4th from bottom of the CAA. Lots of easier wins in those 2 conferences than in the Valley. Add to it no dominate team in the CAA, and you have 7 teams with 7+ wins (includes Elon). All the sudden a mediocre CAA looks artificially strong. (See Stats article piling on the strength of the CAA)

The FCS selection committee would see virtually no difference between a 13-0 Alabama and 13-0 UCF. The AAC and SEC, no difference. That’s FCS football, we are expected to bury our heads in the sand to the FCS selection committee.

[Reign of Terrier]

I believe you're making a complicated argument for uncontroversial point:

The conference that doesn't play everyone in their conference will benefit by likely having an easier schedule. The CAA and Big Sky benefit from this, but the MVFC, Socon, and Southland do not.

[Herder]

Frankly, I don’t understand the 24 team playoff setup. Getting a top 8 seed is huge. Playing the opening weekend is a huge disadvantage. A 16 team playoff would likely lead to more balanced results. Winning 5 games is very tough and improbable.

[cx500d]

I believe you're making a complicated argument for uncontroversial point:

The conference that doesn't play everyone in their conference will benefit by likely having an easier schedule. The CAA and Big Sky benefit from this, but the MVFC, Socon, and Southland do not.

We don't play everyone in our conference.

[kalm]

I believe you're making a complicated argument for uncontroversial point:

The conference that doesn't play everyone in their conference will benefit by likely having an easier schedule. The CAA and Big Sky benefit from this, but the MVFC, Socon, and Southland do not.

Who compares resumes based on conference schedules? xcoffeex

[Herder]

I believe you're making a complicated argument for uncontroversial point:

The conference that doesn't play everyone in their conference will benefit by likely having an easier schedule. The CAA and Big Sky benefit from this, but the MVFC, Socon, and Southland do not.


The MVFC has a +8 and +10 sagarin rating on two conferences that got way more teams in the playoff. Is the selection committee completely lost?

[Reign of Terrier]

Who compares resumes based on conference schedules? xcoffeexIt matters when comparing conference champions and contemplating who gets seeded or ranked a certain way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

It matters when comparing conference champions and contemplating who gets seeded or ranked a certain way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

No it doesn't. You should be comparing the two resumes, W/L, SoS, etc regardless of conference. For example, I could assume Furman had a relatively weak SoS compared to a typical CAA team based on the rest of the SoCon but they actually didn't.

[JayJ79]

Frankly, I don’t understand the 24 team playoff setup. Getting a top 8 seed is huge. Playing the opening weekend is a huge disadvantage. A 16 team playoff would likely lead to more balanced results. Winning 5 games is very tough and improbable.
balanced results?
The point of playoffs is to determine the best team, not to achieve balance.
Yes, getting a top 8 seed is an advantage, and that advantage was earned by playing well in the regular season. And those 8 seeds still have to prove themselves by beating 4 other teams if they want to win the championship.

- - - Updated - - -

speaking of cannibalization, I just happened to have watched "Silence of the Lambs" this afternoon on TV

[Reign of Terrier]

No it doesn't. You should be comparing the two resumes, W/L, SoS, etc regardless of conference. For example, I could assume Furman had a relatively weak SoS compared to a typical CAA team based on the rest of the SoCon but they actually didn't.You say that but literally 1/3 of this site and 80% of the MVFC fans think they should get first dibs because of their conference affiliation

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Literally the only reason people care about cannibalization is because it provides an easier heuristic.

Most supposed "avid fans" of FCS really want the easiest argument to prove they are the best.

Heck, I had a Bison fan on Twitter @ me saying that the MVFC was so much better than the rest of the subdivision because every team in the MVFC had beaten the Bison since 2010 and only 3 had beaten them OOC. I need not waste characters on why that's a dumb argument (higher proportion of games are played in conference, huge time frame, lot of programs don't lose OOC, no one in the MVFC boatraces power conference teams, etc)

I personally care about cannibalization because I have to deal with such idiots and because geography probably limits eastern teams from advancing as far in the playoffs and because there's a collective scheduling action problem, we have a limited sample of how good these teams are.

Put another way, I'm okay with playing KSU, JSU, and a random socon team on occasion in the playoffs, but I want more out of playoff experiences than just those teams. Thankfully, this year broke that trend.

As for actually getting into the playoffs, complaining about cannibalization is a form of whining and asking for a participation trophy. It's an abomination that a 6-5 team can get into the playoffs in my opinion. If you only win 6 games you're practically slightly better than chance (yes, I am aware that applies to Furman, a team I thought was worthy, given the weak bubble). In a weak bubble, it's compelling to me.

Playoff selection is inherently going to be a game involving prognostication and schedule strength comparison, but investing too much into it ignores the product on the field. Most teams don't play more than 2-3 teams above 6-5 when the dust settles anyway.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[gofurman]

Did you win your conference? If not, what can you point to as being the best team in your conference?

"If you're not the best team in your conference, then you're not the best team in the country." Stop looking for a playoff participation trophy. I think schools that list playoff appearances on banners in their stadiums, or "finalist" or "quarterfinalist" are tacky. Yes Colgate, I'm looking at you. Conference titles are OK. National titles should be prominent. Everything else just makes you look weak.


This SINGULAR statement is just flat out NOT RIGHT. ITS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Do You watch sports???


playoff at-larges in many sports - March madness basketball for one VERY VERY VERY often - win the NATIONAL TITLE Without winning their own conference !!!! Sometimes a team gets hot.

Many many many ACC teams - Duke, UNC, etc etc - have won the NATIONAL TITLE after finishing second or third in the ACC. MLBaseball has sometimes had a surprise team win the World Series

i am shocked at the things I read on here sometimes. I guess I shouldn't be LOL

i do get that part of your point was about not hanging banners for playoff invitation... But you also,said - and I quote. " If you're not the best team in your conference, then you're not the best team in the country." Playoffs - which is what FCS fans generally believe in, - sometimes yield a different result

[Redbird 4th & short]

I believe you're making a complicated argument for uncontroversial point:

The conference that doesn't play everyone in their conference will benefit by likely having an easier schedule. The CAA and Big Sky benefit from this, but the MVFC, Socon, and Southland do not.
right, so I simply did the math to determine "how much" potential impact.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Did you win your conference? If not, what can you point to as being the best team in your conference? If you're not the best team in your conference, then you're not the best team in the country. Stop looking for a playoff participation trophy. I think schools that list playoff appearances on banners in their stadiums, or "finalist" or "quarterfinalist" are tacky. Yes Colgate, I'm looking at you. Conference titles are OK. National titles should be prominent. Everything else just makes you look weak.
so you would advocate that one auto bid from each conference and that's your playoff ? what about all other sports at all other levels .. you would get rid of all these playoff games involving teams who were not their conference champ ? Thereby screwing participants in clearly stronger conferences. So then good teams would regularly leave good cofnerences and got to crappy conferences if they wanted a better shot at playoff ?

Playoffs are here to stay and designed to reward the best teams with a shot in post season ... IMO, conference should not matter ... in a 100+ team field, find the best 24 teams and reward them .. players, coaches, and fans.

[kalm]

so you would advocate that one auto bid from each conference and that's your playoff ? what about all other sports at all other levels .. you would get rid of all these playoff games involving teams who were not their conference champ ? Thereby screwing participants in clearly stronger conferences. So then good teams would regularly leave good cofnerences and got to crappy conferences if they wanted a better shot at playoff ?

Playoffs are here to stay and designed to reward the best teams with a shot in post season ... IMO, conference should not matter ... in a 100+ team field, find the best 24 teams and reward them .. players, coaches, and fans.

Yup. EWU was seeded behind Montana State in 2010 because we lost the h2h.

[CID1990]

Cannibalism

[Redbird 4th & short]

As I posted previously, I think strength of Conf is more clearly shown by looking at Sagarin Ratings. The worst team in the MVFC had a higher sagarin than the bottom 7 in the Sky and was right with the 4th from bottom of the CAA. Lots of easier wins in those 2 conferences than in the Valley. Add to it no dominate team in the CAA, and you have 7 teams with 7+ wins (includes Elon). All the sudden a mediocre CAA looks artificially strong. (See Stats article piling on the strength of the CAA)

The FCS selection committee would see virtually no difference between a 13-0 Alabama and 13-0 UCF. The AAC and SEC, no difference. That’s FCS football, we are expected to bury our heads in the sand to the FCS selection committee.

Agreed but many have tried to discredit computer rankings like Sagarin and Massey, even while they also discredit subjective polls .. so this is why I purposely started with premise of taking the 3 strongest conferences (not debatable IMO) and only the top 6 teams (per Massey), then assume they are relatively equal and did the math to quantify.

Ultimately, I think it explains what happened to Colonial vs what happened to Big Sky. The difference being, Colonial had a three 5-3 teams make playoffs, while Big Sky had three 7-1 teams makes playoffs .. both benefited from less cannibalization, but Colonial was less strong at top this year. So Colonial benefited more from 'less cannibalization" because several 4-4 level teams went 5-3 because they only played 67% of top 6 teams. This was enough to make it appear like they deserved 6 teams in a year that saw a lot more parity across FCS ... excluding the top 3 from Big Sky and the top 2 from MVFC. So Colonial benefited the most and it showed in playoffs.

Again, as I said in original post, I commended the selection committee .. it might have been their best year. Their usally questionable bubble decisions were only marginally questionable ... though ISUb got screwed for sure. And they obviously did a good job with the top 8 seeds .. most people agreed BEFORE they all won saturday.

Again, I'm just quantifying what many people already acknowledge .. or sort of acknowledge. But the impact is on average just over 1 loss per top 6 team, on average .. meaning, many would have 1 more loss, some would have 2 more losses, some would have no more losses. But as a block, those top 6 would have 7 (CAA) and 9 (Big Sky) more losses spread among all 6 teams if they had to play 90% of top 6 teams like MVFC. This hurts the MVFC come playoff time.

[AmsterBison]

I wonder if MVFC teams get a Sagarin bounce by preparing for NDSU year round, making those games closer than they'd be otherwise.

Since 2010, NDSU's average margin of victory in regular season conference games is 22 pts compared to 35+ In regular-season non-conference games and 27 in playoff non-conference games. Regular-season conference games have been tougher for NDSU than playoff games against non-conference teams.

[Daytripper]

We don't play everyone in our conference.

We don't either.

[POD Knows]

I wonder if MVFC teams get a Sagarin bounce by preparing for NDSU year round, making those games closer than they'd be otherwise.

Since 2010, NDSU's average margin of victory in regular season conference games is 22 pts compared to 35+ In regular-season non-conference games and 27 in playoff non-conference games. Regular-season conference games have been tougher for NDSU than playoff games against non-conference teams.the playoff spread against non-conference foes is unbelievable. What are the numbers when you take out JMU? The playoffs against non-conference foes is almost a break for the Bison, with the exception of JMU.

[F'N Hawks]

The MVFC teams need to stop playing D2 and NAIA teams. There is no reason to unless somebody backs out at last minute. That cost ISU a spot.

[Redbird 4th & short]

The MVFC teams need to stop playing D2 and NAIA teams. There is no reason to unless somebody backs out at last minute. That cost ISU a spot.
agreed 110% ... but this was an unusual year on that front. ISUr also had a non D-I game (very good local NAIA team) because our way too budget-minded AD insisted on a cheap home opener. He got skewered for nearly a year on Redbird Forum ... he was considered lucky we went 6-5 instead of 7-4, knocking us off playoff bubble, or it would have gotten really ugly for him.

[POD Knows]

The MVFC teams need to stop playing D2 and NAIA teams. There is no reason to unless somebody backs out at last minute. That cost ISU a spot.
The BSC played more D2 and lower games than the MVFC did in 2018 but I agree with your point.

[ST_Lawson]

The MVFC teams need to stop playing D2 and NAIA teams. There is no reason to unless somebody backs out at last minute. That cost ISU a spot.

I think ILSU vs Saint Xavier and INSU vs Quincy were the only ones this year. I agree that outside of "last-minute" scheduling issues, we shouldn't be scheduling non-DI teams.
As of right now, nobody in the MVFC has any non-DI teams on the schedule for 2019 although it looks like Missouri State, South Dakota State, and Youngstown State still have one open date each.

[AmsterBison]

the playoff spread against non-conference foes is unbelievable. What are the numbers when you take out JMU? The playoffs against non-conference foes is almost a break for the Bison, with the exception of JMU.

As you know NDSU has only lost one playoff game (JMU) since 2010.

I didn't include the JMU loss in the margin of victory calculation because it wasn't a win. The average score goes to 37-12 when the JMU loss is included.

[POD Knows]

As you know NDSU has only lost one playoff game (JMU) since 2010.

I didn't include the JMU loss in the margin of victory calculation because it wasn't a win. The average score goes to 37-12 when the JMU loss is included.OK, thanks

[F'N Hawks]

I was told by a good source that Idaho State wasn't getting in even if they beat Weber State that last game.

All because of the D2 win vs Western State.

[Rabbit74]

- MVFC has 10 total teams, so our top 6 teams logically played the most at 27 of 30 possible games against each other (90%), and went 14-13 in those 27 games; for entire MVFC it is on avg 8 of 9 = 89% ... close enough



Not that if alters your argument one way or the other, but I am a stickler for accuracy. The record has to be .500, either 13-13 or 14-14 in the scenario you describe. There were not 27 games rather 13 or 14 games with 2 participants each with one winner and one loser.

[Reign of Terrier]

Worth mentioning that Massey ratings are not great. They reward blowouts and offensive teams (think air raid) and teams that are closely affiliated to those teams. Just look at their FBS rankings and how the SEC measures up.

I don't know how sagarin works, so I can't comment on it.

But computer rankings are a lot better for basketball than football because you have more data and the amount of points you score or give up tells you a lot more because the amount of possessions in a basketball game are greater than a football game.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Go...gate]

Did you win your conference? If not, what can you point to as being the best team in your conference? If you're not the best team in your conference, then you're not the best team in the country. Stop looking for a playoff participation trophy. I think schools that list playoff appearances on banners in their stadiums, or "finalist" or "quarterfinalist" are tacky. Yes Colgate, I'm looking at you. Conference titles are OK. National titles should be prominent. Everything else just makes you look weak.

With three exceptions (1982, 1983 and 1998), two when we were an Independent before the Patriot League were even formed, all of our playoff appearances have come as the result of a conference title. Are you saying that achieving Finalist and Quarterfinalist for the NCAA title are not worth commemorating, even in our own facility? They sure as hell are not participation trophies. A team has to win to get there.

[centennial]

I wonder if MVFC teams get a Sagarin bounce by preparing for NDSU year round, making those games closer than they'd be otherwise.

Since 2010, NDSU's average margin of victory in regular season conference games is 22 pts compared to 35+ In regular-season non-conference games and 27 in playoff non-conference games. Regular-season conference games have been tougher for NDSU than playoff games against non-conference teams.

1 game out of 11 where the margin is one or two touchdown better than expected. The bounce is at best a rank or two.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Not that if alters your argument one way or the other, but I am a stickler for accuracy. The record has to be .500, either 13-13 or 14-14 in the scenario you describe. There were not 27 games rather 13 or 14 games with 2 participants each with one winner and one loser.
laughing out loud ... I noticed it as well, went over it twice and got same result both times .. already spent too much time on it, and decided it must be right ... but still not sure.

[MR. CHICKEN]

.....HOW TA MEASURE......CANNIBALIZATION?.........JES' COUNT....DUH DIRTY DISHES.............BRAWK!

[Redbird 4th & short]

I think ILSU vs Saint Xavier and INSU vs Quincy were the only ones this year. I agree that outside of "last-minute" scheduling issues, we shouldn't be scheduling non-DI teams.
As of right now, nobody in the MVFC has any non-DI teams on the schedule for 2019 although it looks like Missouri State, South Dakota State, and Youngstown State still have one open date each.
Ironically, WIU faced same situation in 2017 as ISUr did in 2018 with a non-DI game on schedule ... theirs was more difficult really. Both teams were just trying to get 1 more home game. In WIU case, they scheduled exact same NAIA team (St Xavier, local Chicago area NAIA power ... tranlated, cheap home game) in 2016 because they already had 2 OOC road games. Ultimately, they arranged to get out of the game and took a 3rd OOC road game. As it hppens, they won all 3 road OOC games and had a nice year.

For ISUr a year later to do same and not find a way out of the game was not received well. On Redbird forum, we skewered our AD as soon as this game showed up on our schedule. Except we were just trying to get a 2nd home OOC game becuase year prior we only 1 home OOC game. WIU at least bit the bullet and took the 3rd road game. Our AD simply said, "scheduling is hard" ... literally said that. Bear in mind we play OOC home & home with EIU every year, plus an FBS ... how f-ing hard can it be to get a patsy come to ISU ??? Or just take a 2n road OOC game !!!

Not us. Our AD was lucky we went 6-5 .. he would have taken severe beating if we'd gone 7-4 and not gotten a bid like ISUb. Our financial resources are much stronger than WIU or ISUb .. but we did nothing to get out of it.

[kalm]

Ironically, WIU faced same situation in 2017 as ISUr did in 2018 with a non-DI game on schedule ... theirs was more difficult really. Both teams were just trying to get 1 more home game. In WIU case, they scheduled exact same NAIA team (St Xavier, local Chicago area NAIA power ... tranlated, cheap home game) in 2016 because they already had 2 OOC road games. Ultimately, they arranged to get out of the game and took a 3rd OOC road game. As it hppens, they won all 3 road OOC games and had a nice year.

For ISUr a year later to do same and not find a way out of the game was not received well. On Redbird forum, we skewered our AD as soon as this game showed up on our schedule. Except we were just trying to get a 2nd home OOC game becuase year prior we only 1 home OOC game. WIU at least bit the bullet and took the 3rd road game. Our AD simply said, "scheduling is hard" ... literally said that. Bear in mind we play OOC home & home with EIU every year, plus an FBS ... how f-ing hard can it be to get a patsy come to ISU ??? Or just take a 2n road OOC game !!!

Not us. Our AD was lucky we went 6-5 .. he would have taken severe beating if we'd gone 7-4 and not gotten a bid like ISUb. Our financial resources are much stronger than WIU or ISUb .. but we did nothing to get out of it.

What’s your average draw?

[Herder]

balanced results?
The point of playoffs is to determine the best team, not to achieve balance.
Yes, getting a top 8 seed is an advantage, and that advantage was earned by playing well in the regular season. And those 8 seeds still have to prove themselves by beating 4 other teams if they want to win the championship.

- - - Updated - - -

speaking of cannibalization, I just happened to have watched "Silence of the Lambs" this afternoon on TV

Balance, as in the bottom 8-16 teams have no shot, going on the road and playing 5 games to win it all. Balance, as in every time on the tournament has to win 4 games to be the champion. Going to 5 rounds creates a situation where to the top 8 seeds have a huge advantage. Even if say JMU was the best team this year going into the playoffs, they won't make it through a grueling 5 games vs teams that only have to play 4.

[ST_Lawson]

What’s your average draw?

idk about Illinois State, but at WIU...oh...probably about a baker's dozen

[BEAR]

For me it's more about what is the number of teams IN and outside the seeds that actually win the title. I know NDSU has been seeded every year and have won many titles. Not sure beyond them much because UCA hasn't been eligible but since 2010. Beyond the seeds does it really matter who gets the at-large spots...I can't recall any ever winning the title anyway. Some have done well don't get me wrong and you want the best teams in the at-large spots. But really does it make a HUGE difference anyway? (throwing that out there for conversation).

The SLC apart from the autobid typically gets one in for sure most years. That second place team usually does well. If a third place team gets in they usually get bounced in the first round or if they are lucky make it to the second round.

I would like to see how conferences with 6 bids typically do. If the goal of winning the title is the main focus, does it really matter if a conference gets 3 or 6 teams in? How many teams beyond the seeds win it anyway?

[kalm]

For me it's more about what is the number of teams IN and outside the seeds that actually win the title. I know NDSU has been seeded every year and have won many titles. Not sure beyond them much because UCA hasn't been eligible but since 2010. Beyond the seeds does it really matter who gets the at-large spots...I can't recall any ever winning the title anyway. Some have done well don't get me wrong and you want the best teams in the at-large spots. But really does it make a HUGE difference anyway? (throwing that out there for conversation).

The SLC apart from the autobid typically gets one in for sure most years. That second place team usually does well. If a third place team gets in they usually get bounced in the first round or if they are lucky make it to the second round.

I would like to see how conferences with 6 bids typically do. If the goal of winning the title is the main focus, does it really matter if a conference gets 3 or 6 teams in? How many teams beyond the seeds win it anyway?

Crowning the champ is the ultimate goal but there's obviously more to it than just that. Extra practices, exposure for the program, economic boon to the local communities, increased donations to the program, etc.

How many teams in March Madness have a realistic shot?

An at-large winning it all may never happen but an un-seeded Villanova in 2010 upset App State and was within a score late of going to the title game.

[NY Crusader 2010]

I think ILSU vs Saint Xavier and INSU vs Quincy were the only ones this year. I agree that outside of "last-minute" scheduling issues, we shouldn't be scheduling non-DI teams.
As of right now, nobody in the MVFC has any non-DI teams on the schedule for 2019 although it looks like Missouri State, South Dakota State, and Youngstown State still have one open date each.

Im not against FCS teams scheduling D2 or NAIA, especially out west where local DI opponents can be hard to come by. Let's remember, were the ones who also complain when conferences like the Big Ten block FCS games. If there's a D2 school out there that can give one of us a local opponent or a competitive game, I say let em play.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Crowning the champ is the ultimate goal but there's obviously more to it than just that. Extra practices, exposure for the program, economic boon to the local communities, increased donations to the program, etc.

How many teams in March Madness have a realistic shot?

An at-large winning it all may never happen but an un-seeded Villanova in 2010 upset App State and was within a score late of going to the title game.

Im fine with at-large bids up to the point where the last bubble team can legitimately compete for a national championship. Hard to really gauge FCS playoff expansion in this way because since 2011 one school has basically won every year -- and on their annual path to doing so has made many formidable opponents look like Davidson. I personally think we should go back to the NCAA minimum of 20 (10 at-large, 10 auto). The dumpster diving has gotten more extreme of late. By the time you start looking at 7-4 CAA teams, 8-3 PL teams and 6-5 teams from even the top-dog MVC, it's time to shut the door.

NCAA Basketball tournament is fine RIGHT NOW in my opinion but one day in the near future we will surely see a bloated 96-team bracket which will all but guarantee every P6 team with an overall record of .500 or greater an invite. 68 is OK for now -- we've had 8-seeded UCONN win the tournament in 2014 and a few years before that VCU went from the First Four to the Final Four.

[ST_Lawson]

Im not against FCS teams scheduling D2 or NAIA, especially out west where local DI opponents can be hard to come by. Let's remember, were the ones who also complain when conferences like the Big Ten block FCS games. If there's a D2 school out there that can give one of us a local opponent or a competitive game, I say let em play.

I'm not saying that it should be against the rules to do...if a school decides they want to play a non-DI team because of scheduling issues, to have possibly an "easy win", or to get another home game...I don't have a problem with that. I don't feel like the top level conferences in the FCS would need to be scheduling lower-division schools outside of last-minute backouts from an opponent though.

Another thing to consider is that FBS teams can play 1 FCS team a season and have it count towards bowl eligibility. An FCS team playing a DII or NAIA team gets you essentially zero credit for the playoff committee. That's why technically 7-4 (although 6-4 against DI teams) Indiana State got left at home and 6-5 overall (5-5 against DI) Illinois State wasn't even remotely in the conversation, while 6-5 Northern Iowa got in.

INSU was treated essentially as a 6-win team that went 5-3 in the MVFC.
UNI was a 6-win team that went 5-3 in the MVFC and had the win over INSU.

If the playoff committee gave any credit for an FCS steamrolling a DII team, INSU would have been in...maybe not instead of UNI...but they would have been chosen "before" UNI.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Lawson, that makes sense. In FBS land, 6 wins is 6 wins and YOURE GOING to a bowl - no matter if the 6th win was against Auburn, JMU or Wagner. Maybe our committee should be able to differentiate between good and bad teams below the FCS level, in other words beating New Haven or Grand Valley State should be viewed differently than beating a bad NAIA.

[ST_Lawson]

Lawson, that makes sense. In FBS land, 6 wins is 6 wins and YOURE GOING to a bowl - no matter if the 6th win was against Auburn, JMU or Wagner. Maybe our committee should be able to differentiate between good and bad teams below the FCS level, in other words beating New Haven or Grand Valley State should be viewed differently than beating a bad NAIA.

Ideally, yeah...they'd take actual quality of teams into consideration and not just division level. Say FCS Team 1 were to beat someone like Ferris State, Valdosta St. NW Missouri, or MN Makato (all DII, but they'd all finish top half of most FCS conference most years), and FCS Team 2 beats a team in the bottom half of the Pioneer League or SWAC, for example.
Team 1's win should be regarded as better than Team 2 taking out Valpo or MS Valley State.

I'm not saying that Indiana State should get much credit for beating DII Quincy (who finished 4-7 overall), but if Quincy had been a top-10 DII team this year, it doesn't feel like that would have mattered to the committee. They'd still have treated INSU as a 6-win team and still probably would have been right outside the bubble.

[FUBeAR]

Just reading the most recent posts on this thread and I’m wondering if it would be beneficial for FCS polls & the Committee to start posting and using FCS winning % as the primary metric to compare Teams. We never really talk about that. I think we all mentally estimate / interpolate it, but as an AGS voter, I would like to see that number calculated & shown Front & Center for every Team week to week.

Now, I know we could get down in the weeds and say, games against FCS non-schollie shouldn’t count and/or this D2 or that NAIA (Go Reinhardt) Team is better than this FCS NEC (reduced schollie) Team, but that’s splitting hairs, IMO. We can also go the other way & say “We won an FBS game (over UTEP or SJSU)” or “Well, we played Clemson or Alabama”...so just toss those also.

Comparing %’s of FCS wins levels the playing field as much as it can reasonably be leveled - in both competition level & number of games played vs. FCS. It ain’t perfect, but I’d sure like to see it become a more prominent metric in FCS analyses. It’s a far sight better than # of wins...I’m sure of that.

[MR. CHICKEN]

.....WINNIN' PCTG........STRENGTH UH SKED......................STRENGTH UH SKED...........BRAWK!

[MR. CHICKEN]

For me it's more about what is the number of teams IN and outside the seeds that actually win the title. I know NDSU has been seeded every year and have won many titles. Not sure beyond them much because UCA hasn't been eligible but since 2010. Beyond the seeds does it really matter who gets the at-large spots...I can't recall any ever winning the title anyway. Some have done well don't get me wrong and you want the best teams in the at-large spots. But really does it make a HUGE difference anyway? (throwing that out there for conversation).

The SLC apart from the autobid typically gets one in for sure most years. That second place team usually does well. If a third place team gets in they usually get bounced in the first round or if they are lucky make it to the second round.

I would like to see how conferences with 6 bids typically do. If the goal of winning the title is the main focus, does it really matter if a conference gets 3 or 6 teams in? How many teams beyond the seeds win it anyway?


.......JAMES MADISON DID IT....SEVERAL YEARS AGO......AN' EVERAH PLAY-OFF GAME WAS ON DUH ROAD........CAACAN........................BRAWK!

[FUBeAR]

Ideally, yeah...they'd take actual quality of teams into consideration and not just division level. Say FCS Team 1 were to beat someone like Ferris State, Valdosta St. NW Missouri, or MN Makato (all DII, but they'd all finish top half of most FCS conference most years), and FCS Team 2 beats a team in the bottom half of the Pioneer League or SWAC, for example.
Team 1's win should be regarded as better than Team 2 taking out Valpo or MS Valley State.

I'm not saying that Indiana State should get much credit for beating DII Quincy (who finished 4-7 overall), but if Quincy had been a top-10 DII team this year, it doesn't feel like that would have mattered to the committee. They'd still have treated INSU as a 6-win team and still probably would have been right outside the bubble.
I don’t disagree, in theory, but in practice, this is just too hard. For example, if you pull up “cf2018” on Massey, it ONLY goes up to 500 Teams. I have no idea how good Ferris State is because they are D2; and located somewhere where I am not regionally (Big Rapids, MI, I just learned), but I know Morehouse is D2 and I know they are bad because they are in Atlanta, but I had no clue that Morehouse is ranked #500 & FerrisSt is ranked #125 - ahead of FCS Playoff Teams, Wofford, Towson, Elon, SEMO, JaxSt, UIW, Lamar, ETSU, Duquesne...and maybe some I missed. They are also rated ahead of ECU, SJSU & WKU - FBS Teams that gave 3 FCS Teams a lot of ‘extra credit’ this year for beating ‘em & taking an FBS scalp. Is Ferris that good (anyone, anyone, Bueller?)? I have no idea. Maybe they are. I don’t have time nor care to research.

We know FCS scheduling issues aren’t going to go away - for $’s or miles or whatever...that’s why I just suggested, in my last post...would love to see the division really focus on FCS winning % as the primary metric. We can dive into SoS after that...and get into quality wins and good losses and such, but, man, I would really just like to see that most applish to most applish number FIRST.

[FUBeAR]

.....WINNIN' PCTG........STRENGTH UH SKED......................STRENGTH UH SKED...........BRAWK!
1) FCS winning %
2) Strength of Schedule
3) Analysis of individual losses
4) Analysis of individual wins
5) Other stuff - eye-test, etc.

...translated to chicken-speak, of course

[ST_Lawson]

I don’t disagree, in theory, but in practice, this is just too hard. For example, if you pull up “cf2018” on Massey, it ONLY goes up to 500 Teams. I have no idea how good Ferris State is because they are D2; and located somewhere where I am not regionally (Big Rapids, MI, I just learned), but I know Morehouse is D2 and I know they are bad because they are in Atlanta, but I had no clue that Morehouse is ranked #500 & FerrisSt is ranked #125 - ahead of FCS Playoff Teams, Wofford, Towson, Elon, SEMO, JaxSt, UIW, Lamar, ETSU, Duquesne...and maybe some I missed. They are also rated ahead of ECU, SJSU & WKU - FBS Teams that gave 3 FCS Teams a lot of ‘extra credit’ this year for beating ‘em & taking an FBS scalp. Is Ferris that good (anyone, anyone, Bueller?)? I have no idea. Maybe they are. I don’t have time nor care to research.

We know FCS scheduling issues aren’t going to go away - for $’s or miles or whatever...that’s why I just suggested, in my last post...would love to see the division really focus on FCS winning % as the primary metric. We can dive into SoS after that...and get into quality wins and good losses and such, but, man, I would really just like to see that most applish to most applish number FIRST.

You're right...there's not really a good metric for it and there's just too few rating systems and too little crossover with games between DI and DII teams to really get a good idea. I know some of the "big boys" in DII...Grand Valley State, MN Mankato, NW Missouri, Valdosta State...all historically very good. Wasn't familiar with Ferris State either until I was looking on Massey's site. They/he do/does have ratings for all DI, DII, and DIII teams (and NAIA and others...actually St. Xaiver...team that ILSU played...is ranked #5 in NAIA), and you can do a "matchup prediction" that could tell you that, for example, Ferris State would be less than a TD underdog against most of the teams that were around the FCS playoff "bubble" this year (https://www.masseyratings.com/game.php?s0=300937&oid0=2572&h=0&s1=300937&oid1=2800) but there's only so far that can get you. Also for reference, the matchup tool says that Ferris State vs Morehouse would be roughly "on par" with a matchup betwen NDSU and Savannah State, for example. But again...that's just one rating system and computer rating systems can be biased too.

I do hope that, if they're trying to decide between bubble teams, they at least take a look at the records of any non-DI teams they might have played, so they can get at least a basic idea of the difference between a win over a team like MN Makato as opposed to a team like Quincy (or Morehouse). I don't know that they don't, but I haven't seen any indication of paying much attention to the actual "difficulty" of non-DI teams.

[BEAR]

.......JAMES MADISON DID IT....SEVERAL YEARS AGO......AN' EVERAH PLAY-OFF GAME WAS ON DUH ROAD........CAACAN........................BRAWK!

Thanks for the education. I'm not too familiar with the playoffs before 2010 apart from APP going frequently. xlolx

[JSUSoutherner]

Redbird 4th & Short a secret Furman fan?

Sent from my Galaxy S9+ using Tapatalk

[FUBeAR]

Redbird 4th & Short a secret Furman fan? You seem to have a bit of an obsession with Furman. You live in ATL. Swing by. I can show you a bunch of one-of-a-kind memorabilia & I’m sure I’ve got some extra Purple & White swag I could let you have.

[Catbooster]

My team didn't make playoffs, so i had a little more free time than some of you. but the playoff results got me thinking about conference cannibalization.

And before I throw some stats out there which I think will help meaure conference cannibalization as it relates to FCS selection committee peformance this year .. I want to first congratulate the selection committee for doing a decent job in a very tough year. There were some mistakes, but it seemed like there were far less glaring mistakes than in past seasons. I also want to say it is still generally improving since the utter stupidity that went on from 2011-13 that saw MVFC get 2, 3, and 2 teams. Biggest mistake this year did come at expense of MVFC .. getting just 3 teams, but again ... far less glaring issues in a year that will go down as the "Year of Parity".

So here is a measure of conference cannibalization I think fairly/objectively represents how much a conference cannibalizes itself. The committe should pay much closer attention to this .. it is simple math, nothing more, if you accept Massey picking the top 6 teams from each conference. I'll only use the top 3 conferences with arguable premise these 3 are equally good if you focus ONLY on their top 6 teams .. granted it is per Massey, but if you look these 6 teams, you could maybe argue 1 or 2 of the 18 not being top 6 in their respective conferences .. those 6 teams are in Massey order:

- MVFC: NDSU, SDSU, UNI, ISUb, ISUr, WIU
- CAA: Maine, JMU, Delaware, Towson, SB, Elon
- Big Sky: EWU, Weber, UCD, Mont St, Idaho St, Mont

So the measure is simply to count the # of games played by each of the above teams against the other 5 top 6 teams in each conference. So each team can play a max of 5 games against top 6 teams ... you can't play yourself, it's frowned upon (on airplanes anyway, thanks a lot Bin Laden xeyebrowx ). So counting by conference:

- MVFC has 10 total teams, so our top 6 teams logically played the most at 27 of 30 possible games against each other (90%), and went 14-13 in those 27 games; for entire MVFC it is on avg 8 of 9 = 89% ... close enough

- CAA has 12 total teams, so their top 6 teams played 2nd most at 20 of 30 possible games against each other (67%), and went 10-10 in those 20 games; for entire league it is on avg 8 of 11 = 73% .. close enough

- Big Sky has 14 teams, so their top 6 teams logically played the least at just 18 of 30 possible games against each other (60%), and went 9-9 in those 18 games; for entire league ist is on avg 8 of 13 = 62% .. close enough

So the obvious point being if we on-leveled the top 6 teams records so that all cannibalized each other at same % ... take MVFC at 90% ....

- MVFC would have same # of losses
- CAA would have 7 more games with 7 more losses shared among those 6 teams
- Big Sky would have 9 more games with 9 more losses shared among those 6 teams

How would that have impacted playoff selections ??

The math is very simple and objective .. the only aspect that can really be argued is picking top 6 per Massey and my assumption the 3 conferences are pretty equal in their top 6. Also, this does not factor anything in for OOC results or SOS.

Thoughts on this ? Any flaws in my thinking ?

Nice effort. It would be nice to quantify this. As you point out, there are several simplifying assumptions (6 teams? 4 teams? half of conference so it's proportional to the size of the conference? a third of conference? Massey? Sagarin? AGS?, etc.). But my main criticism would be that you stopped too soon. Who cares if the Big Sky would have 9 more losses (I'll accept the previous assumptions and your numbers for argument's sake)? We don't pick conferences for the playoffs. You would need to go back and distribute those losses to the individual teams since that's who is under consideration for a playoff spot.

To use the two teams I'm most familiar with - UM and MSU - it wouldn't make sense to spread those additional losses evenly among the top teams of the conference (9 losses/6 teams=1.3 losses per team). MSU played all but one of the teams you've listed for the Big Sky. We didn't play UCD. UM only played 2 of them (UCD and MSU). So we played 4 of the 5 possible, while they only played 2 of the 5. MSU gets 1.3 extra losses for the 1 game they missed while UM gets 1.3 for 3 missed games? Assuming you're on the right track, IMO you're not going far enough.

I doubt you can find a good way to quantify this without it becoming terribly complex. But maybe with some refinement you can get a rough approximation that's useful as a data point when comparing teams. xdontknowx