AGS Top 25 - How They Fared - Spring Week 9 - Apr 10, 2021

[Preferred Walk-On]

Two games are finishing up (SEMO and UT-Martin appear on their way to victory), but since their information is not being entered into this week's "How They Fared", I am posting the HTF just a bit early. Any mistakes, please let me know. Enjoy!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZC-yKrw74MVWlrcefGyFSp24ycyf2YILwvduFhC_hcU/edit?usp=sharing

[ncspiderfan]

Thanks for taking the time to do this and posting

I think Incarnate Word lost by the score you posted for the game.

[Cocky]

Thought NW St beat ICW
I could be wrong

[Preferred Walk-On]

Thought NW St beat ICW
I could be wrong

They did. I had a brain fart. It is now fixed. Thanks for letting me know.

- - - Updated - - -


Thanks for taking the time to do this and posting

I think Incarnate Word lost by the score you posted for the game.

Yep, they did. I even watched the end of the game and still messed it up. It is fixed now. Thanks for letting me know.

[atthewbon]

I’m struggling with what to do for Rhode Island. I think there season is over but idk if I should still rank them (they have a pretty good resume, could easily be top 15).

[Daytripper]

I'm not sure how fair it actually is, but I can't in good conscience keep teams consistently ranked if they don't play any ***king games.

[kdinva]

thanks for the chart, will be fun to fill out ballot.

[Professor Chaos]

I’m struggling with what to do for Rhode Island. I think there season is over but idk if I should still rank them (they have a pretty good resume, could easily be top 15).
I have the same issue with UC Davis. They're done at 3-2 but both loss are fairly close ones to top 10 teams and they beat Idaho and Idaho St which are both decent wins. I wonder how the committee will view Davis if there is bubble chaos like Richmond, Nova, and SLU all losing next week? I don't think they're completely out of the picture yet just like I don't think teams like SIU and Mercer are completely out of the picture.

[atthewbon]

I have the same issue with UC Davis. They're done at 3-2 but both loss are fairly close ones to top 10 teams and they beat Idaho and Idaho St which are both decent wins. I wonder how the committee will view Davis if there is bubble chaos like Richmond, Nova, and SLU all losing next week? I don't think they're completely out of the picture yet just like I don't think teams like SIU and Mercer are completely out of the picture.

Same with me. I think UC Davis and Rhode Island have pretty similar resumes (I don’t think Rhode Island can get in to the playoffs though, not enough games played). As you said I think Davis needs some chaos but they still have a chance. It feels weird ranking these two teams 10 and 11 but that’s where I’m currently at.

[Preferred Walk-On]

I have the same issue with UC Davis. They're done at 3-2 but both loss are fairly close ones to top 10 teams and they beat Idaho and Idaho St which are both decent wins. I wonder how the committee will view Davis if there is bubble chaos like Richmond, Nova, and SLU all losing next week? I don't think they're completely out of the picture yet just like I don't think teams like SIU and Mercer are completely out of the picture.

Short of UND losing @ YSU (if game is played), do you really believe that the MVFC will get 4 at-large bids (assuming NDSU auto-bid, then UND, SDSU, MOST, then SIU). Crazier things I guess. Also, I'm sure I have just missed this, but if Mercer beats Samford and VMI loses to The Citadel, who gets the auto-bid - three teams with two losses ETSU>VMI>Mercer>ETSU.

[Professor Chaos]

Short of UND losing @ YSU (if game is played), do you really believe that the MVFC will get 4 at-large bids (assuming NDSU auto-bid, then UND, SDSU, MOST, then SIU). Crazier things I guess. Also, I'm sure I have just missed this, but if Mercer beats Samford and VMI loses to The Citadel, who gets the auto-bid - three teams with two losses ETSU>VMI>Mercer>ETSU.
IMO the biggest thing working against SIU is they're probably the 2nd MVFC team on the outside looking in after Missouri St. I don't think 4 is that outrageous for the MVFC or the CAA for that matter if things shake out right for each conference with the OVC, SOCON, and Southland cannibalizing themselves and the Big Sky looking like it'll only get one at-large.

[Preferred Walk-On]

IMO the biggest thing working against SIU is they're probably the 2nd MVFC team on the outside looking in after Missouri St. I don't think 4 is that outrageous for the MVFC or the CAA for that matter if things shake out right for each conference with the OVC, SOCON, and Southland cannibalizing themselves and the Big Sky looking like it'll only get one at-large.

Four is outrageous for the CAA, if only because they have not played enough games. No wait, four at-large bids IS DEFINITELY outrageous for the CAA. At least the MVFC teams have 5-8 games under their belt, AND for the most part, have played each other.

[Professor Chaos]

Four is outrageous for the CAA, if only because they have not played enough games. No wait, four at-large bids IS DEFINITELY outrageous for the CAA. At least the MVFC teams have 5-8 games under their belt, AND for the most part, have played each other.
If Richmond and Villanova win this Saturday it could happen.

[Puddin Tane]

I'm not sure how fair it actually is, but I can't in good conscience keep teams consistently ranked if they don't play any ***king games.

me neither

[Puddin Tane]

And will Northern fricking Iowa finally drop out? Or is it still the mvfc 5 loss rule?

[Preferred Walk-On]

If Richmond and Villanova win this Saturday it could happen.

I understand the scenario where the committee lets in 4 CAA teams (3 as at-large). I guess I misinterpreted the four teams in your previous post as “four at-large”, since you had mentioned SIU, and the way it is going, they will only get in with four at-large bids going to the MVFC. IMO, if Delaware and/or JMU get beat, then maybe one should be out. Controversial, I know. If the committee is that spineless as to let all 4 in, then they should probably let 4 MVFC in, and there are your 6 at-larges (3 CAA, 3 MVFC). That would not be right, IMO.

Besides, how would we get Kennesaw, or New Hampshire ;), in there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

I understand the scenario where the committee lets in 4 CAA teams (3 as at-large). I guess I misinterpreted the four teams in your previous post as “four at-large”, since you had mentioned SIU, and the way it is going, they will only get in with four at-large bids going to the MVFC. IMO, if Delaware and/or JMU get beat, then maybe one should be out. Controversial, I know. If the committee is that spineless as to let all 4 in, then they should probably let 4 MVFC in, and there are your 6 at-larges (3 CAA, 3 MVFC). That would not be right, IMO.

Besides, how would we get Kennesaw, or New Hampshire ;), in there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why would it be spineless to put 4 teams from one onference in? To me it would be spineless to leave a team out in favor of a team with a lesser resume because of the number of bids already granted to that conference.

EDIT: I guess I could see the argument against JMU if they lost to Richmond but to go from #1 in the committee's rankings last week to completely out after one loss would seem unlikely. They'd be putting JMU in based almost completely on reputation so that's a fair criticism to call that decision spineless.

[POD Knows]

And will Northern fricking Iowa finally drop out? Or is it still the mvfc 5 loss rule?I moved them up in my poll xnodx

[TheKingpin28]

I moved them up in my poll xnodx

Same. TBF, they actually jumped back into my poll.

It was a dartboard after 10ish.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Why would it be spineless to put 4 teams from one onference in? To me it would be spineless to leave a team out in favor of a team with a lesser resume because of the number of bids already granted to that conference.

EDIT: I guess I could see the argument against JMU if they lost to Richmond but to go from #1 in the committee's rankings last week to completely out after one loss would seem unlikely. They'd be putting JMU in based almost completely on reputation so that's a fair criticism to call that decision spineless.

Yes, the "spineless" was referring to putting teams in, because the committee is not willing to cut one or more, not that it is spineless to put four teams in from one conference. Also, in retrospect, it was a brilliant move by the CAA to have two divisions that appear like they may actually be treated as if they are two separate conferences regarding bids. Genius.