HARD TO JUDGE FCS BY COMPARATIVE GAMES- Monmouth Fan's perspective

[MUHAWKS]

Disclosure- I am a Monmouth guy. So I am basing most of what I see on our games so far. The point I am trying to make is that at this point in the season it seems that there is WAY more parity than ever before in FCS and also the playoff committee is going to have their hands full for at large teams, mostly b/c of all the murky things we are seeing when comparing good wins/bad wins and bad losses/good losses.

Let me explain. So Being a an avid Monmouth fan and watching our program grow from the start (I was on one of the first few teams) to where we are now, the goal is now to get to the playoffs. Clearly we can avoid any opinions by winning the Big South. It is hard to tell how Kennesaw really is this year and Charleston Southern may also be pretty good. North Alabama looks good but is not eligible and games against them do not count for league standings. With that said, after 5 weeks Monmouth is 2-2 (just had our bye). We got blown out by an FBS school, but did not look terrible if that makes any sense. Then we only beat Lafayette by 4. Then we beat Albany after being up 21-0 and frankly looking better than them in general regardless of score. Then we go to Montana where nobody wins often and although we lost by 20, we were only down 6 with 10 minutes to go in the game. We were right there with the Grizz on the road and honestly it looked like we were on par with them in many aspects. A loss though is a loss and they were and are the better team.

Ok, so now to my point. We "only" beat Lafayette by 3, but Penn only beat them by 4 and Penn almost beat Delaware who almost beat Pitt! William and Mary struggled a bit with Lafayette too and actually looked good against 2 FBS schools and was ranked 40 here in AGS poll. But then Albany goes and beats them and we beat Albany. Montana beat the daylights out of a top 5 UC Davis team who hung with #15 FBS Cal and had ND state on the ropes. Monmouth was in the Montana game until about 5 minutes left while UC Davis was never in their game.

So after my long winded, maybe hard to understand jibberish what am I saying? I am saying wins are wins and losses are losses but I am not so sure we can judge teams anymore by "well they only beat a *****ty lehigh team by 4" or "Central Connecticut sucks" - - Do we "add" points for teams that "lose well"?? And do we continue to subtract from teams that "win bad"?? As of now Monmouth's win against Albany looks pretty good and their loss against Montana now looks pretty good. Does this stuff count in your minds? Obviously I am biased and selfish in that I just want to see Monmouth make the playoffs, but if we pull another 2017 where we win 9 games but lose to Kennesaw, does it count that we were right there with montana on the road and beat Albany etc?

Obviously we need to see how season plays out, and also I would rather take care of our own business in the league and not have to worry about it but the FCS is tough! It seems on any given week a team can step up and play with or beat a top team. If the Big South ends up being not very good which it probably wont be and for whatever reason we lose to Kennesaw again and go 8-4 or 9-3 do things like losing in good fashion to Montana matter? Or does losing to Western Michigan in better fashion than Georgia state (who beat tennesee ) did matter? Or is it simply you HAVE to have the 2-3 quality wins or it does not matter? So unless Albany ends up becoming a playoff team it will be impossible to have really ANY "quality" wins is what I am saying. But not for a lack of scheduling. When You schedule an FBS, a top 10-15 Montana team on road and a CAA team nobody can say its your fault for not having more quality teams. It is hard to know that the Patriot league just sucks all the time now and that Albany is not considered "good" but like I said above based on comparative games we very well may have beaten William and Mary too.

I guess what I am getting at as it seems we may need to change our views on who is good and who is not. UC Davis, are they "good"?? why? B/c they "looked good" in losing to ND State and FBS California? They beat San Diego who is prob better than most people think since they beat Harvard but still non scholly and they beat a Lehigh team who cant be that good. Big deal? I can make an argument that Monmouth beating Lafayette looks better than UC Davis beating Lehigh. I can also make a GREAT argument that Monmouth beating Albany by 3 is MUCH better than UC Davis beating San Diego by 3. Ok so Monmouth loses to an FBS- so did UC Davis. UC Davis played a better one and lost better but so what? Then UC Davis "looks good" against super team ND state but still loses. Monmouth played Montana much much better than UC Davis and we did it on the road. Ask Montana fans who saw both games what game was closer. Forget the score. I guarantee Montana fans will tell you Monmouth looked like the better team. So I am not actually saying we are, I am saying after 5 weeks UC Davis will still be ranked in every poll and Monmouth wont even get votes. But why? The ONLY reason would be how teams looked in losses b/s UC Davis wins are not very good. And the game in common Monmouth played Montana better. It is not easy to win games, so even if you are playing below average teams it is clear that most FCS teams now have real talent. I know UCONN sucks but Wagner almost beat them!! Wagner prob wont even compete for the NEC title!! Yet if MOnmouth goes into Wagner next week and "only" wins 31-27 it will be looked at as nothing. If we go beat Charleston Southern it wont matter but yet they were right down to the wire with NC A&T and The Citadel. I am probably doing a bad job at conveying what I want to convey but I hope someone gets my point and can chime in.

[jmu007]

I attempted to reply with a formatted version of your post. I didn't do something right and this site is running too slow for me to try again.

In response to your question; I think the top 5 - 10 teams will make it very obvious who they are by the end of the year and polls along the way really don't matter this year or any year really. Just fun to come up with data points and something to talk about along the way.

[POD Knows]

Disclosure- I am a Monmouth guy. So I am basing most of what I see on our games so far. The point I am trying to make is that at this point in the season it seems that there is WAY more parity than ever before in FCS and also the playoff committee is going to have their hands full for at large teams, mostly b/c of all the murky things we are seeing when comparing good wins/bad wins and bad losses/good losses. Let me explain. So Being a an avid Monmouth fan and watching our program grow from the start (I was on one of the first few teams) to where we are now, the goal is now to get to the playoffs. Clearly we can avoid any opinions by winning the Big South. It is hard to tell how Kennesaw really is this year and Charleston Southern may also be pretty good. North Alabama looks good but is not eligible and games against them do not count for league standings. With that said, after 5 weeks Monmouth is 2-2 (just had our bye). We got blown out by an FBS school, but did not look terrible if that makes any sense. Then we only beat Lafayette by 4. Then we beat Albany after being up 21-0 and frankly looking better than them in general regardless of score. Then we go to Montana where nobody wins often and although we lost by 20, we were only down 6 with 10 minutes to go in the game. We were right there with the Grizz on the road and honestly it looked like we were on par with them in many aspects. A loss though is a loss and they were and are the better team. Ok, so now to my point. We "only" beat Lafayette by 3, but Penn only beat them by 4 and Penn almost beat Delaware who almost beat Pitt! William and Mary struggled a bit with Lafayette too and actually looked good against 2 FBS schools and was ranked 40 here in AGS poll. But then Albany goes and beats them and we beat Albany. Montana beat the daylights out of a top 5 UC Davis team who hung with #15 FBS Cal and had ND state on the ropes. Monmouth was in the Montana game until about 5 minutes left while UC Davis was never in their game. So after my long winded, maybe hard to understand jibberish what am I saying? I am saying wins are wins and losses are losses but I am not so sure we can judge teams anymore by "well they only beat a *****ty lehigh team by 4" or "Central Connecticut sucks" - - Do we "add" points for teams that "lose well"?? And do we continue to subtract from teams that "win bad"?? As of now Monmouth's win against Albany looks pretty good and their loss against Montana now looks pretty good. Does this stuff count in your minds? Obviously I am biased and selfish in that I just want to see Monmouth make the playoffs, but if we pull another 2017 where we win 9 games but lose to Kennesaw, does it count that we were right there with montana on the road and beat Albany etc? Obviously we need to see how season plays out, and also I would rather take care of our own business in the league and not have to worry about it but the FCS is tough! It seems on any given week a team can step up and play with or beat a top team. If the Big South ends up being not very good which it probably wont be and for whatever reason we lose to Kennesaw again and go 8-4 or 9-3 do things like losing in good fashion to Montana matter? Or does losing to Western Michigan in better fashion than Georgia state (who beat tennesee ) did matter? Or is it simply you HAVE to have the 2-3 quality wins or it does not matter? So unless Albany ends up becoming a playoff team it will be impossible to have really ANY "quality" wins is what I am saying. But not for a lack of scheduling. When You schedule an FBS, a top 10-15 Montana team on road and a CAA team nobody can say its your fault for not having more quality teams. It is hard to know that the Patriot league just sucks all the time now and that Albany is not considered "good" but like I said above based on comparative games we very well may have beaten William and Mary too. I guess what I am getting at as it seems we may need to change our views on who is good and who is not. UC Davis, are they "good"?? why? B/c they "looked good" in losing to ND State and FBS California? They beat San Diego who is prob better than most people think since they beat Harvard but still non scholly and they beat a Lehigh team who cant be that good. Big deal? I can make an argument that Monmouth beating Lafayette looks better than UC Davis beating Lehigh. I can also make a GREAT argument that Monmouth beating Albany by 3 is MUCH better than UC Davis beating San Diego by 3. Ok so Monmouth loses to an FBS- so did UC Davis. UC Davis played a better one and lost better but so what? Then UC Davis "looks good" against super team ND state but still loses. Monmouth played Montana much much better than UC Davis and we did it on the road. Ask Montana fans who saw both games what game was closer. Forget the score. I guarantee Montana fans will tell you Monmouth looked like the better team. So I am not actually saying we are, I am saying after 5 weeks UC Davis will still be ranked in every poll and Monmouth wont even get votes. But why? The ONLY reason would be how teams looked in losses b/s UC Davis wins are not very good. And the game in common Monmouth played Montana better. It is not easy to win games, so even if you are playing below average teams it is clear that most FCS teams now have real talent. I know UCONN sucks but Wagner almost beat them!! Wagner prob wont even compete for the NEC title!! Yet if MOnmouth goes into Wagner next week and "only" wins 31-27 it will be looked at as nothing. If we go beat Charleston Southern it wont matter but yet they were right down to the wire with NC A&T and The Citadel. I am probably doing a bad job at conveying what I want to convey but I hope someone gets my point and can chime in.Dude, paragraphs are your friend. Edit this thing so it is readable.

[TheKingpin28]

Disclosure- I am a Monmouth guy. So I am basing most of what I see on our games so far. The point I am trying to make is that at this point in the season it seems that there is WAY more parity than ever before in FCS and also the playoff committee is going to have their hands full for at large teams, mostly b/c of all the murky things we are seeing when comparing good wins/bad wins and bad losses/good losses.

Let me explain.

So Being a an avid Monmouth fan and watching our program grow from the start (I was on one of the first few teams) to where we are now, the goal is now to get to the playoffs. Clearly we can avoid any opinions by winning the Big South. It is hard to tell how Kennesaw really is this year and Charleston Southern may also be pretty good. North Alabama looks good but is not eligible and games against them do not count for league standings. With that said, after 5 weeks Monmouth is 2-2 (just had our bye). We got blown out by an FBS school, but did not look terrible if that makes any sense. Then we only beat Lafayette by 4. Then we beat Albany after being up 21-0 and frankly looking better than them in general regardless of score. Then we go to Montana where nobody wins often and although we lost by 20, we were only down 6 with 10 minutes to go in the game. We were right there with the Grizz on the road and honestly it looked like we were on par with them in many aspects. A loss though is a loss and they were and are the better team.

Ok, so now to my point. We "only" beat Lafayette by 3, but Penn only beat them by 4 and Penn almost beat Delaware who almost beat Pitt! William and Mary struggled a bit with Lafayette too and actually looked good against 2 FBS schools and was ranked 40 here in AGS poll. But then Albany goes and beats them and we beat Albany. Montana beat the daylights out of a top 5 UC Davis team who hung with #15 FBS Cal and had ND state on the ropes. Monmouth was in the Montana game until about 5 minutes left while UC Davis was never in their game.

So after my long winded, maybe hard to understand jibberish what am I saying? I am saying wins are wins and losses are losses but I am not so sure we can judge teams anymore by "well they only beat a *****ty lehigh team by 4" or "Central Connecticut sucks" - - Do we "add" points for teams that "lose well"?? And do we continue to subtract from teams that "win bad"?? As of now Monmouth's win against Albany looks pretty good and their loss against Montana now looks pretty good. Does this stuff count in your minds? Obviously I am biased and selfish in that I just want to see Monmouth make the playoffs, but if we pull another 2017 where we win 9 games but lose to Kennesaw, does it count that we were right there with montana on the road and beat Albany etc? Obviously we need to see how season plays out, and also I would rather take care of our own business in the league and not have to worry about it but the FCS is tough! It seems on any given week a team can step up and play with or beat a top team. If the Big South ends up being not very good which it probably wont be and for whatever reason we lose to Kennesaw again and go 8-4 or 9-3 do things like losing in good fashion to Montana matter? Or does losing to Western Michigan in better fashion than Georgia state (who beat tennesee ) did matter? Or is it simply you HAVE to have the 2-3 quality wins or it does not matter? So unless Albany ends up becoming a playoff team it will be impossible to have really ANY "quality" wins is what I am saying. But not for a lack of scheduling. When You schedule an FBS, a top 10-15 Montana team on road and a CAA team nobody can say its your fault for not having more quality teams.

It is hard to know that the Patriot league just sucks all the time now and that Albany is not considered "good" but like I said above based on comparative games we very well may have beaten William and Mary too. I guess what I am getting at as it seems we may need to change our views on who is good and who is not. UC Davis, are they "good"?? why? B/c they "looked good" in losing to ND State and FBS California? They beat San Diego who is prob better than most people think since they beat Harvard but still non scholly and they beat a Lehigh team who cant be that good. Big deal? I can make an argument that Monmouth beating Lafayette looks better than UC Davis beating Lehigh. I can also make a GREAT argument that Monmouth beating Albany by 3 is MUCH better than UC Davis beating San Diego by 3.

Ok so Monmouth loses to an FBS- so did UC Davis. UC Davis played a better one and lost better but so what? Then UC Davis "looks good" against super team ND state but still loses. Monmouth played Montana much much better than UC Davis and we did it on the road. Ask Montana fans who saw both games what game was closer. Forget the score. I guarantee Montana fans will tell you Monmouth looked like the better team. So I am not actually saying we are, I am saying after 5 weeks UC Davis will still be ranked in every poll and Monmouth wont even get votes. But why? The ONLY reason would be how teams looked in losses b/s UC Davis wins are not very good. And the game in common Monmouth played Montana better.

It is not easy to win games, so even if you are playing below average teams it is clear that most FCS teams now have real talent. I know UCONN sucks but Wagner almost beat them!! Wagner prob wont even compete for the NEC title!! Yet if MOnmouth goes into Wagner next week and "only" wins 31-27 it will be looked at as nothing. If we go beat Charleston Southern it wont matter but yet they were right down to the wire with NC A&T and The Citadel. I am probably doing a bad job at conveying what I want to convey but I hope someone gets my point and can chime in.


Seriously, next time, avoid a wall of text. I quoted this post for others, not for you.

[CHIP72]

Though I didn't read the whole original post because it is formatted as one really long ass paragraph, I read enough of it to get the jist of the post. I was actually thinking something similar.

As a frame of reference, here are some scores from recent weeks:

*Penn 28 Lafayette (0-5) 24 - the score was a bit deceptive because LC scored a touchdown on the last play of the game, but Lafayette did hang with Penn
*Delaware 28 Penn 27 - in their season opener on the road, Penn went for 2 points and the win after scoring a TD with 2 1/2 minutes left but failed to convert
*Pitt 17 Delaware 14
*Pitt 35 Central Florida 34
*Penn State 17 Pitt 10 - based on the stats and post-game summaries, Pitt outplayed Penn State in State College but made some questionable decisions in the 4th quarter

[fencer24]

Having watched the Griz play both Monmouth and UCD, you do raise some interesting arguments. In the Big Sky, teams that are supposed to lose, win and vice versa. I thought when the Griz played you, that they were hiding a lot of their offense in preparation for UCD, which apparently worked, since the playbook was opened up for Davis and it showed.
That said, I think the playoff committee will have to wait for the last two weeks of the season to make any choices. A lot will happen along the way, for instance, UCD could claim that the injuries they sustained in the FargoDome had a lot to do with their loss yesterday. And that could be. Bottom line is that we will have to wait to see who can hold it together at the end and who is just a flash in the pan. Not sure the Griz will continue but I want to believe that they will. I hope Monmouth runs the table in their conference and not have to answer the question that you posed. You have a good team with a good quarterback and some good receivers. Could be that you will get to make a return trip to Missoula in December, and that would be fun.

[MUHAWKS]

Fair enough on my formatting and length etc.. I rarely post and when I do it is usually short. Definitely noted. Thanks..

[aceinthehole]

TL; DR

However, I agree with the topic. I've had the same issue evaluating CCSU to date.

W, 26-23 at Fordham (2-3) - Was a road favorite heading into the game and won for the second consecutive year in the Bronx. A win is a win, but CCSU had some opening game issues of their own and squeezed out a last second FG for the victory. The Rams have since shown to be one of the PL better teams this season, and Central had a decisive advantage for most of the game. Like a nice red wine, this win could get a little better with age.

W, 40-37 vs. Merrimack (2-3) - Heavy favorite at home, the Blue Devils jumped out to a big halftime lead. Allowed a transitioning FCS team to make a comeback and Central had to put them away late. But the offense was explosive and poised; they took care of business with another game winning FG. Merrimack has beaten up on lower division teams, but have shown to be very competitive at Lehigh. Takin' care of business.

W, 42-13 at Valparaiso (0-4) - Again, Central was the favorite on the road. Valpo is a weak Pioneer opponent, but CCSU got on a plane and dominated as hoped. Blue Devils put up 40+ points for the second week in a row and the defense was swarming. Weak opponent, but a strong win.

L, 29-34 at Eastern Michigan (3-1) - With no expectations to win, CCSU actually held the lead for about 40 minutes and literally lost with 0:40 left in the game. Central was able to score and be very explosive against a FBS defense. The Blue Devils defense was huge trouble for EMU and really outplayed Eastern in every facet except special teams. Absolutely a moral victory and 60 minutes of tape that put CCSU as the favorite to win the NEC and a potentially a top-25 FCS team sometime in the next few weeks.

Bottom line, the schedule is too weak to really evaluate CCSU performance. Central won the games when they were the favorite and in all aspects, but the final score, upset a rising FBS program. I'm certainly not ready to make a case for CCSU just yet, but they are legitimately on the radar. Problem is the rest of the schedule doesn't really allow a season-defining win.

However, if we win the next 2 games it will be hard to argue that a 5-1 team with a 5-point loss to a FBS team isn't worthy of consideration, but we need to Fordham and EMU to finish in the top-3 of their respective league standings. I also think Sacred Heart and the rest of the NEC will have to notch a few more non-conference wins vs. the PL and Ivy.

Next up:

at Sacred Heart (3-1) - Pioneers only blemish is a season-opening loss at nationally-ranked Maine. Wins at Lafayette and vs. Bucknell; has Penn and Lehigh as remaining non-conference games. This is a good team and NEC championship contender.
at Columbia (1-1) - After beating Saint Francis, the Lions dropped a home game to Georgetown. Picked 6th in the Ivy, but has upside to finish higher. Might not be a good as hoped, but nonetheless it a road, non-conference game vs. an Ivy opponent

[BEAR]

I think we have to be careful with W/L records this year as some teams are playing 2 FBS teams along with their OOC FCS games. Two automatic losses and a game with a top 25 FCS can be very deceiving. Add on at least one team in that team’s conference is usually good and it can be rough to get a good impression of how to rate a team.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Dude, paragraphs are your friend. Edit this thing so it is readable.

HOLY CRAP! How did yo think anyone was going to read that MUHAWKS? xlolx

Your title is correct, you can't judge em' by comparative scores etc. and that has been a known quantity ever since I've been here so you are simply stating an old mantra I assume.

Last week before our game MR. CHICKEN said we might or would be looking past this game and I said I did not believe that to be true. But he was right or at least had the crux of it in his statement as we played with very little intensity comparatively and did not seem to have the concise type of play making that we had yesterday. Your team is good and played us well but the team you played last weekend was not the team that played UCD yesterday. MU has a really good team with some play makers and pretty solid all around and should challenge of the Big South if they are what I think they are.

But if I look at both resumes, I can't see where UC Davis would come in lower than MU at this time. I can see MU getting in to people's ballots though.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

And also for my E Coast friends:

*gibberish

*gist

:D

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Having watched the Griz play both Monmouth and UCD, you do raise some interesting arguments. In the Big Sky, teams that are supposed to lose, win and vice versa. I thought when the Griz played you, that they were hiding a lot of their offense in preparation for UCD, which apparently worked, since the playbook was opened up for Davis and it showed.
That said, I think the playoff committee will have to wait for the last two weeks of the season to make any choices. A lot will happen along the way, for instance, UCD could claim that the injuries they sustained in the FargoDome had a lot to do with their loss yesterday. And that could be. Bottom line is that we will have to wait to see who can hold it together at the end and who is just a flash in the pan. Not sure the Griz will continue but I want to believe that they will. I hope Monmouth runs the table in their conference and not have to answer the question that you posed. You have a good team with a good quarterback and some good receivers. Could be that you will get to make a return trip to Missoula in December, and that would be fun.

Great points that I did not clearly state.

[MUHAWKS]

So not to beat a dead horse but another couple weeks of my very poorly written post coming to fruition.

The #10 (AGS) ranked Towson Tigers get smoked by Albany at home. #19 ranked Maine (no clue how they were even ranked) gets beat by Richmond! Richmond lost to Fordham! Obviously there are a hundred examples, but I feel that way too much emphasis is put on pre season and "name recognition".

While it is true that eventually thing will probably work themselves out and most teams will get their chance to prove things, sometimes not. Will the voters in the polls (all the polls) actually look at these things we look at? For example (yes I am still focusing on my Monmouth Hawks) -- We BEAT Albany and Albany had to stage a furious comeback and last play hail mary just to force overtime. But Albany just smoked Towson. Maine gets beat by Richmond who lost to Fordham. I get it...any given week in most leagues most teams can beat other teams. But that was and still is my point! Wins are wins!

Monmouth "barely" beat Wagner. Monmouth "barely" beat Lafayette! So automatically we go from getting serious votes in the polls pre season and week 1-2 to nothing. Meanwhile teams like Maine, Towson, Delaware, UC Davis etc keep getting benefit of the doubt b/c of what "perception" was.. I will say it again- Monmouth gave # 6 Montana its toughest game of the year (not counting Oregon). We beat an Albany team that is clearly pretty good and who just beat a CAA power. Why do teams like ours have to be perfect and blow teams out just to get any recognition.

Campbell and Georgetown are getting votes in FCS polls and here in AGS!!! Fordham?? Campbell beat presbyterian 28-14 and we just beat the Blue Hose 45-0 and could have been 70. The "perception" people have of teams I think matters way too much. There is NO WAY ANYONE can look at Campbells resume or Fordham or Gtwon and tell me its BETTER than Monmouth.

It is not the biggest deal in world but this all counts at the end of the year and while it is true that MU controls its own destiny (and I think this is the year we finally beat Kennesaw) who knows what can happen. Suppose we win out from here but lose a tight one to Kennesaw. Then the polls WILL matter and looking at comparative games WILL matter. So I go back to my original thoughts that more than ever WINS count. Period! If a "bad win" is somehow discounted as the perceived bad wins we has by barely beating Wagner and Lafayette, shouldnt then "good" losses count? Or that only matters for the big bad CAA?

I am not as angry as I may sound it is just odd that Monmouth is 4-2, beat Albany, played Montana tougher than anyone did and we go from middle of the road getting votes (like 30-35 in nation) to nothing, meanwhile teams like UC Davis, Maine, Towson are just kept up there for nothing..Watch if Monmouth beats Campbell I will be told Campbell sucks and didnt do a thing. Yet as of now they are the top ORV in AGS!!!!! It is just frustrating that we have to seemingly be perfect and win our play up games while other wins are discounted. Central Conn and teams like them should tell people that there are no "bad" conferences anymore..

[Professor Chaos]

Agreed on Maine... they aren't even on my radar anymore much less in my 25. Albany is on my radar but not in my top 25 due to, amongst other things, their loss to Monmouth. I'm giving Towson the benefit of the doubt for their loss to Albany (which you can argue that I'm wrong to do) since they played Villanova tough (who I have in my top 5) and have decent wins over The Citadel and Maine (I know, I just said Maine isn't even on my radar but I still consider that a decent win).

I haven't considered Monmouth seriously for my top 25 ballot all season. It's going to be tough for them to get traction with me playing 1-5 Chuck South and 3-3 Garder-Webb the next 2 weeks. Everything for them will ride on that 11/2 game at Kennesaw if they haven't tripped up before them. It's going to be tough to stump for them for top 25 votes until then... but Albany doing well sure won't hurt.

[aceinthehole]

Agreed on Maine... they aren't even on my radar anymore much less in my 25. Albany is on my radar but not in my top 25 due to, amongst other things, their loss to Monmouth. I'm giving Towson the benefit of the doubt for their loss to Albany (which you can argue that I'm wrong to do) since they played Villanova tough (who I have in my top 5) and have decent wins over The Citadel and Maine (I know, I just said Maine isn't even on my radar but I still consider that a decent win).

I haven't considered Monmouth seriously for my top 25 ballot all season. It's going to be tough for them to get traction with me playing 1-5 Chuck South and 3-3 Garder-Webb the next 2 weeks. Everything for them will ride on that 11/2 game at Kennesaw if they haven't tripped up before them. It's going to be tough to stump for them for top 25 votes until then... but Albany doing well sure won't hurt.

How can you not consider Monmouth, but KSU has 2 sub-division wins? The KSU schedule is much weaker than Monmouth. KSU's FCS opponents are currently 5-13. MU's win over Albany is better than anything KSU has done this season. I absolutely think Monmouth has to be considered alongside of Albany. Towson seems overrated, but has better wins than Monmouth.

Its all a mess.

[Professor Chaos]

How can you not consider Monmouth, but KSU has 2 sub-division wins? The KSU schedule is much weaker than Monmouth. KSU's FCS opponents are currently 5-13. MU's win over Albany is better than anything KSU has done this season. I absolutely think Monmouth has to be considered alongside of Albany. Towson seems overrated, but has better wins than Monmouth.

Its all a mess.
Because Kennesaw has earned the benefit of the doubt from their performance over the last few seasons. You can argue that shouldn't be part of an evaluation this year but that's how I do it for better or worse. I don't think Kennesaw has any business in the top 5 where they'll be at again in the Coach's poll but they've done about what I'd expect a 10th-15th ranked FCS team with their schedule.

Albany has been too inconsistent for my liking. Great win over Towson last Saturday but it doesn't overcome the losses to Monmouth and Richmond that keeps them out of my top 25 ballot (for now).

[ksu_owls]

How can you not consider Monmouth, but KSU has 2 sub-division wins? The KSU schedule is much weaker than Monmouth. KSU's FCS opponents are currently 5-13. MU's win over Albany is better than anything KSU has done this season. I absolutely think Monmouth has to be considered alongside of Albany. Towson seems overrated, but has better wins than Monmouth.

Its all a mess.

Someone has to win the big south, and for good reason the voters believe it will be KSU. I think the 10-15 range is fair for the champion of a weak conference, who has won 3 playoff games in the last 2 years, to be placed. Even if MU were to beat KSU, I don't see voters placing them too far inside the top 25 (but KSU would drop out, and they should "if"). While it is a rebuilding year for the owls, we're building a resume that has earned some respect among some FCS voter. We aren't 4/7 like coaches/stats suggests, but AGS knows we should win our sorry conference and possibly win one or two games in the playoffs. MU isn't bad, but they're a couple of conference championships and some playoff wins away from separating themselves from the rest of our weak conference. This may be the year they start that journey, but I still think KSU has their number.

And I 100% agree that it should be all about this year, not previous accomplishments, but voters have to use something to compare and rank teams.

[MUHAWKS]

Someone has to win the big south, and for good reason the voters believe it will be KSU. I think the 10-15 range is fair for the champion of a weak conference, who has won 3 playoff games in the last 2 years, to be placed. Even if MU were to beat KSU, I don't see voters placing them too far inside the top 25 (but KSU would drop out, and they should "if"). While it is a rebuilding year for the owls, we're building a resume that has earned some respect among some FCS voter. We aren't 4/7 like coaches/stats suggests, but AGS knows we should win our sorry conference and possibly win one or two games in the playoffs. MU isn't bad, but they're a couple of conference championships and some playoff wins away from separating themselves from the rest of our weak conference. This may be the year they start that journey, but I still think KSU has their number.

And I 100% agree that it should be all about this year, not previous accomplishments, but voters have to use something to compare and rank teams.


Good post- I have no problem with Kennesaw being possibly "over ranked" - notice how I say possibly...

So I do not sound like a hypocrite, here is why- If you have built a resume and accomplishments in the past 1-2 years or so, even if this year the team may not be as good as they were, there is no reason not to get the benefit of the doubt UNTIL you slip up.. That I have no issue with. It is like boxing.. If a guy comes in 26-0, world champ has all the belts and he fights a close fight which could go either way, I believe the champ keeps the belts in a 50/50 type match. And they usually do. To take the belts you gotta go BEAT the champ.. So yes, kennesaw SHOULD be ranked very high until proven otherwise..But certain CAA teams and some others get the benefit of the doubt EVEN AFTER they slip up!!

Looking at the STATS poll for example- and obviously this should change later today a bit.. But UC Davis was 2-4!!! and ranked 24 in nation. Ok they had an FCS loss to CAL in the ever unpredictable game 1 of the year. Then BARELY escape San Diego who I think is non scholly although very good. They pummeled an AWFUL Lehigh team then go and give ND state a game but lose.. Then rolled and I mean ROLLED by Montana followed by a close loss to N Dakota. How in the world are 2 wins against San Diego and Lehigh combined with a couple close losses to good teams and a blowout loss to a good team = 24 in nation? How can ANYONE defend that resume as 24 in nation!

Now lets take Maine- They were 2-3 and ranked 18th in nation! They beat Sacred heart and Colgate!!! They lost to towson and Nova by a combined 38 pts. Then they lost to Richmond.. 18th in nation??? This is nonsense. I understood it a few years ago but not anymore. Just being in the CAA or a good conference does not make you good. The ONLY reason whya team like UC Davis and Maine are ranked and Monmouth is not even getting votes is perception trumps reality. Facts show otherwise. Towson will no doubt still be ranked at 3-3, perhaps in the top 20 and what have they done? Oh wow you LOST in good fashion to Nova!! You get rolled as you should be FCS powerhouse. You beat a WEAK Maine team (see above) and blow out an AWFUL NC central team. And you get blown out at home by Albany!!! yet they will still be ranked. Why????? Based on last years LOSS to Duquesne in the 1st rd of playoffs? This is silly. People need to stop letting emotion and perception get in the way of reality.

- - - Updated - - -

[smilo]

Towson will not be ranked since they lost to a team outside the top 50 and their best win, which was on the downswing (though people thought might eventually bounce back) lost to a team outside the top 50 completely exposing them.

UC-Davis is my all metrics a legitimately good team stuck in this year's best conference.

As for this thread's point, I don't think there is an adequate understanding of the toll that injuries take over the course of a season.

[MUHAWKS]

Towson will not be ranked since they lost to a team outside the top 50 and their best win, which was on the downswing (though people thought might eventually bounce back) lost to a team outside the top 50 completely exposing them.

UC-Davis is my all metrics a legitimately good team stuck in this year's best conference.

As for this thread's point, I don't think there is an adequate understanding of the toll that injuries take over the course of a season.


Well, coaches poll just out.. Towson ranked 20! Maine is the top also getting votes team and UC Davis ranked 22! I get your point about UC Davis but again thats the "perception" at some point we need to deal in reality. The SAME perception is being had with Maine and Towson too and its absurd and it is what creates a 7-4 or 7-5 CAA team from getting in over an 8-3 or 9-3 team like Monmouth or Central Connecticut should they not win their league and in reality there is not much at all separating these teams except peoples old and wrong view that a 2nd place team in "crap" league is nowhere near as good as a 5th place team in a "good" league..

One last time I will lay it out- Give me ANY basis at all on how UC Davis, Maine or Towson's resume THIS YEAR warrants them being ranked right now or ahead of a non getting votes Monmouth team who 2 years ago went 9-3, last year 8-3 and this year is 4-2 with a win against Albany, a blowout win against a terrible team and two wins against teams who actually show up week to week and play in close games against decent teams in Lafayette and Wagner with our two losses being against FCS and top 10 Montana with the latter being a 6 pt game with 10 min to play on the road.. Its all perception and its BS!!!

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

Well, coaches poll just out.. Towson ranked 20! Maine is the top also getting votes team and UC Davis ranked 22! I get your point about UC Davis but again thats the "perception" at some point we need to deal in reality. The SAME perception is being had with Maine and Towson too and its absurd and it is what creates a 7-4 or 7-5 CAA team from getting in over an 8-3 or 9-3 team like Monmouth or Central Connecticut should they not win their league and in reality there is not much at all separating these teams except peoples old and wrong view that a 2nd place team in "crap" league is nowhere near as good as a 5th place team in a "good" league..

One last time I will lay it out- Give me ANY basis at all on how UC Davis, Maine or Towson's resume THIS YEAR warrants them being ranked right now or ahead of a non getting votes Monmouth team who 2 years ago went 9-3, last year 8-3 and this year is 4-2 with a win against Albany, a blowout win against a terrible team and two wins against teams who actually show up week to week and play in close games against decent teams in Lafayette and Wagner with our two losses being against FCS and top 10 Montana with the latter being a 6 pt game with 10 min to play on the road.. Its all perception and its BS!!!

I should have been more clear....
Never use the Coaches Poll as a point of reference in any sort of logical debate

[MUHAWKS]

Coaches Poll


Hey man I went to Monmouth, there is a reason we are not in the patriot league!! haha-- and i read it wrong anyway- Maine not getting any votes..

[Professor Chaos]

Well, coaches poll just out.. Towson ranked 20! Maine is the top also getting votes team and UC Davis ranked 22! I get your point about UC Davis but again thats the "perception" at some point we need to deal in reality. The SAME perception is being had with Maine and Towson too and its absurd and it is what creates a 7-4 or 7-5 CAA team from getting in over an 8-3 or 9-3 team like Monmouth or Central Connecticut should they not win their league and in reality there is not much at all separating these teams except peoples old and wrong view that a 2nd place team in "crap" league is nowhere near as good as a 5th place team in a "good" league..

One last time I will lay it out- Give me ANY basis at all on how UC Davis, Maine or Towson's resume THIS YEAR warrants them being ranked right now or ahead of a non getting votes Monmouth team who 2 years ago went 9-3, last year 8-3 and this year is 4-2 with a win against Albany, a blowout win against a terrible team and two wins against teams who actually show up week to week and play in close games against decent teams in Lafayette and Wagner with our two losses being against FCS and top 10 Montana with the latter being a 6 pt game with 10 min to play on the road.. Its all perception and its BS!!!
You'll probably try to write this off as "not this year" but in 2017 Monmouth got an at-large berth with their shiny 9-2 record with zero quality wins over teams like Eastern Washing and McNeese from "better conferences" and proceeded to get obliterated by UNI in the first round in the playoffs. Last year Lamar and UIW from the Southland were the most popular punching bags as teams who didn't deserve invites and both went to tough places to play at UNI and at Montana St and showed very well.

IMO you shouldn't ignore trends like that just because they didn't happen this year.

[MUHAWKS]

You'll probably try to write this off as "not this year" but in 2017 Monmouth got an at-large berth with their shiny 9-2 record with zero quality wins over teams like Eastern Washing and McNeese from "better conferences" and proceeded to get obliterated by UNI in the first round in the playoffs. Last year Lamar and UIW from the Southland were the most popular punching bags as teams who didn't deserve invites and both went to tough places to play at UNI and at Montana St and showed very well.

IMO you shouldn't ignore trends like that just because they didn't happen this year.

Nah fair point.. I get it- and I know we got our shot and did not show up. I just think things like Towson losing to Duquense in 1st rd last year is similarly as bad as MU going to the dome and getting rolled. Maybe if we drew New Hampshire or a similar type team it would not have been like that. No excuses at all, at some point we need to show up and do the job (this year it means beating Kennesaw State and winning out in the Big South so maybe we can play a team like a Delaware or Towson) or just showing up and fairing well . You are right. I am not upset and I think things will work themselves out but why even have polls if they are not based on reality?

Let me give you an example of how this could work- Everyone respects Kennesaw's program and they have backed it up as well. Suppose this year Monmouth does beat them. I know people will tell me it isnt happening, but it very well could. Lets say KSU wins all their other games. They will be 10-2 with NO GOOD WINS. Two of their wins will be against Non D-1 opponents and BAD ones at that. Not even sure they are NCAA schools? Reinhardt and Point? Anyway, BECAUSE of being ranked top 10 to start a loss against MU along with winnign rest will keep them top 15. You do not go from ranked 4-7 to less than 15 for ONE loss to a decent team (I think more than decent)-- So based off that Kennesaw will 99% get in the playoffs if that happens. Yet 7-5 teams from GOOD conferences will be left out.. And why???? B/c of where and how they were ranked based on perception - the same thing that is happening with teams like Delaware, Towson, Maine, UC Davis etc...

[MUHAWKS]

I should have been more clear....
Never use the Coaches Poll as a point of reference in any sort of logical debate


Fair enough. I thought it was "coach's" was wondering why I was being corrected.. I got you.. Yeah man although I am not new to FCS I am knew to following it tick by tick with polls etc so do not know all the nuances..

[ngineer]

Disclosure- I am a Monmouth guy. So I am basing most of what I see on our games so far. The point I am trying to make is that at this point in the season it seems that there is WAY more parity than ever before in FCS and also the playoff committee is going to have their hands full for at large teams, mostly b/c of all the murky things we are seeing when comparing good wins/bad wins and bad losses/good losses.

Let me explain. So Being a an avid Monmouth fan and watching our program grow from the start (I was on one of the first few teams) to where we are now, the goal is now to get to the playoffs. Clearly we can avoid any opinions by winning the Big South. It is hard to tell how Kennesaw really is this year and Charleston Southern may also be pretty good. North Alabama looks good but is not eligible and games against them do not count for league standings. With that said, after 5 weeks Monmouth is 2-2 (just had our bye). We got blown out by an FBS school, but did not look terrible if that makes any sense. Then we only beat Lafayette by 4. Then we beat Albany after being up 21-0 and frankly looking better than them in general regardless of score. Then we go to Montana where nobody wins often and although we lost by 20, we were only down 6 with 10 minutes to go in the game. We were right there with the Grizz on the road and honestly it looked like we were on par with them in many aspects. A loss though is a loss and they were and are the better team.

Ok, so now to my point. We "only" beat Lafayette by 3, but Penn only beat them by 4 and Penn almost beat Delaware who almost beat Pitt! William and Mary struggled a bit with Lafayette too and actually looked good against 2 FBS schools and was ranked 40 here in AGS poll. But then Albany goes and beats them and we beat Albany. Montana beat the daylights out of a top 5 UC Davis team who hung with #15 FBS Cal and had ND state on the ropes. Monmouth was in the Montana game until about 5 minutes left while UC Davis was never in their game.

So after my long winded, maybe hard to understand jibberish what am I saying? I am saying wins are wins and losses are losses but I am not so sure we can judge teams anymore by "well they only beat a *****ty lehigh team by 4" or "Central Connecticut sucks" - - Do we "add" points for teams that "lose well"?? And do we continue to subtract from teams that "win bad"?? As of now Monmouth's win against Albany looks pretty good and their loss against Montana now looks pretty good. Does this stuff count in your minds? Obviously I am biased and selfish in that I just want to see Monmouth make the playoffs, but if we pull another 2017 where we win 9 games but lose to Kennesaw, does it count that we were right there with montana on the road and beat Albany etc?

Obviously we need to see how season plays out, and also I would rather take care of our own business in the league and not have to worry about it but the FCS is tough! It seems on any given week a team can step up and play with or beat a top team. If the Big South ends up being not very good which it probably wont be and for whatever reason we lose to Kennesaw again and go 8-4 or 9-3 do things like losing in good fashion to Montana matter? Or does losing to Western Michigan in better fashion than Georgia state (who beat tennesee ) did matter? Or is it simply you HAVE to have the 2-3 quality wins or it does not matter? So unless Albany ends up becoming a playoff team it will be impossible to have really ANY "quality" wins is what I am saying. But not for a lack of scheduling. When You schedule an FBS, a top 10-15 Montana team on road and a CAA team nobody can say its your fault for not having more quality teams. It is hard to know that the Patriot league just sucks all the time now and that Albany is not considered "good" but like I said above based on comparative games we very well may have beaten William and Mary too.

I guess what I am getting at as it seems we may need to change our views on who is good and who is not. UC Davis, are they "good"?? why? B/c they "looked good" in losing to ND State and FBS California? They beat San Diego who is prob better than most people think since they beat Harvard but still non scholly and they beat a Lehigh team who cant be that good. Big deal? I can make an argument that Monmouth beating Lafayette looks better than UC Davis beating Lehigh. I can also make a GREAT argument that Monmouth beating Albany by 3 is MUCH better than UC Davis beating San Diego by 3. Ok so Monmouth loses to an FBS- so did UC Davis. UC Davis played a better one and lost better but so what? Then UC Davis "looks good" against super team ND state but still loses. Monmouth played Montana much much better than UC Davis and we did it on the road. Ask Montana fans who saw both games what game was closer. Forget the score. I guarantee Montana fans will tell you Monmouth looked like the better team. So I am not actually saying we are, I am saying after 5 weeks UC Davis will still be ranked in every poll and Monmouth wont even get votes. But why? The ONLY reason would be how teams looked in losses b/s UC Davis wins are not very good. And the game in common Monmouth played Montana better. It is not easy to win games, so even if you are playing below average teams it is clear that most FCS teams now have real talent. I know UCONN sucks but Wagner almost beat them!! Wagner prob wont even compete for the NEC title!! Yet if MOnmouth goes into Wagner next week and "only" wins 31-27 it will be looked at as nothing. If we go beat Charleston Southern it wont matter but yet they were right down to the wire with NC A&T and The Citadel. I am probably doing a bad job at conveying what I want to convey but I hope someone gets my point and can chime in.

Not the "only" reason. Monmouth suffers from the perception of being in the NEC. UCD is in the vaunted "Big Sky" and by that fact alone gets a pass. Similar to Delaware. Long time rep carries weight with many voters. It's not right, but an element that needs to be recognized. Like in other fields, if you don't come with an established rep, or have an established preconception about you, you have to work twice as hard to get kudos.

[Professor Chaos]

Nah fair point.. I get it- and I know we got our shot and did not show up. I just think things like Towson losing to Duquense in 1st rd last year is similarly as bad as MU going to the dome and getting rolled. Maybe if we drew New Hampshire or a similar type team it would not have been like that. No excuses at all, at some point we need to show up and do the job (this year it means beating Kennesaw State and winning out in the Big South so maybe we can play a team like a Delaware or Towson) or just showing up and fairing well . You are right. I am not upset and I think things will work themselves out but why even have polls if they are not based on reality?

Let me give you an example of how this could work- Everyone respects Kennesaw's program and they have backed it up as well. Suppose this year Monmouth does beat them. I know people will tell me it isnt happening, but it very well could. Lets say KSU wins all their other games. They will be 10-2 with NO GOOD WINS. Two of their wins will be against Non D-1 opponents and BAD ones at that. Not even sure they are NCAA schools? Reinhardt and Point? Anyway, BECAUSE of being ranked top 10 to start a loss against MU along with winnign rest will keep them top 15. You do not go from ranked 4-7 to less than 15 for ONE loss to a decent team (I think more than decent)-- So based off that Kennesaw will 99% get in the playoffs if that happens. Yet 7-5 teams from GOOD conferences will be left out.. And why???? B/c of where and how they were ranked based on perception - the same thing that is happening with teams like Delaware, Towson, Maine, UC Davis etc...
You make some solid points about teams being ranked based on reputation rather than the results on the field. I think the STATS and Coach's polls are especially horrible for that and the AGS Poll, while better, does get bitten by it also. However, I think by the time Selection Sunday has rolled around most of that previous year bias has been shaken out of the AGS Poll at least.

One spot where I admit I'm a bit hypocritical on this is I will give teams the benefit of the doubt if they don't have any quality wins to justify their ranking (which was high from preseason onward) but they also don't have any bad losses to justify a lower rank. Two examples of that this year are Kennesaw St and South Dakota St. You look at their resumes while just identifying them as "Team A" and "Team B" and you'd probably say that, in KSU's case, they're fringe top 25, and in SDSU's case they're fringe top 10. Both are ranked much higher than that in all polls because they've earned the benefit of the doubt with past seasons' performances.

Right or wrong that's how it'll work so all teams like Monmouth and Duquesne can do is seize the opportunity when they get it playing teams like Kennesaw St in the regular season or playing anyone in the playoffs. Duquesne did that in the 2018 playoffs and Monmouth did not in the 2017 playoffs. We'll see how it shakes out this year.

[smilo]

I am in disbelief that Towson is still in the AGS Poll. Apologies there and you are right for calling this out. The Coaches Poll is a laughable metric though so I obviously would not be referring to this.

I had UC-Davis at #21. It was hard to rationalize any teams for the final six spots, and they are a close loss against UND away from having a solid resume. This remains a clearly talented team that fought NDSU harder than anyone. Sometimes you have to observe the talent rather than just see a few results.

[F'N Hawks]

Monmouth beat Wagner by 2 points and their best win is Albany.

Is it really time for chest thumping? UND has beaten Davis, SHSU and Drake and I think they ****ing suck balls right now.

[MUHAWKS]

Monmouth beat Wagner by 2 points and their best win is Albany.

Is it really time for chest thumping? UND has beaten Davis, SHSU and Drake and I think they ****ing suck balls right now.


I wish I understood your point. What does this have to do with North Dakota? I am far from chest thumping I am basically saying the CAA is vastly over rated after the first 2-3 top teams and they get the benefit of the doubt. I am not too up on how UND is but I know Towson, Delaware and UC Davis are WAY above them in polls..I am willing to let this die, it is fine. I will let the season speak for itself. But you really must have not read anything I wrote. Go take a look at who Delaware, Towson and Maine have beaten. The FCS has parity. The top few have a big edge but after that, many mid level teams in mid to poor conferences are very capable of beating "supposed" top teams.

[F'N Hawks]

I wish I understood your point. What does this have to do with North Dakota? I am far from chest thumping I am basically saying the CAA is vastly over rated after the first 2-3 top teams and they get the benefit of the doubt. I am not too up on how UND is but I know Towson, Delaware and UC Davis are WAY above them in polls..I am willing to let this die, it is fine. I will let the season speak for itself. But you really must have not read anything I wrote. Go take a look at who Delaware, Towson and Maine have beaten. The FCS has parity. The top few have a big edge but after that, many mid level teams in mid to poor conferences are very capable of beating "supposed" top teams.

If you are just railing about teams not dropping out because of 'prior year opinions' then I am with you. I have done the same thing on here for years. Right now you can look at resumes in the top 20 and wonder, for sure.
If you are wondering why Monmouth isn't getting ranked then I am not with you. Having Albany as your best win isn't going to get a "no-name" team into the top 25. Some teams just get the benefit of the doubt.

[MUHAWKS]

If you are just railing about teams not dropping out because of 'prior year opinions' then I am with you. I have done the same thing on here for years. Right now you can look at resumes in the top 20 and wonder, for sure.
If you are wondering why Monmouth isn't getting ranked then I am not with you. Having Albany as your best win isn't going to get a "no-name" team into the top 25. Some teams just get the benefit of the doubt.

Very fair... I am doing 75% of the first, 25% of the latter. In reality I am using Monmouth as an example b/c of my bias for them but laos b/c I believe it. But yes I am bascially doing the first thing you said more than just being pissed b/c MU is not there. I do not think MU deserves to be ranked right now, I am not a total idiot. But the actual truth is that Either does Towson, Delaware, Maine before this week etc etc. I guess though you make a good point- Until PROVEN, teams like Monmouth are going to have to earn it the hard way as opposed to either new 'sweethearts" or the old stalwarts..Believe me I get it.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I didn't read every post closely ... but i agree with OP, that it seems like there are more than the usual number of comparative scores that make absolutely no sense. I get this happens every year .. hence they name of this forum ... any given saturday. But it does seem like more than the usual.

For this reason alone, I am very quickly surmise Sacramento St is a legit top 6, when in prior years, i would be wholey unconvinced that they were for real at same point in time. But this year, I am much quicker to accept they are legit because so many teams have looked great one week and then just a week later looked very pedestrian and beatable.

Might be wrong .. but sure seems more than usual. So the top 6 is pretty well set .. but after that, it is pot luck picking teams week to week. And not just by a few spots ... big swings in performance for much of the field. I think this requires a much broader look at a teams entire resume, not simply reacting to latest great or bad game.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Very fair... I am doing 75% of the first, 25% of the latter. In reality I am using Monmouth as an example b/c of my bias for them but laos b/c I believe it. But yes I am bascially doing the first thing you said more than just being pissed b/c MU is not there. I do not think MU deserves to be ranked right now, I am not a total idiot. But the actual truth is that Either does Towson, Delaware, Maine before this week etc etc. I guess though you make a good point- Until PROVEN, teams like Monmouth are going to have to earn it the hard way as opposed to either new 'sweethearts" or the old stalwarts..Believe me I get it.

.....YOU RAIL AGIN' DUH 3 CAA TEAMS..........TOWSON IS OWNLAH ONE STILL RANKED FCS TOP 25............YER NOT EVEN IN DUH OTHERAH 16.........BRAWK!

.....NOT IN TOP 40........DIS IS WHERE YA SHOOD BE CRYIN' FOWL...........MONMOUTH NOT MENTIONED....IS WHAA...YER BEIN' OVERAH-LOOKED...........AWK!

.........YOUSE SHOOD BE WONDERIN' WHAA.....PORTLAND STATE IS TOP 40......WHIFF 4-3 RECORD.......DUBBYA'S OVERAH DUH LIKES UH.....SOUFFERN UTAH (1-6).....IDAHO (2-5)....SIMON FRASER.....EASTERN OREGON..........DOODLE-DOO!

[UAalum72]

Not the "only" reason. Monmouth suffers from the perception of being in the NEC. UCD is in the vaunted "Big Sky" and by that fact alone gets a pass. Similar to Delaware. Long time rep carries weight with many voters. It's not right, but an element that needs to be recognized. Like in other fields, if you don't come with an established rep, or have an established preconception about you, you have to work twice as hard to get kudos.
This is Monmouth's sixth season in the Big South

[KPSUL]

Disclosure- I am a Monmouth guy. So I am basing most of what I see on our games so far. The point I am trying to make is that at this point in the season it seems that there is WAY more parity than ever before in FCS and also the playoff committee is going to have their hands full for at large teams, mostly b/c of all the murky things we are seeing when comparing good wins/bad wins and bad losses/good losses.

Let me explain. So Being a an avid Monmouth fan and watching our program grow from the start (I was on one of the first few teams) to where we are now, the goal is now to get to the playoffs. Clearly we can avoid any opinions by winning the Big South. It is hard to tell how Kennesaw really is this year and Charleston Southern may also be pretty good. North Alabama looks good but is not eligible and games against them do not count for league standings. With that said, after 5 weeks Monmouth is 2-2 (just had our bye). We got blown out by an FBS school, but did not look terrible if that makes any sense. Then we only beat Lafayette by 4. Then we beat Albany after being up 21-0 and frankly looking better than them in general regardless of score. Then we go to Montana where nobody wins often and although we lost by 20, we were only down 6 with 10 minutes to go in the game. We were right there with the Grizz on the road and honestly it looked like we were on par with them in many aspects. A loss though is a loss and they were and are the better team.

Ok, so now to my point. We "only" beat Lafayette by 3, but Penn only beat them by 4 and Penn almost beat Delaware who almost beat Pitt! William and Mary struggled a bit with Lafayette too and actually looked good against 2 FBS schools and was ranked 40 here in AGS poll. But then Albany goes and beats them and we beat Albany. Montana beat the daylights out of a top 5 UC Davis team who hung with #15 FBS Cal and had ND state on the ropes. Monmouth was in the Montana game until about 5 minutes left while UC Davis was never in their game.

So after my long winded, maybe hard to understand jibberish what am I saying? I am saying wins are wins and losses are losses but I am not so sure we can judge teams anymore by "well they only beat a *****ty lehigh team by 4" or "Central Connecticut sucks" - - Do we "add" points for teams that "lose well"?? And do we continue to subtract from teams that "win bad"?? As of now Monmouth's win against Albany looks pretty good and their loss against Montana now looks pretty good. Does this stuff count in your minds? Obviously I am biased and selfish in that I just want to see Monmouth make the playoffs, but if we pull another 2017 where we win 9 games but lose to Kennesaw, does it count that we were right there with montana on the road and beat Albany etc?

Obviously we need to see how season plays out, and also I would rather take care of our own business in the league and not have to worry about it but the FCS is tough! It seems on any given week a team can step up and play with or beat a top team. If the Big South ends up being not very good which it probably wont be and for whatever reason we lose to Kennesaw again and go 8-4 or 9-3 do things like losing in good fashion to Montana matter? Or does losing to Western Michigan in better fashion than Georgia state (who beat tennesee ) did matter? Or is it simply you HAVE to have the 2-3 quality wins or it does not matter? So unless Albany ends up becoming a playoff team it will be impossible to have really ANY "quality" wins is what I am saying. But not for a lack of scheduling. When You schedule an FBS, a top 10-15 Montana team on road and a CAA team nobody can say its your fault for not having more quality teams. It is hard to know that the Patriot league just sucks all the time now and that Albany is not considered "good" but like I said above based on comparative games we very well may have beaten William and Mary too.

I guess what I am getting at as it seems we may need to change our views on who is good and who is not. UC Davis, are they "good"?? why? B/c they "looked good" in losing to ND State and FBS California? They beat San Diego who is prob better than most people think since they beat Harvard but still non scholly and they beat a Lehigh team who cant be that good. Big deal? I can make an argument that Monmouth beating Lafayette looks better than UC Davis beating Lehigh. I can also make a GREAT argument that Monmouth beating Albany by 3 is MUCH better than UC Davis beating San Diego by 3. Ok so Monmouth loses to an FBS- so did UC Davis. UC Davis played a better one and lost better but so what? Then UC Davis "looks good" against super team ND state but still loses. Monmouth played Montana much much better than UC Davis and we did it on the road. Ask Montana fans who saw both games what game was closer. Forget the score. I guarantee Montana fans will tell you Monmouth looked like the better team. So I am not actually saying we are, I am saying after 5 weeks UC Davis will still be ranked in every poll and Monmouth wont even get votes. But why? The ONLY reason would be how teams looked in losses b/s UC Davis wins are not very good. And the game in common Monmouth played Montana better. It is not easy to win games, so even if you are playing below average teams it is clear that most FCS teams now have real talent. I know UCONN sucks but Wagner almost beat them!! Wagner prob wont even compete for the NEC title!! Yet if MOnmouth goes into Wagner next week and "only" wins 31-27 it will be looked at as nothing. If we go beat Charleston Southern it wont matter but yet they were right down to the wire with NC A&T and The Citadel. I am probably doing a bad job at conveying what I want to convey but I hope someone gets my point and can chime in.

Beat Kennesaw, get the Big South auto-bid and you'll be in, clear and simple. There is no objective evidence to conclude KSU worthy of the single digit rankings they are getting in the polls. Other than then their FBS game Monmouth is the toughest team on their schedule. "Hard to judge" is an understatement in ranking KSU anywhere.

[fencer24]

Polls are a subjective and therefore human endeavor to try and account for who is where and where the pollsters think they will be. But they are different than the ones that determine selection, even though they may be helpful. Every school is condemned to play who is on their schedule and not who they would want to for that weekend. All in all, the only thing a school can do is to encourage all the members of their conference to play against quality opponents and establish the reputation for being excellent.
All conferences have gone through this to some extent or another. But it's the conference's reputation that helps build the individual team's reputation.
And that helps build the expectation for rankings in the polls.

[ksu_owls]

Very fair... I am doing 75% of the first, 25% of the latter. In reality I am using Monmouth as an example b/c of my bias for them but laos b/c I believe it. But yes I am bascially doing the first thing you said more than just being pissed b/c MU is not there. I do not think MU deserves to be ranked right now, I am not a total idiot. But the actual truth is that Either does Towson, Delaware, Maine before this week etc etc. I guess though you make a good point- Until PROVEN, teams like Monmouth are going to have to earn it the hard way as opposed to either new 'sweethearts" or the old stalwarts..Believe me I get it.

I remember being a little nervous in the first half of the game last year when KSU and MU went to the half 17-14 KSU. I don't know what happened in the second half for it to end up 51-14, but that "second half" KSU is not exactly what I'm seeing in this year's team. I think the lack of competition in our schedule didn't hurt us *that much* last year when we were more experienced, but I think it's a bad thing for these younger guys. I'd rather be 3-3 right now against tougher teams than 5-1 with a bunch of first year starters going to the playoffs with our sos (if we beat MU).

[Terry2889]

Agreed on Maine... they aren't even on my radar anymore much less in my 25. Albany is on my radar but not in my top 25 due to, amongst other things, their loss to Monmouth. I'm giving Towson the benefit of the doubt for their loss to Albany (which you can argue that I'm wrong to do) since they played Villanova tough (who I have in my top 5) and have decent wins over The Citadel and Maine (I know, I just said Maine isn't even on my radar but I still consider that a decent win).

I haven't considered Monmouth seriously for my top 25 ballot all season. It's going to be tough for them to get traction with me playing 1-5 Chuck South and 3-3 Garder-Webb the next 2 weeks. Everything for them will ride on that 11/2 game at Kennesaw if they haven't tripped up before them. It's going to be tough to stump for them for top 25 votes until then... but Albany doing well sure won't hurt.

Forgive me for stating this AGS.... Villanova hasn't beat anyone of merit. I foresee a declivitous fall for the other Wildcats. As for us, we might not have beat anyone of merit either. Truth be told, URI is only 5 plays away from being ranked #2 in the country.... Let that marinate for a second.

[ngineer]

This is Monmouth's sixth season in the Big South

Yep, my bad. I know that and continually see them as an NEC team where they started in FCS and being in "Joysey"...I cannot get my brain to register "Big South"....as they aren't even in South Jersey, "down da shore!"

[DFW HOYA]

Yep, my bad. I know that and continually see them as an NEC team where they started in FCS and being in "Joysey"...I cannot get my brain to register "Big South"....as they aren't even in South Jersey, "down da shore!"

Seems they're stuck there TFN. Too strong for the NEC, not strong enough for the CAA, too ordinary for the high minded folks at the PL, where expansion is framed as "don't worry until we get down to six."

If Del State peeled away from the MEAC it would make at least a closer rivalry than what they have now.

[BadlandsGrizFan]

So not to beat a dead horse but another couple weeks of my very poorly written post coming to fruition.

The #10 (AGS) ranked Towson Tigers get smoked by Albany at home. #19 ranked Maine (no clue how they were even ranked) gets beat by Richmond! Richmond lost to Fordham! Obviously there are a hundred examples, but I feel that way too much emphasis is put on pre season and "name recognition".

While it is true that eventually thing will probably work themselves out and most teams will get their chance to prove things, sometimes not. Will the voters in the polls (all the polls) actually look at these things we look at? For example (yes I am still focusing on my Monmouth Hawks) -- We BEAT Albany and Albany had to stage a furious comeback and last play hail mary just to force overtime. But Albany just smoked Towson. Maine gets beat by Richmond who lost to Fordham. I get it...any given week in most leagues most teams can beat other teams. But that was and still is my point! Wins are wins!

Monmouth "barely" beat Wagner. Monmouth "barely" beat Lafayette! So automatically we go from getting serious votes in the polls pre season and week 1-2 to nothing. Meanwhile teams like Maine, Towson, Delaware, UC Davis etc keep getting benefit of the doubt b/c of what "perception" was.. I will say it again- Monmouth gave # 6 Montana its toughest game of the year (not counting Oregon). We beat an Albany team that is clearly pretty good and who just beat a CAA power. Why do teams like ours have to be perfect and blow teams out just to get any recognition.

Campbell and Georgetown are getting votes in FCS polls and here in AGS!!! Fordham?? Campbell beat presbyterian 28-14 and we just beat the Blue Hose 45-0 and could have been 70. The "perception" people have of teams I think matters way too much. There is NO WAY ANYONE can look at Campbells resume or Fordham or Gtwon and tell me its BETTER than Monmouth.

It is not the biggest deal in world but this all counts at the end of the year and while it is true that MU controls its own destiny (and I think this is the year we finally beat Kennesaw) who knows what can happen. Suppose we win out from here but lose a tight one to Kennesaw. Then the polls WILL matter and looking at comparative games WILL matter. So I go back to my original thoughts that more than ever WINS count. Period! If a "bad win" is somehow discounted as the perceived bad wins we has by barely beating Wagner and Lafayette, shouldnt then "good" losses count? Or that only matters for the big bad CAA?

I am not as angry as I may sound it is just odd that Monmouth is 4-2, beat Albany, played Montana tougher than anyone did and we go from middle of the road getting votes (like 30-35 in nation) to nothing, meanwhile teams like UC Davis, Maine, Towson are just kept up there for nothing..Watch if Monmouth beats Campbell I will be told Campbell sucks and didnt do a thing. Yet as of now they are the top ORV in AGS!!!!! It is just frustrating that we have to seemingly be perfect and win our play up games while other wins are discounted. Central Conn and teams like them should tell people that there are no "bad" conferences anymore..

Monmouths QB and RB were very impressive. The QB did something very few QBs accomplish In WaGriz Stadium. He took the crowd largely out of the game by using quick snap counts and very quick drops on his passes. His drops were 2 steps and ball out and usually very accurately thrown. Not allowing Montana to get sacks...and get the crowd going nuts or into obvious passing downs.

A lot of QBs come in and try checking into and out of plays which in WaGriz never works...Monmouth didnt do that. They were very impressive team in my opinion.

I will say..I think Montana was playing very vanilla against Monmouth before conference play started tho.

[Grizzlies82]

One last time I will lay it out- Give me ANY basis at all on how UC Davis, Maine or Towson's resume THIS YEAR warrants them being ranked right now or ahead of a non getting votes Monmouth team... Its all perception and its BS!!!


Muhawks, the polls are nothing but perception and are often BS.

First of all don't sweat it. Remember the polls are not the same as the Playoff seedings! Secondly, if Monmouth continues to win they'll definitely be a playoff team this year. Third, realize reputation does matter. If they beat Kennesaw or any team you face in the playoffs it will help "perception" in future years. Though the polls will never be 'fair' or necessarily correct so don't lose any sleep on it.

Good luck to your team they did play with heart in Missoula.

[aceinthehole]

Seems they're stuck there TFN. Too strong for the NEC, not strong enough for the CAA, too ordinary for the high minded folks at the PL, where expansion is framed as "don't worry until we get down to six."

Not "too strong" for the NEC. They took their basketball and went to the MAAC and didn't plan that the rest io the league would play hardball. No reason for the NEC to prop up their football team and provide them access to our AQ. They don't add value to the league - we're fine with CCSU, Duquesne, Sacred Heart, Saint Francis, Wagner, Bryant, Robert Morris, and now LIU and Merrimack. It was a business decision, not a competitive one.

Look at UConn. They wanted to play Georgetown, St. John's, and Providence in hoops and took their basketball to the Big East. Why should the AAC keep them as a football member? They took what was valuable away and the remaining members have no incentive to give UConn anything in return.

Decisions have consequences. Monmouth and UConn have to accept those consequences.