THE COACHES POLL-JUST AS WE THOUGHT

[apaladin]

As has been the case in the past the committee, like they always do took the coaches poll the week before the "selection" eliminated the non-participants, the auto qualifiers and the at large bids went to the next teams in line. After the non-participants and auto qualifiers these were the highest ranked teams which became the 14 at-large bids.
3. MONTANA
4. SACRAMENTO ST
5. SOUTHH DAKOTA ST
6. ILLINOIS ST
8. MONTANA ST
9. KENNESAW ST
10. NORTHERN IOWA
11. CENTRAL ARKANSAS
14. VILLANOVA
15. FURMAN
16. SE MISSOURI ST
21. SE LOUISIANA
26. NORTH DAKOTA-Replaced #20 Towson due to loss
27. ALBANY-Replaced #25 So. Illinois dues to loss.

#20 Towson and #25 So. Illinois both lost and they were simply replaced by the next 2 in line which was ND and Albany. They did not penalize SE La for their loss. If they had they would have chosen between E. Washington and SC State. So, this once again proves there is no "looking" at teams and comparing scores and analyzing teams. The committee once again took the last coaches poll before the field was announced and the 14 at-large bids were the next 14 teams ranked
To think the committee spends hours looking at teams is laughable. .

[lionsrking2]

If that were the case, we would have been one of the last four in. We were firmly in according to the committee and not one of the last four.

Last 4 in according to the committee
Furman
Illinois State
Kennesaw State
North Dakota

First 4 out
New Hampshire
South Carolina State
Southern Illinois
Towson

[Professor Chaos]

As has been the case in the past the committee, like they always do took the coaches poll the week before the "selection" eliminated the non-participants, the auto qualifiers and the at large bids went to the next teams in line. After the non-participants and auto qualifiers these were the highest ranked teams which became the 14 at-large bids.
3. MONTANA
4. SACRAMENTO ST
5. SOUTHH DAKOTA ST
6. ILLINOIS ST
8. MONTANA ST
9. KENNESAW ST
10. NORTHERN IOWA
11. CENTRAL ARKANSAS
14. VILLANOVA
15. FURMAN
16. SE MISSOURI ST
21. SE LOUISIANA
26. NORTH DAKOTA-Replaced #20 Towson due to loss
27. ALBANY-Replaced #25 So. Illinois dues to loss.

#20 Towson and #25 So. Illinois both lost and they were simply replaced by the next 2 in line which was ND and Albany. They did not penalize SE La for their loss. If they had they would have chosen between E. Washington and SC State. So, this once again proves there is no "looking" at teams and comparing scores and analyzing teams. The committee once again took the last coaches poll before the field was announced and the 14 at-large bids were the next 14 teams ranked
To think the committee spends hours looking at teams is laughable. .
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[FUBeAR]

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Prof - I would imagine you have the historical data (Coaches Poll prior to final week of regular season + Playoff At-Large Teams for that season over X number of prior seasons), well-organized & readily accessible to prove this ‘theory’ wrong or, possibly, to be unable to invalidate the theory. As a “theory,’” it can’t be definitively PROVEN correct in the absence of supporting 1st hand testimony/evidence submitted by current/past committee members because their publicly stated methodologies (and 1st 4 In/Out) clearly refute this theory.

“Completely wrong” or “possibly true,” it is an interesting theory. If you can/would invalidate it with historical data, I, for one, would be interested in seeing that data.

[Professor Chaos]

Prof - I would imagine you have the historical data (Coaches Poll prior to final week of regular season + Playoff At-Large Teams for that season over X number of prior seasons), well-organized & readily accessible to prove this ‘theory’ wrong or, possibly, to be unable to invalidate the theory. As a “theory,’” it can’t be definitively PROVEN correct in the absence of supporting 1st hand testimony/evidence submitted by current/past committee members because their publicly stated methodologies clearly refute this theory.

“Completely wrong” or “possibly true,” it is an interesting theory. If you can/would invalidate it with historical data, I, for one, would be interested in seeing that.
I've already showed it to the guy who concocted the OP but he doesn't care to look at it apparently... he'd rather keep driving his false narrative to, I assume, make himself feel better about his beloved Furman University Christian Knights being left out last year.

Here it is though: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?216083-Which-poll-is-the-most-accurate-playoff-predictor

Here's the tl;dr summary:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49123095687_3f455ae7ef_o.jpg


Beyond the Coaches Poll consistently being the worst predictor of the committee's seed lines and at-large selections (and this year was no exception) the committee's last 4 in/first 4 out directly refute this guy's inane theory like lionsrking has already pointed out.

[Dane96]

As has been the case in the past the committee, like they always do took the coaches poll the week before the "selection" eliminated the non-participants, the auto qualifiers and the at large bids went to the next teams in line. After the non-participants and auto qualifiers these were the highest ranked teams which became the 14 at-large bids.
3. MONTANA
4. SACRAMENTO ST
5. SOUTHH DAKOTA ST
6. ILLINOIS ST
8. MONTANA ST
9. KENNESAW ST
10. NORTHERN IOWA
11. CENTRAL ARKANSAS
14. VILLANOVA
15. FURMAN
16. SE MISSOURI ST
21. SE LOUISIANA
26. NORTH DAKOTA-Replaced #20 Towson due to loss
27. ALBANY-Replaced #25 So. Illinois dues to loss.

#20 Towson and #25 So. Illinois both lost and they were simply replaced by the next 2 in line which was ND and Albany. They did not penalize SE La for their loss. If they had they would have chosen between E. Washington and SC State. So, this once again proves there is no "looking" at teams and comparing scores and analyzing teams. The committee once again took the last coaches poll before the field was announced and the 14 at-large bids were the next 14 teams ranked
To think the committee spends hours looking at teams is laughable. .

Wrong. According to the committee, Albany was firmly in. In fact, they were in the 12-16 range as far as the committee is concerned.

[BisonTru]

What's with Furman fans and their conspiracy theories? Ya'll hand out purple tin foil hats at orientation?

Let's start breaking down your theory....

First starting at the top Weber St was 7th in the coaches poll and while both Sac State and Weber won, Weber jumped past Sac State who was 4th in the poll. Right there that takes away your argument they just copy the coaches poll. And again, Northern Iowa was ahead of Central Arkansas in the coaches poll yet UCA got seeded. And Kennesaw St was ahead of both UNI and UCA, yet were a last four in.

Your theory was poorly thought out and if you spent 10 minutes doing some objective research you would have saw that.

[FUBeAR]

I ain’t supportin’ this theory (just find it interesting to consider), but I don’t think the Theorist has ever said anything about Seeding being part of his Theory, nor has there been any reckoning as to the validity of the ‘published’ Last 4/ First 4 In/Out. Only focused on 14 At-Large berths. I could be wrong, but I think that his/her position...and ALL of his/her position.

If I’m correct, I’m not sure how criticizing things not theorized invalidates that which is being theorized.

So...simple to disprove....take Coaches Poll before final week of regular season...extract Auto-Bid Teams, extract non-participants, potentially extract lower ranked teams that lose in the final week (a little fuzzy there)...and compare the remaining ranked list (including ‘move-ups’ due to final week losses of slightly higher-ranked teams). Compare this list to the 14 At-Large bids given & determine the correlation. I think that, for the most part, is what Prof’s data does, but with the seeding stuff in there, it’s a little hard to cipher for a Color-Blind Bear of very little Brain...and I’m not sure it accounts for final-week losses leading to ‘move-ups’ - based upon 2019 only - Prof showing 13 of 14 & ‘Theorist’ showing for 14 of 14 with Towson & S. ILL (I think it was) losses moving the ‘next 2 up’ into the At-Large field.

Anyway - no biggie - not claiming any conspiracy- didn’t like last year’s omission of a SoCon Champ, but just interested if we can/cannot rely on the theory in question (or any others) to (almost) precisely project at-large bids before the final week of the regular season. Nothing more.

[apaladin]

You can't refute facts. The 14 at large went straight down the line of ranked teams. Don't see how you can argue that.Doesn't matter what the committee says about who was last in, last out it's still the same teams. That's just PR to try to make themselves look good and that they actually look at teams. If they actually looked at teams everyone here know So. Illinois is better than Albany and N. Dakota.

[apaladin]

FUBear, Correct, didn't say a word about seeds. Just the 14 at large went to the top 14 ranked teams in the coaches poll with the 2 losses of the final 2 being replaced by the next 2 in line. Not that hard, pretty simple.

[ElCid]

FUBear, Correct, didn't say a word about seeds. Just the 14 at large went to the top 14 ranked teams in the coaches poll with the 2 losses of the final 2 being replaced by the next 2 in line. Not that hard, pretty simple.

Small news flash, the next 14 went to the top 14 ranked teams in the AGS poll as well. Hmmm. Just as I thought, they are secretly using the AGS poll!

[Professor Chaos]

FUBear, Correct, didn't say a word about seeds. Just the 14 at large went to the top 14 ranked teams in the coaches poll with the 2 losses of the final 2 being replaced by the next 2 in line. Not that hard, pretty simple.
Sure, so they just look at the Coaches poll to select at-large teams but come up with their own seeds... makes a ton of sense.

How come Indiana St wasn't included in the field last year then even though they were ranked ahead of Montana St, Incarnate Word, Lamar, and UNI in the Coaches Poll that came out the week before Selection Sunday? All those teams made the field and Indiana St won their last regular season game.

How come McNeese and EWU were left out of the 2017 field? They were ranked ahead of teams that made the field like Northern Iowa, Monmouth, Furman (gasp!), and Northern Arizona in the last Coaches poll released before Selection Sunday last year. Neither of those teams lost their final regular season game. If they would've used your theorized method in 2017 Furman wouldn't have made the field.

Should I keep going?

[Sir William]

Aren’t we all glad that neither the players nor the coaches read this website with any consistency or trustworthiness. 99.5% of every poster on AGS, present company included, don’t have a clue 50% of the time as to what we’re talking about. We flash stats and previous records and who beat who in week 1, etc...but at the end of the day we are all homers ultimately biased everyday toward our own team (and hopefully taking everything posted here in good fun and with a grain of salt).

BTW, Furman runs the table and wins the natty this year.

Man, I love AGS! Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

SW

[BisonTru]

Small news flash, the next 14 went to the top 14 ranked teams in the AGS poll as well. Hmmm. Just as I thought, they are secretly using the AGS poll!

This ^^^^ Historically AGS has been a better predictor of at large births so your theory has more legs than the OPs.

[FUBeAR]

Sure, so they just look at the Coaches poll to select at-large teams but come up with their own seeds... makes a ton of sense.

How come Indiana St wasn't included in the field last year then even though they were ranked ahead of Montana St, Incarnate Word, Lamar, and UNI in the Coaches Poll that came out the week before Selection Sunday? All those teams made the field and Indiana St won their last regular season game.

How come McNeese and EWU were left out of the 2017 field? They were ranked ahead of teams that made the field like Northern Iowa, Monmouth, Furman (gasp!), and Northern Arizona in the last Coaches poll released before Selection Sunday last year. Neither of those teams lost their final regular season game. If they would've used your theorized method in 2017 Furman wouldn't have made the field.

Should I keep going?Yes, please. Good stuff - love to see it in tabular format...if you feel like doing it. I don’t. I saw the Indiana State 2018 thing & thought, well...maybe they considered a 2 point win over a team with a losing record as a loss. Like I said... fuzzy at the bottom.

So...this convo sets me to wondering...is there a before final regular season week’s games poll (don’t care which) that has been infallible over the past X number of seasons projecting the At-Large bids (using the final week loss/move-up with admitted fuzziness criteria, through Y number of at-large bids - maybe thru 11, 12, or even 13. If so, which poll, what is Y...and what is X?

You MVFC, BSC, and CAA guys can worry about seeds. The rest of us, at this point, are just hoping to have a game to watch on T’Giving Saturday.

[FUBeAR]

Aren’t we all glad that neither the players nor the coaches read this website with any consistency or trustworthiness. 99.5% of every poster on AGS, present company included, don’t have a clue 50% of the time as to what we’re talking about. We flash stats and previous records and who beat who in week 1, etc...but at the end of the day we are all homers ultimately biased everyday toward our own team (and hopefully taking everything posted here in good fun and with a grain of salt).

BTW, Furman runs the table and wins the natty this year.

Man, I love AGS! Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

SWAt least 1 statement in this post is #Truth xnodx

[Professor Chaos]

Yes, please. Good stuff - love to see it in tabular format...if you feel like doing it. I don’t. I saw the Indiana State 2018 thing & thought, well...maybe they considered a 2 point win over a team with a losing record as a loss. Like I said... fuzzy at the bottom.

So...this convo sets me to wondering...is there a before final regular season week’s games poll (don’t care which) that has been infallible over the past X number of seasons projecting the At-Large bids (using the final week loss/move-up with admitted fuzziness criteria, through Y number of at-large bids - maybe thru 11, 12, or even 13. If so, which poll, what is Y...and what is X?

You MVFC, BSC, and CAA guys can worry about seeds. The rest of us, at this point, are just hoping to have a game to watch on T’Giving Saturday.
If someone else wants to tackle the previous week's polls in relation to how they mirror the Selection Sunday bracket reveal they can feel free... I'm not because I have confidence the committee members and the NCAA aren't part of some mass conspiracy where they all make up stories about their multiple conference calls weekly, their weekly discussions with their regional advisory committees, them all watching multiple games per week at a minimum, and them building their own poll weekly that they alone vote in and see the results of (except for the one late season top 10 reveal they do yearly) from mid-October through the end of the season.

I also trust that them all flying to Indianapolis on the final weekend of the regular season isn't done so they can all get in the same room and put up the previous week's Coaches Poll on the projector screen to set the field.

I'll let the conspiracy theorists handle that data mining. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

[MSUBobcat]

If someone else wants to tackle the previous week's polls in relation to how they mirror the Selection Sunday bracket reveal they can feel free... I'm not because I have confidence the committee members and the NCAA aren't part of some mass conspiracy where they all make up stories about their multiple conference calls weekly, their weekly discussions with their regional advisory committees, them all watching multiple games per week at a minimum, and them building their own poll weekly that they alone vote in and see the results of (except for the one late season top 10 reveal they do yearly) from mid-October through the end of the season.

I also trust that them all flying to Indianapolis on the final weekend of the regular season isn't done so they can all get in the same room and put up the previous week's Coaches Poll on the projector screen to set the field.

I'll let the conspiracy theorists handle that data mining. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

I was with ya on a conspiracy theory being tin foil hat material.... until you brought up a free trip to Indy in November. Who wouldn't kill their own mother for that kind of payoff?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

"THE COACHES POLL-JUST AS WE THOUGHT"

Who the **** is "we"? We didn't think ****, I've wondered about the #'s of conspiracy theorists out there and it is always a few damaged souls searching for a reason outside of the obvious as to why their team did not make it.

But then they hold on to it even if it flies in the face of their theories. It's dumbass **** but if it helps to vent and look like an idiot then by all means I am glad they have a place to let it out.

You had a bubble team that didn't make it and it's an obvious conspiracy against you, your team, and your conference for the rest of time. Good one.

[Lorne_Malvo]

A few people here have been speaking for AGS as a whole lately and have been far from accurate IMO.
Its sort of funny though.

[FUBeAR]

If someone else wants to tackle the previous week's polls in relation to how they mirror the Selection Sunday bracket reveal they can feel free... I'm not because I have confidence the committee members and the NCAA aren't part of some mass conspiracy where they all make up stories about their multiple conference calls weekly, their weekly discussions with their regional advisory committees, them all watching multiple games per week at a minimum, and them building their own poll weekly that they alone vote in and see the results of (except for the one late season top 10 reveal they do yearly) from mid-October through the end of the season.

I also trust that them all flying to Indianapolis on the final weekend of the regular season isn't done so they can all get in the same room and put up the previous week's Coaches Poll on the projector screen to set the field.

I'll let the conspiracy theorists handle that data mining. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Thanks - don’t blame you. I don’t feel like doing it either...and just to, AGAIN, be CLEAR, my interest in this topic/analysis is not post-at-large selection committee bashing. My interest is in Final week of season 2020 (and beyond) pro-active ‘nerves’ management & in knowing, as precisely as possible, which games/scores I should watch...which Teams to root for/against, etc. Y’know - those things that slightly-insane true fans of FCS Football care about. #NothingNefarious

[apaladin]

The committee has said they use the coaches poll and they really do.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The committee has said they use the coaches poll and they really do.

No, they have said it is a tool the can use, not that they necessarily DO rely on. They don't rely on it, it is fairly obvious since AGS and STATS polls both almost always line up more closely with the selections than the coaches poll does. Do some reading around here, learn something and hopefully we can better conversations going forward.

[Professor Chaos]

Thanks - don’t blame you. I don’t feel like doing it either...and just to, AGAIN, be CLEAR, my interest in this topic/analysis is not post-at-large selection committee bashing. My interest is in Final week of season 2020 (and beyond) pro-active ‘nerves’ management & in knowing, as precisely as possible, which games/scores I should watch...which Teams to root for/against, etc. Y’know - those things that slightly-insane true fans of FCS Football care about. #NothingNefarious
Makes sense. I'm biased of course but I think it's reasonable to look at the AGS Poll at any given point in the season and use it as a pretty good gauge for where the committee is/would be at that point. Even going back to the midseason top 10 they released this year AGS was closer to that than the other polls were at the time. I think it's a logical inference to say if the AGS Poll is best on Selection Sunday at mirroring where the committee is at it would be the best the week before also.

There's always going to be at least slight differences as a collective between the AGS Poll voters and the committee but I think you can feel pretty good about your team making the field as we come down the stretch run if AGS has them in at that time and they hold server from there on out.