The FCS Wedge 2021

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm having a few troubles relearning how to do all this stuff and trying to put some new bells and whistles together for the podcast and the site but at this point I am locked out of the place. xlolx

We laid the cast down and it is available here:
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-fcs-wedge/2021/09/01/the-fcs-wedge-2021-0901--wk0-show

It is also available on Apple.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fcs-wedge/id557271012

I am currently working with the feed to make it appear on Google again because of some issue with checking the RSS feed. Hope to have that back soon. Here is the show page for Google Podcasts.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0?sa=X&ved=0CC8Q9sEGahcKEwj4-OLw5eDyAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ

If you have Amazon speakers you can also just say "Alexa, play the latest episode of The FCS Wedge podcast."

I had to speak the show name very clearly because on my first attempt I got something different.

I will stick this thread and update as we progress.

[acbearkat]

One time with our Amazon Fire Stick I said “The CW” and all of a sudden hip hop music started playing. [emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

New show is up today.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0/episode/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ibG9ndGFsa3JhZGlvLmNvbS90aGUtZmNzLX dlZGdlLzIwMjEvMDkvMDgvdGhlLWZjcy13ZWRnZS0yMDIxLTA5 MDgtLXdrMS1yZXZpZXc?sa=X&ved=0CCoQz4EHahcKEwjA8-qohvDyAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQEg

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Week 1 Pt. 2 looking ahead.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0

[TheKingpin28]

I can't remember but was this going to be available on Spotify?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I can't remember but was this going to be available on Spotify?

I had trouble when I tried last time about a year and a half ago but I just got it figured out and set up. It will take a few hours but when it shows up there it will be at this link if this helps.

https://open.spotify.com/show/61mEEl1qDeDIDIile6g3q0

What is it you like about Spotify over the others kp? Wondering as I don't have and don't use and want to see what benefits might be accrued if I do?

[TheRevSFA]

Good work on this y'all....but it's "tarl-ton" not "tar-le-ton". trying to help ya out Lance.

[MTfan4life]

Good work on this y'all....but it's "tarl-ton" not "tar-le-ton". trying to help ya out Lance.

You promise this is not just because I dragged SFA through the mud?! ;) That was really just a shot at kalm, haha. Thank you for the tip! That makes more sense. I don't call him Char-les Barkley. However, maybe I will now! Steer into the skid with Char-les-ton Southern!

[TheRevSFA]

You promise this is not just because I dragged SFA through the mud?! ;) That was really just a shot at kalm, haha. Thank you for the tip! That makes more sense. I don't call him Char-les Barkley. However, maybe I will now! Steer into the skid with Char-les-ton Southern!

xlolx perhaps…….

[PantherRob82]

I had trouble when I tried last time about a year and a half ago but I just got it figured out and set up. It will take a few hours but when it shows up there it will be at this link if this helps.

https://open.spotify.com/show/61mEEl1qDeDIDIile6g3q0

What is it you like about Spotify over the others kp? Wondering as I don't have and don't use and want to see what benefits might be accrued if I do?

I listen to all my podcasts on Spotify. Likely because that's where I listen to music. Need to add this to my queue.

[TheKingpin28]

I had trouble when I tried last time about a year and a half ago but I just got it figured out and set up. It will take a few hours but when it shows up there it will be at this link if this helps.

https://open.spotify.com/show/61mEEl1qDeDIDIile6g3q0

What is it you like about Spotify over the others kp? Wondering as I don't have and don't use and want to see what benefits might be accrued if I do?I apologize for the delay on the response but the main reason why I like it, is that I have spotify premium and any podcast/show I listen to, streams on there and when I am working, it's a great way to let me phone run in the background and I can save and download ones if I know I am going to be traveling to areas where cell reception might not be the best.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[MTfan4life]

I apologize for the delay on the response but the main reason why I like it, is that I have spotify premium and any podcast/show I listen to, streams on there and when I am working, it's a great way to let me phone run in the background and I can save and download ones if I know I am going to be traveling to areas where cell reception might not be the best.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

I mostly use Spotify as well. However, I have found the Google Podcasts app to be very easy on my Samsung. You can download episodes without needing any sort of Premium account. I use that for both the wedge and the DP show.

[TheKingpin28]

I mostly use Spotify as well. However, I have found the Google Podcasts app to be very easy on my Samsung. You can download episodes without needing any sort of Premium account. I use that for both the wedge and the DP show.My phone is old and still on my first smart phone from 2017. I just like the simplicity of Spotify and that was why I had wondered if it was possible to be on there. If not I can always try other avenues too.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

My phone is old and still on my first smart phone from 2017. I just like the simplicity of Spotify and that was why I had wondered if it was possible to be on there. If not I can always try other avenues too.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

It is on there now...I gave you the link last week.

[TheKingpin28]

It is on there now...I gave you the link last week.Yep. I am grateful for it and was able to get caught up on them. I just wasn't sure if it was sticking around.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yep. I am grateful for it and was able to get caught up on them. I just wasn't sure if it was sticking around.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

It will since I put any effort at all inot it! xlolx

I mean, unless they think I'm gonna pay them to have you pay them to listen to the stuff. Then I'm out.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

New one up on all outlets. Here is the Apple page:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fcs-wedge/id557271012

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Week 4 Preview

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0/episode/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ibG9ndGFsa3JhZGlvLmNvbS90aGUtZmNzLX dlZGdlLzIwMjEvMDkvMjMvdGhlLWZjcy13ZWRnZS0yMDIxLTA5 MjMtLXdrNC1wcmV2aWV3?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahgKEwiYt9rgoY7zAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQoBY

[Preferred Walk-On]

Week 4 Preview

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0/episode/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ibG9ndGFsa3JhZGlvLmNvbS90aGUtZmNzLX dlZGdlLzIwMjEvMDkvMjMvdGhlLWZjcy13ZWRnZS0yMDIxLTA5 MjMtLXdrNC1wcmV2aWV3?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahgKEwiYt9rgoY7zAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQoBY

Just finished listening. Thanks for the shoutout kalm.

Also, I snort-laughed when you ended with Ave Maria. Now whenever I hear Ave Maria, my mind is going to go to a video montage of the Presbyterian QB throwing a touchdown against...St. Andrews, followed by Presbyterian turning the ball over to Campbell and the resulting TDs shortly thereafter. In my head, this montage will look like the NFL RedZone channel at the end of the broadcast where they recap every TD.

Appreciate the podcasts.

[TheRevSFA]

Great work fellas

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I love seeing a little discussion on the thread about the podcasts. Glad you guys listen in.

I had some good chuckles putting that one together. xlolx

[Preferred Walk-On]

Just finished this week's (4) review show. Great job, and appreciate the review each week.

Two things (information and opinion):

1. Information (reminder): Regarding last week's place in the poll for each team, there is no extra work needed. Professor Chaos actually shows rank change in the table he posts each week at The FCS Wedge.

2. Opinion: I can appreciate the fluidity model exercised when voting. It was interesting regarding thoughts about a sub-.500 team being ranked, let alone in the top 20, and that even though their three losses were to FBS (and ranked at the time; granted, almost meaningless that early, but still ranked) Utah, James Madison, and UC Davis, this did not warrant ranking Weber State. Then a minute or two later it was pointed out that Princeton (2-0; well above .500) shouldn't be ranked due to their level of competition. It seems a bit odd to not consider the opponents much for one team (Weber State) but then base the other team's (Princeton's) ranking almost exclusively on opponents. I am not saying the fluidity method is right or wrong, and it is nice that 52 other voters can either substantiate this approach or balance it out. I just think if one is considering competition, one should try to do this across the board; however, again, to each their own. Full disclosure, I ranked Weber State at #12 (which is definitely debatable either way), and I ranked Princeton at #23 (good teams take care of weaker opponents, and Princeton has done this to the tune of 95 points scored to 0 points allowed).

Just wanted to throw these out there, and again, greatly appreciate the discussion on the podcast, even if I do disagree a bit. ;)

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Just finished this week's (4) review show. Great job, and appreciate the review each week.

Two things (information and opinion):

1. Information (reminder): Regarding last week's place in the poll for each team, there is no extra work needed. Professor Chaos actually shows rank change in the table he posts each week at The FCS Wedge.

2. Opinion: I can appreciate the fluidity model exercised when voting. It was interesting regarding thoughts about a sub-.500 team being ranked, let alone in the top 20, and that even though their three losses were to FBS (and ranked at the time; granted, almost meaningless that early, but still ranked) Utah, James Madison, and UC Davis, this did not warrant ranking Weber State. Then a minute or two later it was pointed out that Princeton (2-0; well above .500) shouldn't be ranked due to their level of competition. It seems a bit odd to not consider the opponents much for one team (Weber State) but then base the other team's (Princeton's) ranking almost exclusively on opponents. I am not saying the fluidity method is right or wrong, and it is nice that 52 other voters can either substantiate this approach or balance it out. I just think if one is considering competition, one should try to do this across the board; however, again, to each their own. Full disclosure, I ranked Weber State at #12 (which is definitely debatable either way), and I ranked Princeton at #23 (good teams take care of weaker opponents, and Princeton has done this to the tune of 95 points scored to 0 points allowed).

Just wanted to throw these out there, and again, greatly appreciate the discussion on the podcast, even if I do disagree a bit. ;)

Hmmm, what say you Lance? Nice to have some discussions as I already pointed out last week get going on the podcast. Naturally occurring push-back and questions on the topics are nice to see.

I think you are taking a bit too black and white a look at what was said though. You could think both things are true and assess some other teams more in the middle area that have a bit tougher schedule and won some games I would think.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Hmmm, what say you Lance? Nice to have some discussions as I already pointed out last week get going on the podcast. Naturally occurring push-back and questions on the topics are nice to see.

I think you are taking a bit too black and white a look at what was said though. You could think both things are true and assess some other teams more in the middle area that have a bit tougher schedule and won some games I would think.

Agreed that this is probably too literal of an approach; however, the examples provided were on pretty far ends of the strength-of-schedule spectrum (yet both teams deemed to be unrankable). I agree that teams in the middle are comparables, but the point was that if considering schedule, one should consider it similarly for all.

I can totally see the argument that a team can exit the poll, then re-enter, but as has been pointed out on the forum, re-entry and rising is often a little bit harder to do than falling (unless you beat Washington, of course). ;) I just think Kris hit it on the head when he said that many/most of the teams in the top 25 would have a similar record to Weber State if they played Weber's schedule...then what? The good part is that there is 2/3 left of the season, and Weber will at least get a chance to play Montana State and Eastern Washington. However, even then, if they were to lose to two currently top 10 ranked teams, should they still not be poll worthy (assuming they take care of all other business)? After all, they would be 6-5, with all losses coming to teams presumably ranked above them.

I guess it would all depend on whether you think the Big Sky (along with JMU and Utah) is all that and a box of chocolates or whether you think it is not. As was pointed out in the podcast, Weber State appears to be this year's Northern Iowa (pick a year), or 2019 UC Davis (ranked #14 after starting 2-3 (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?235480-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-5-2019-SEASON&p=2807183&highlight=Davis#post2807183) and still ranked #23 with a 4-4 record at end of week 8 (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?237484-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-8-2019-SEASON&highlight=2019+Poll+Results+Week) in 2019 and with absolutely zero substantial wins), or Spring 2021 Southern Illinois (6-4, ranked #13 in final regular season poll despite this record). Checking the thread history, there was zero discussion about whether UC Davis deserved to be ranked after week 5, let alone that highly ranked (although I will admit, and I suspect, it was possibly/likely talked about in the podcast). Will Weber end up being that UC Davis (no playoffs) team or last spring's Southern Illinois (playoffs) team? We shall see.

[kalm]

Agreed that this is probably too literal of an approach; however, the examples provided were on pretty far ends of the strength-of-schedule spectrum (yet both teams deemed to be unrankable). I agree that teams in the middle are comparables, but the point was that if considering schedule, one should consider it similarly for all.

I can totally see the argument that a team can exit the poll, then re-enter, but as has been pointed out on the forum, re-entry and rising is often a little bit harder to do than falling (unless you beat Washington, of course). ;) I just think Kris hit it on the head when he said that many/most of the teams in the top 25 would have a similar record to Weber State if they played Weber's schedule...then what? The good part is that there is 2/3 left of the season, and Weber will at least get a chance to play Montana State and Eastern Washington. However, even then, if they were to lose to two currently top 10 ranked teams, should they still not be poll worthy (assuming they take care of all other business)? After all, they would be 6-5, with all losses coming to teams presumably ranked above them.

I guess it would all depend on whether you think the Big Sky (along with JMU and Utah) is all that and a box of chocolates or whether you think it is not. As was pointed out in the podcast, Weber State appears to be this year's Northern Iowa (pick a year), or 2019 UC Davis (ranked #14 after starting 2-3 (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?235480-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-5-2019-SEASON&p=2807183&highlight=Davis#post2807183) and still ranked #23 with a 4-4 record at end of week 8 (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?237484-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-8-2019-SEASON&highlight=2019+Poll+Results+Week) in 2019 and with absolutely zero substantial wins), or Spring 2021 Southern Illinois (6-4, ranked #13 in final regular season poll despite this record). Checking the thread history, there was zero discussion about whether UC Davis deserved to be ranked after week 5, let alone that highly ranked (although I will admit, and I suspect, it was possibly/likely talked about in the podcast). Will Weber end up being that UC Davis (no playoffs) team or last spring's Southern Illinois (playoffs) team? We shall see.

Fair points.

If it’s JMU with Princeton’s schedule and results, we don’t bat an eye about their high ranking. History, conference, and even playoff outcomes are valued, fair or not. Traditionally weaker conferences or those who chose not to test their metal in the post season have a tougher hill to climb in my rankings.

[TheRevSFA]

Lance…Lance

It’s the battle of the piney woods because both schools are located within the Piney Woods of east Texas, only 90 miles from each other.

[kalm]

As a newly minted Jack’s fan…I’ve got your back, Rev.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Wikipedia: Battle of the Piney Woods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Piney_Woods) ;)

Also, I can't wait to hear about when Officer Lance gets the phone back.

Finally, I couldn't help but notice that each time an FCS power (Montana, Sam Houston State, North Dakota State, James Madison) was mentioned, it was noted how stout their defenses are. Perhaps the trick to bringing more parity to the FCS is not teams leaving, but teams learning how to play defense...

I think you are right that if Montana holds Eastern to the 20's, they have a great shot of winning the game. Case-in-point, in a little town called Frisco, not too long ago (January 2019), this year's-to-be Walter Payton award winner took the field, and the EWU offense scored 24 points; however, this was still not enough (in fact, it was not enough by two touchdowns). Shootouts work against Western Illinois...they are less successful against better competition.

[TheRevSFA]

As a newly minted Jack’s fan…I’ve got your back, Rev.

my man

[Catbooster]

Listen, that phone was just sitting in the road. I can't help it if you don't take care of your stuff. I just assumed you'd had a bad call and threw it out the window. Finders keepers.


:D

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Listen, that phone was just sitting in the road. I can't help it if you don't take care of your stuff. I just assumed you'd had a bad call and threw it out the window. Finders keepers.


:D

xlolx

Indeed.

[Catbooster]

Just finished this week's (4) review show. Great job, and appreciate the review each week.

Two things (information and opinion):

1. Information (reminder): Regarding last week's place in the poll for each team, there is no extra work needed. Professor Chaos actually shows rank change in the table he posts each week at The FCS Wedge.

2. Opinion: I can appreciate the fluidity model exercised when voting. It was interesting regarding thoughts about a sub-.500 team being ranked, let alone in the top 20, and that even though their three losses were to FBS (and ranked at the time; granted, almost meaningless that early, but still ranked) Utah, James Madison, and UC Davis, this did not warrant ranking Weber State. Then a minute or two later it was pointed out that Princeton (2-0; well above .500) shouldn't be ranked due to their level of competition. It seems a bit odd to not consider the opponents much for one team (Weber State) but then base the other team's (Princeton's) ranking almost exclusively on opponents. I am not saying the fluidity method is right or wrong, and it is nice that 52 other voters can either substantiate this approach or balance it out. I just think if one is considering competition, one should try to do this across the board; however, again, to each their own. Full disclosure, I ranked Weber State at #12 (which is definitely debatable either way), and I ranked Princeton at #23 (good teams take care of weaker opponents, and Princeton has done this to the tune of 95 points scored to 0 points allowed).

Just wanted to throw these out there, and again, greatly appreciate the discussion on the podcast, even if I do disagree a bit. ;)

I agree that discussions like this make the podcast more interesting. Personally, my philosophy is closer to PWO's than Lance's. In the case of Weber, I haven't dropped them too far yet.
Losing to Utah: not too sure what to take from that.
Beating Dixie State: They should beat them. Again, I didn't learn much from that game.
Losing to JMU: I have JMU #2 currently so I would expect almost every team in the FCS to lose to them. Lots of factors to weigh to decide how far to drop them for that.
Losing to UC Davis: fairly close game, only lost by 3, but it was at home. A 3 point loss doesn't necessarily require much space between the rankings of the two teams. Heck, I'm sure I've had a team ranked above another team that beat them at some point, but it is later in the season when there's more info available.

Individually, none of those games hurt Weber terribly. But being 1-3 isn't good. Lance dropped them out of the poll since the only win they have 4 weeks into the season is against a not-so-good team. But he's prepared to move them back up assuming they win the next few games. I haven't dropped them as low as the poll has them since I think they'd beat a lot of the other teams in my poll, but I'm prepared to let them plummet if they lose again.

It's still early in the season and there's not much to go on. I often have a team or two that yo-yo's in my rankings but I usually try to avoid that. At this point in the season I can see valid rationale for either case and I'll bet that in November both of our votes will likely be similar. It's just the process of getting there. Having plenty of voters with varying philosophies helps even it all out.

Edit to add: At this point of the season I'm ok with a losing record if the competition is tough. I somewhat consider it an "Atta-boy" for tough scheduling. However at some point, even if the losses are extremely close, a team has to prove that they are capable of closing a game. If a team played all top 10 teams and was 0-10 with all of the losses being by 3 points or less, I wouldn't rank them because they've shown that they can't finish anyone off.

[MTfan4life]

I gotta hop in and respond to some of you bozos when I get the chance! 😂 One thing I will say about my voting process, I don't care if youre 2-3 with OT losses to Alabama, the Packers, and the staff of the Allenville penitentiary, if your record is sub .500, I don't think you deserve to be ranked that given week. I have two basic tenets for ranking teams. Have you done anything impressive so far? (Which is very subjective.) AND have you won at least half of your games. If the answer is no for either question, sorry, you're sitting on the outside looking in. I see any team's given schedule up to each given point as a playoff series of how many games they've played. Nobody gets participation trophies in the playoffs for losing any given series. I use that same mantra for my poll. Weber State has lost their best out of 5 series. I'm going to wait and see if they can be victorious in a 7 game series.

It's now confirmed Catbooster has my work phone. Unfortunately for you, I will be on the case once I perform another arrest quick.

[Catbooster]

Aw Crap!! xeekx


Let me get back to the important topic (we'll forget about the rest of that stuff ok?). In general, I agree with you about dropping a sub-500 team, but I might allow a game or two more than you do if the losses were against stout teams. To keep using Weber as an example, if the FBS loss was against UNLV instead of Utah, or Rhode Island instead of JMU or Sac State instead of UC Davis (not bad teams but just good teams rather than top 5 teams) I might have dropped them by now. But I'll have to admit that by giving them another game or two I'm basically giving them half the season and maybe that's too much benefit of the doubt. xdontknowx

[MTfan4life]

Lance…Lance

It’s the battle of the piney woods because both schools are located within the Piney Woods of east Texas, only 90 miles from each other.

I understand that. I just think "Piney Woods" is kind of a joke of a name, haha. It's like a group of 5 year olds went exploring and stated, "We dub this land the Piney Woods." Right next to the Oaky Acres, the Candy Land Forest, and the Birchy Basin. You want a powerful name for a rivalry, not name it after the worst named forest in the country! My comparison would be changing the UM/MSU rivalry from the Brawl of the Wild to the Brawl of the Cute Foresty Area. Just doesn't have the same ring.

[MTfan4life]

Just finished this week's (4) review show. Great job, and appreciate the review each week.

Two things (information and opinion):

1. Information (reminder): Regarding last week's place in the poll for each team, there is no extra work needed. Professor Chaos actually shows rank change in the table he posts each week at The FCS Wedge.

2. Opinion: I can appreciate the fluidity model exercised when voting. It was interesting regarding thoughts about a sub-.500 team being ranked, let alone in the top 20, and that even though their three losses were to FBS (and ranked at the time; granted, almost meaningless that early, but still ranked) Utah, James Madison, and UC Davis, this did not warrant ranking Weber State. Then a minute or two later it was pointed out that Princeton (2-0; well above .500) shouldn't be ranked due to their level of competition. It seems a bit odd to not consider the opponents much for one team (Weber State) but then base the other team's (Princeton's) ranking almost exclusively on opponents. I am not saying the fluidity method is right or wrong, and it is nice that 52 other voters can either substantiate this approach or balance it out. I just think if one is considering competition, one should try to do this across the board; however, again, to each their own. Full disclosure, I ranked Weber State at #12 (which is definitely debatable either way), and I ranked Princeton at #23 (good teams take care of weaker opponents, and Princeton has done this to the tune of 95 points scored to 0 points allowed).

Just wanted to throw these out there, and again, greatly appreciate the discussion on the podcast, even if I do disagree a bit. ;)

I feel I answered the Princeton vs. Weber State conundrum you feel I presented in my previous post, but I'll reiterate here. I vote on a two-pronged approach. A. You have to have a .500 or above record. and B. You have to have some validity to your positive record. So, while I'll never vote for a team below .500 regardless of strength of losses. That doesn't mean I'm just going to gladhand an Ivy league team out beating the Sisters of the Poor in non-conference play. I don't care if Princeton wins 253-0, beating Stetson will never get a nod from me. I usually avoid most non-playoff participants, to be honest. Or moreso, they have to impress me almost two-fold. Granted, a couple years ago when Princeton had John Lovett, I had them in my top 10, maybe even top 5?...which is very rare for me. So, long story short, I very much consider resume. However, you have to win occasionally against that strong resume to get approval from my eyes.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Today's show is up (they actually go up every week on Wednesday at 4a ET) but this the is the forum reminder for you.

Search "The FCS Wedge" on Apple, and any other platform. I just added it to Amazon Music too but I'm having some trouble asking Alexa for it right now so I may have more work to do.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0/episode/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ibG9ndGFsa3JhZGlvLmNvbS90aGUtZmNzLX dlZGdlLzIwMjEvMTAvMDYvdGhlLWZjcy13ZWRnZS0yMDIxLTEw MDYtLXdrNS1yZXZpZXc?sa=X&ved=0CCsQz4EHahcKEwjI3f-YqrbzAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQZg

That is google for your convenience though.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This is what I have on Amazon Music podcast link too since it is a new place.

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ebe31aae-ea8a-4f5d-8920-29f6c81e648a/the-fcs-wedge

[kalm]

I feel I answered the Princeton vs. Weber State conundrum you feel I presented in my previous post, but I'll reiterate here. I vote on a two-pronged approach. A. You have to have a .500 or above record. and B. You have to have some validity to your positive record. So, while I'll never vote for a team below .500 regardless of strength of losses. That doesn't mean I'm just going to gladhand an Ivy league team out beating the Sisters of the Poor in non-conference play. I don't care if Princeton wins 253-0, beating Stetson will never get a nod from me. I usually avoid most non-playoff participants, to be honest. Or moreso, they have to impress me almost two-fold. Granted, a couple years ago when Princeton had John Lovett, I had them in my top 10, maybe even top 5?...which is very rare for me. So, long story short, I very much consider resume. However, you have to win occasionally against that strong resume to get approval from my eyes.

So you didn’t rank UNI or Missouri State after week 1?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

So you didn’t rank UNI or Missouri State after week 1?

Possible, I'll leave the answer to him but he did mention the "series" concept so I think min. on that would be 3 games?

[kalm]

Possible, I'll leave the answer to him but he did mention the "series" concept so I think min. on that would be 3 games?

Ah….

Well dammit!

[MTfan4life]

Possible, I'll leave the answer to him but he did mention the "series" concept so I think min. on that would be 3 games?

He's correct, Kalm! I haven't reiterated it every single time, but my process starts once you get to that 4th game.


So you didn’t rank UNI or Missouri State after week 1?

https://i.imgur.com/HSS6Ceu.gif

[Preferred Walk-On]

So you didn’t rank UNI or Missouri State after week 1?

MTfan4life did state that he examines as best-out-of series, so he might not have ranked teams until Week 3, taking him out of the running for "Poll Perfection". ;) Just kidding, I have no idea about voting before then, other than I am sure teams had to be at least 2-1 to make the top 25.


I feel I answered the Princeton vs. Weber State conundrum you feel I presented in my previous post, but I'll reiterate here. I vote on a two-pronged approach. A. You have to have a .500 or above record. and B. You have to have some validity to your positive record. So, while I'll never vote for a team below .500 regardless of strength of losses. That doesn't mean I'm just going to gladhand an Ivy league team out beating the Sisters of the Poor in non-conference play. I don't care if Princeton wins 253-0, beating Stetson will never get a nod from me. I usually avoid most non-playoff participants, to be honest. Or moreso, they have to impress me almost two-fold. Granted, a couple years ago when Princeton had John Lovett, I had them in my top 10, maybe even top 5?...which is very rare for me. So, long story short, I very much consider resume. However, you have to win occasionally against that strong resume to get approval from my eyes.


I gotta hop in and respond to some of you bozos when I get the chance! 😂 One thing I will say about my voting process, I don't care if youre 2-3 with OT losses to Alabama, the Packers, and the staff of the Allenville penitentiary, if your record is sub .500, I don't think you deserve to be ranked that given week. I have two basic tenets for ranking teams. Have you done anything impressive so far? (Which is very subjective.) AND have you won at least half of your games. If the answer is no for either question, sorry, you're sitting on the outside looking in. I see any team's given schedule up to each given point as a playoff series of how many games they've played. Nobody gets participation trophies in the playoffs for losing any given series. I use that same mantra for my poll. Weber State has lost their best out of 5 series. I'm going to wait and see if they can be victorious in a 7 game series.

It's now confirmed Catbooster has my work phone. Unfortunately for you, I will be on the case once I perform another arrest quick.

MTfan4life, I am completely on board with the idea that everyone has a different opinion on how to rank teams, and I certainly am not trying to be overly critical of your method...it was more for discussion purposes. You did indeed clearly answer for the conundrum I feel you presented in the podcast, but you didn't actually resolve the conundrum, you simply doubled-down on it.

The "conundrum" I had is why one schedule is considered more for one team than it is for another. You essentially doubled-down on this by stating:

1. "I don't care if you're 2-3 with OT losses to Alabama, the Packers, and the staff of the Allenville penitentiary, if your record is sub .500, I don't think you deserve to be ranked that given week." - Fair enough, you basically said that Weber's schedule is irrelevant...at least until they get above .500.

2. "You have to have some validity to your positive record. So, while I'll never vote for a team below .500 regardless of strength of losses. That doesn't mean I'm just going to gladhand an Ivy league team out beating the Sisters of the Poor in non-conference play. I don't care if Princeton wins 253-0, beating Stetson will never get a nod from me." - Again, fair enough, you basically said that Princeton's schedule is quite relevant.

Therefore, this suggests that: (1) schedule consideration can hurt a team, but rarely help a team (I put rarely (or maybe it should be "less often"), because I imagine that if a team is above .500, and given your knowledge of the FCS, you would give more consideration to who they lost to), or (2) schedule consideration is only considered for certain teams, maybe in certain conferences, when deemed appropriate to do so.

I was merely trying to inject some discussion, as I find this to be an interesting way to do it. Is it a good way to do it? Maybe. Is it a bad way to do it? Again, maybe. But it is your way, and I can respect that, just as I am sure you can respect the methodology other voters use as well. I'm not much of a "last word" person, so I will probably just leave it here, but I enjoy the opinions, especially on the podcast, and I will be listening to this week's review on my way home from work this evening.

Kalm, MTfan4life, ursus, keep up the good work!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yes it is a good way to do it. It is exactly WHY I have asked the fellers to discuss philosophies of their own, as well as philosophies and argumets they see made on the weekly poll release thread. This is exactly what should be going on.

I like that we (Poll voters) come up with a great output each week. But in most weeks it really something I pay attention to on the listen when the rank is being read...it is important to know for the basis but it is not what grabs me.

Everybody on here can take some jabs back and forth also and that is also part of the fun, especially for me. xlolx

[kalm]

MTfan4life did state that he examines as best-out-of series, so he might not have ranked teams until Week 3, taking him out of the running for "Poll Perfection". ;) Just kidding, I have no idea about voting before then, other than I am sure teams had to be at least 2-1 to make the top 25.





MTfan4life, I am completely on board with the idea that everyone has a different opinion on how to rank teams, and I certainly am not trying to be overly critical of your method...it was more for discussion purposes. You did indeed clearly answer for the conundrum I feel you presented in the podcast, but you didn't actually resolve the conundrum, you simply doubled-down on it.

The "conundrum" I had is why one schedule is considered more for one team than it is for another. You essentially doubled-down on this by stating:

1. "I don't care if you're 2-3 with OT losses to Alabama, the Packers, and the staff of the Allenville penitentiary, if your record is sub .500, I don't think you deserve to be ranked that given week." - Fair enough, you basically said that Weber's schedule is irrelevant...at least until they get above .500.

2. "You have to have some validity to your positive record. So, while I'll never vote for a team below .500 regardless of strength of losses. That doesn't mean I'm just going to gladhand an Ivy league team out beating the Sisters of the Poor in non-conference play. I don't care if Princeton wins 253-0, beating Stetson will never get a nod from me." - Again, fair enough, you basically said that Princeton's schedule is quite relevant.

Therefore, this suggests that: (1) schedule consideration can hurt a team, but rarely help a team (I put rarely (or maybe it should be "less often"), because I imagine that if a team is above .500, and given your knowledge of the FCS, you would give more consideration to who they lost to), or (2) schedule consideration is only considered for certain teams, maybe in certain conferences, when deemed appropriate to do so.

I was merely trying to inject some discussion, as I find this to be an interesting way to do it. Is it a good way to do it? Maybe. Is it a bad way to do it? Again, maybe. But it is your way, and I can respect that, just as I am sure you can respect the methodology other voters use as well. I'm not much of a "last word" person, so I will probably just leave it here, but I enjoy the opinions, especially on the podcast, and I will be listening to this week's review on my way home from work this evening.

Kalm, MTfan4life, ursus, keep up the good work!

Yes and yes.

Good back and forth, gents! Keep the discussions and topic ideas coming.

Thanks for listening to the show!

[MTfan4life]

Therefore, this suggests that: (1) schedule consideration can hurt a team, but rarely help a team (I put rarely (or maybe it should be "less often"), because I imagine that if a team is above .500, and given your knowledge of the FCS, you would give more consideration to who they lost to), or (2) schedule consideration is only considered for certain teams, maybe in certain conferences, when deemed appropriate to do so.


I very much appreciate the discussion and simply knowing other people listen to the show, haha. I think the point you're finally circling towards that mirrors mine is that schedule consideration absolutely DOES help a team. However, they have to win enough games to earn that consideration. I never meant to imply it doesn't. I'm not punishing teams for scheduling tough opponents. I'm punishing teams for losing too often. You say "schedule consideration can hurt a team, but rarely help a team." I would change that to "Losing can hurt a team, but only sometimes can it help a team." I always give consideration to who a team has both lost to and beat. I just prefer to leave a team on "Read" if their record is not to my standards for that given week. xlolx

[RabidRabbit]

My thinking about ranking shift from pre-season and first four weeks to the rest of season. Early on it's about how they did last season, and what personnel a re coming back. Then movement is dictated by their accomplishment and against what type of competition. After week 4, a non loss team can slip even without loss if barely surviving against non ranked competition. Sam Houston is falling in my ranking due to their being nearly taken out vs SFA & UCA. Likewise, NDSU hasn't had a challenge until the UND game. Montana jumped high due to Washington, and didn't fall much due to tight loss at EWU. While early in season will consider a losing record for top 25, after 3 losses, and no few quality smaller # of wins, likely to drop off. Weber and Jax St, Holy cross falling into this latter category.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[acbearkat]

My thinking about ranking shift from pre-season and first four weeks to the rest of season. Early on it's about how they did last season, and what personnel a re coming back. Then movement is dictated by their accomplishment and against what type of competition. After week 4, a non loss team can slip even without loss if barely surviving against non ranked competition. Sam Houston is falling in my ranking due to their being nearly taken out vs SFA & UCA. Likewise, NDSU hasn't had a challenge until the UND game. Montana jumped high due to Washington, and didn't fall much due to tight loss at EWU. While early in season will consider a losing record for top 25, after 3 losses, and no few quality smaller # of wins, likely to drop off. Weber and Jax St, Holy cross falling into this latter category.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Nearly taken out by Central Arkansas? The Bearkats led the whole way in that game. Central Arkansas scored a garage time touchdown to pull within ten. Sam Houston had a 14 point 4th quarter to seal the win. It was 31-14 at halftime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This week's series of show's has an addition to it. Review is up now, AGS Poll discussion is extended as we have Professor Chaos on as a guest to give some historical context and the predictive nature of the polls, that will go up tomorrow. Then the preview will go up Friday.

So W, Th, F shows this week.

-------------------- Show links
Google
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0

Apple
https://podcasts.apple.com/hu/podcast/the-fcs-wedge/id557271012

Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/show/61mEEl1qDeDIDIile6g3q0

Amazon
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ebe31aae-ea8a-4f5d-8920-29f6c81e648a/the-fcs-wedge

[kalm]

Thanks go out to Professor Chaos for dropping all that knowledge.

[POD Knows]

Thanks go out to Professor Chaos for dropping all that knowledge.
Nice job guys, that was good.

[Preferred Walk-On]

MTfan4life, I heard you were looking for more of a debate on your Week 6 Top 25 posting. I commented, but honestly, I could not really substantially argue with a lot of your list...and I did not do any sub .500 argument, because I think we have hashed that out a bit already.

I wanted to say that you had a great point when asking Professor Chaos about what the difference is between a 2-3 North Dakota and a 2-3 Weber State. PC described his thinking, and you stated how you think one could easily view UND's schedule as equivalent (I am paraphrasing, of course). I think (my opinion) that if you ranked Weber State, you needed to rank North Dakota. If you did not rank Weber State, you probably should not have ranked North Dakota (again, my opinion). I just went through very quickly from those that posted, and there were Weber-onlys, UND-onlys, both, and neither. Full disclosure, I had them both around the bottom teens within three spots of one another, but I will say that I don't fault anybody for any of the four options. It was just an interesting question posed, and I appreciated it being pointed out. But I suppose it is really no different than weighting schedules differently...ha, ha! xsmiley_wix

Enjoyed the three shows this week, and thanks to Professor Chaos for insights and poll history knowledge. I have been following this forum since about 2012 (and joined in 2016), and I appreciate hearing about things, especially those earlier than 2010. Thanks guys!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

PWO pointed out there were three shows this week and the 3rd one which is the Week 7 Preview went up early this morning so go listen if you have not.

There were a lot of damn cats in this one!xlolx

[MTfan4life]

PWO pointed out there were three shows this week and the 3rd one which is the Week 7 Preview went up early this morning so go listen if you have not.

There were a lot of damn cats in this one!xlolx

There's even a cat who makes an verbal appearance! Just too much discussion about cats, I guess the cat felt the need to speak up! xlolx

[MTfan4life]

MTfan4life, I heard you were looking for more of a debate on your Week 6 Top 25 posting. I commented, but honestly, I could not really substantially argue with a lot of your list...and I did not do any sub .500 argument, because I think we have hashed that out a bit already.

I wanted to say that you had a great point when asking Professor Chaos about what the difference is between a 2-3 North Dakota and a 2-3 Weber State. PC described his thinking, and you stated how you think one could easily view UND's schedule as equivalent (I am paraphrasing, of course). I think (my opinion) that if you ranked Weber State, you needed to rank North Dakota. If you did not rank Weber State, you probably should not have ranked North Dakota (again, my opinion). I just went through very quickly from those that posted, and there were Weber-onlys, UND-onlys, both, and neither. Full disclosure, I had them both around the bottom teens within three spots of one another, but I will say that I don't fault anybody for any of the four options. It was just an interesting question posed, and I appreciated it being pointed out. But I suppose it is really no different than weighting schedules differently...ha, ha! xsmiley_wix

Enjoyed the three shows this week, and thanks to Professor Chaos for insights and poll history knowledge. I have been following this forum since about 2012 (and joined in 2016), and I appreciate hearing about things, especially those earlier than 2010. Thanks guys!

I'm sure you saw, but I did reply to your reply in the Poll thread. We record on Monday evenings, so I hadn't seen your original reply to my poll when we had recorded. I do appreciate your comment on my UND v Weber State debate. They had virtually the same resume, and if a person was looking at last season, UND had better wins and finished deeper in the playoffs. And then UND competed much better in their lost to NDSU than Weber's loss to JMU. It's almost baffling Weber had gotten so much more "cred" than UND up to this point. Well, to be brutally honest, I can understand why that would be on AGS, but it still hadn't seemed merited. Both systems I use had UND's SOS slightly tougher than WSU's up to last weekend. (Those systems being Massey SOS and my brain. haha)

And to finally toot my own horn on a successful prediction, how about that Montana State preview!! xthumbsupx "And as we know Montana State, they do very well at finding those tough nose guys on the defensive side. There's always someone that basically comes out of nowhere and steps up and is that force...but then Dan Hardy has been huge for Montana State on the LB/DE side...If Weber State gets behind watch for him to pick off some sacks late." Sure enough, Dan Hardy had 3 sacks on the game, including 1.5 on Weber's final drive!! :D

Of course the oracle style prediction comes on a Montana State game. xbangx

[MSUBobcat]

I'm kinda disappointed in myself for not checking out this podcast prior to this year. Been checking them out for a few weeks now. Keep up the great work, fellas!

[TheRevSFA]

Great work as always fellas.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Google
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0

Apple
https://podcasts.apple.com/hu/podcast/the-fcs-wedge/id557271012

Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/show/61mEEl1qDeDIDIile6g3q0

Amazon
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ebe31aae-ea8a-4f5d-8920-29f6c81e648a/the-fcs-wedge

New show is up as you might have guessed from the previous replies.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm kinda disappointed in myself for not checking out this podcast prior to this year. Been checking them out for a few weeks now. Keep up the great work, fellas!

Thanks to you and TheRev for recognition on it and glad to have you listening. I would not try to catch up if I were you though. xlolx

It's well over 200 episodes now.

[MSUBobcat]

I'm sure you saw, but I did reply to your reply in the Poll thread. We record on Monday evenings, so I hadn't seen your original reply to my poll when we had recorded. I do appreciate your comment on my UND v Weber State debate. They had virtually the same resume, and if a person was looking at last season, UND had better wins and finished deeper in the playoffs. And then UND competed much better in their lost to NDSU than Weber's loss to JMU. It's almost baffling Weber had gotten so much more "cred" than UND up to this point. Well, to be brutally honest, I can understand why that would be on AGS, but it still hadn't seemed merited. Both systems I use had UND's SOS slightly tougher than WSU's up to last weekend. (Those systems being Massey SOS and my brain. haha)

And to finally toot my own horn on a successful prediction, how about that Montana State preview!! xthumbsupx "And as we know Montana State, they do very well at finding those tough nose guys on the defensive side. There's always someone that basically comes out of nowhere and steps up and is that force...but then Dan Hardy has been huge for Montana State on the LB/DE side...If Weber State gets behind watch for him to pick off some sacks late." Sure enough, Dan Hardy had 3 sacks on the game, including 1.5 on Weber's final drive!! :D

Of course the oracle style prediction comes on a Montana State game. xbangx

I won't lie. My respect for your FCS opinions, especially as it pertains to talking up Montana State which I know pains you, made me a little extra money last weekend. I had us to win by 3 points. MSU @ -2.5 was paying +115. I saw their FR QB, who hadn't played in a while and didn't perform all that great against Dixie State, was coming back so that combined with your comment that you could see the Bobcats winning by 10+ made me reevaluate my bet, finally opting for 80% of my bet being MSU -5.5 @ +175 and the other 20% on MSU -6.5 @ +195. (There must have been some money coming in on MSU, cuz I originally was going to give the most points they had listed, -5.5 @ +185, but when I got to the kiosk, they added the -6.5 @ +195 and reduced the -5.5 to +175, so I did the 80-20 split). So... thanks for helping me decide to give up those extra 3 points!!!

[Preferred Walk-On]

Going with kalm on this one. With the exception of referees having a difficult time making the correct call on the goal line in snow in OT, that cherry-red turf is fabulous. ;)

[kalm]

Going with kalm on this one. With the exception of referees having a difficult time making the correct call on the goal line in snow in OT, that cherry-red turf is fabulous. ;)

You have always been my favorite Bizon, PWO.

IYF, Lance!!!

[Houndawg]

I'm sure you saw, but I did reply to your reply in the Poll thread. We record on Monday evenings, so I hadn't seen your original reply to my poll when we had recorded. I do appreciate your comment on my UND v Weber State debate. They had virtually the same resume, and if a person was looking at last season, UND had better wins and finished deeper in the playoffs. And then UND competed much better in their lost to NDSU than Weber's loss to JMU. It's almost baffling Weber had gotten so much more "cred" than UND up to this point. Well, to be brutally honest, I can understand why that would be on AGS, but it still hadn't seemed merited. Both systems I use had UND's SOS slightly tougher than WSU's up to last weekend. (Those systems being Massey SOS and my brain. haha)

And to finally toot my own horn on a successful prediction, how about that Montana State preview!! xthumbsupx "And as we know Montana State, they do very well at finding those tough nose guys on the defensive side. There's always someone that basically comes out of nowhere and steps up and is that force...but then Dan Hardy has been huge for Montana State on the LB/DE side...If Weber State gets behind watch for him to pick off some sacks late." Sure enough, Dan Hardy had 3 sacks on the game, including 1.5 on Weber's final drive!! :D

Of course the oracle style prediction comes on a Montana State game. xbangx

Weber lost to SIU in the playoffs - no?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Weber lost to SIU in the playoffs - no?

Pretty sure he was talking about the 3rd game this year. It falls after the comparison of the UND/NDSU game this year.

[Houndawg]

my bad

[ursus arctos horribilis]

my bad

All good. I didn't even realize it was confusing until you pointed it out and then I thought...well, that could be taken two different ways.

[Houndawg]

Agreed that this is probably too literal of an approach; however, the examples provided were on pretty far ends of the strength-of-schedule spectrum (yet both teams deemed to be unrankable). I agree that teams in the middle are comparables, but the point was that if considering schedule, one should consider it similarly for all.

I can totally see the argument that a team can exit the poll, then re-enter, but as has been pointed out on the forum, re-entry and rising is often a little bit harder to do than falling (unless you beat Washington, of course). ;) I just think Kris hit it on the head when he said that many/most of the teams in the top 25 would have a similar record to Weber State if they played Weber's schedule...then what? The good part is that there is 2/3 left of the season, and Weber will at least get a chance to play Montana State and Eastern Washington. However, even then, if they were to lose to two currently top 10 ranked teams, should they still not be poll worthy (assuming they take care of all other business)? After all, they would be 6-5, with all losses coming to teams presumably ranked above them.

I guess it would all depend on whether you think the Big Sky (along with JMU and Utah) is all that and a box of chocolates or whether you think it is not. As was pointed out in the podcast, Weber State appears to be this year's Northern Iowa (pick a year), or 2019 UC Davis (ranked #14 after starting 2-3 (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?235480-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-5-2019-SEASON&p=2807183&highlight=Davis#post2807183) and still ranked #23 with a 4-4 record at end of week 8 (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?237484-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-8-2019-SEASON&highlight=2019+Poll+Results+Week) in 2019 and with absolutely zero substantial wins), or Spring 2021 Southern Illinois (6-4, ranked #13 in final regular season poll despite this record). Checking the thread history, there was zero discussion about whether UC Davis deserved to be ranked after week 5, let alone that highly ranked (although I will admit, and I suspect, it was possibly/likely talked about in the podcast). Will Weber end up being that UC Davis (no playoffs) team or last spring's Southern Illinois (playoffs) team? We shall see.

SIU's final rating was very defensible:

Wins over #1, #4, and #15 and a couple of stinkers, in conference play.

Playoff win over #3, and semi-final loss on a pick at the 10 yard line to #2.

2-0 vs OOC opponents - both were ranked at gametime.

That would get anybody from any conference at least the same ranking I think

[Preferred Walk-On]

SIU's final rating was very defensible:

Wins over #1, #4, and #15 and a couple of stinkers, in conference play.

Playoff win over #3, and semi-final loss on a pick at the 10 yard line to #2.

2-0 vs OOC opponents - both were ranked at gametime.

That would get anybody from any conference at least the same ranking I think

Me thinks you missed the point of this post, or you got it, but were miffed that someone should even mention/question SIU being ranked at #13 at 6-4. Or you were supporting my point indirectly by stating (not explicitly) that Weber State might be this year's SIU? For the record, I was simply trying to point out that record is not always indicative of rank; there are other factors at play. This post was made almost a month ago, but I appreciate your support for this point, even if it was delayed.

Also, that SIU team reminded me a bunch of NDSU's first playoff team...eek into the playoffs...then wreak some havoc...come to an end in a potentially winnable game...build off of the loss and get even better the next season. Congratulations on SIU's season so far, and I am looking forward to a potential matchup in the playoffs.

You did bring up a really good point though. Is it fair to consider a win over X-ranked team when that team they beat/lost to does not end up with X-rank. In other words, is it the rank at the time or the current rank that matters when someone boasts about their team?

[Houndawg]

Me thinks you missed the point of this post, or you got it, but were miffed that someone should even mention/question SIU being ranked at #13 at 6-4. Or you were supporting my point indirectly by stating (not explicitly) that Weber State might be this year's SIU? For the record, I was simply trying to point out that record is not always indicative of rank; there are other factors at play. This post was made almost a month ago, but I appreciate your support for this point, even if it was delayed.

Also, that SIU team reminded me a bunch of NDSU's first playoff team...eek into the playoffs...then wreak some havoc...come to an end in a potentially winnable game...build off of the loss and get even better the next season. Congratulations on SIU's season so far, and I am looking forward to a potential matchup in the playoffs.

You did bring up a really good point though. Is it fair to consider a win over X-ranked team when that team they beat/lost to does not end up with X-rank. In other words, is it the rank at the time or the current rank that matters when someone boasts about their team?

Both, but I'm not miffed - I think SIU was ranked accurately, we have a high ceiling but we don't spend enough time near it, as demonstrated in our past three games this season, each of which has shortened my life span. I was not doing a very good job of stating that there is 6-4 and then there is 6-4. And I think it is fair to consider the ranking at game time up until the final ranking at which point you may decide that the big win early turned out to be not so big after all and weight accordingly.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Weber could be either Davis or SIU depending on what the other teams with the same record have done.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Both, but I'm not miffed - I think SIU was ranked accurately, we have a high ceiling but we don't spend enough time near it, as demonstrated in our past three games this season, each of which has shortened my life span. I was not doing a very good job of stating that there is 6-4 and then there is 6-4. And I think it is fair to consider the ranking at game time up until the final ranking at which point you may decide that the big win early turned out to be not so big after all and weight accordingly.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Weber could be either Davis or SIU depending on what the other teams with the same record have done.

Ha! Yeah, those games will keep you on the edge of your seat. Good teams find a way to win those, so I think SIU has really progressed, building on how they finished in the playoffs last spring. Will be a tough out for sure. I also think Weber's record does not indicate just how tough an out they could be as well. Of course, they still need to win a few more games. In Bison-land, I think we have been witnessing a team with talent that has not reached its potential and is in need of someone to steer the offensive ship a bit better (coaches and players included in this one). Our last game was concrete evidence of this.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Great review guys. I was a bit surprised to not hear anything about Southern Illinois as a potential top 4 seed (I didn't just miss this, did I?). They are 6-1, realistically can (should?) win out, and would only have a one-score (8 pt) FBS loss to Kansas State. I could imagine this being like the year both Illinois State and North Dakota State were the #2 and #3 seeds, mostly because they did not play each other (and likely seeded as such to avoid a championship game rematch...my editorial there). Anyway, I think Southern Illinois has the inside track for a top 4 seed, even over North Dakota State at this point, despite the Bison being currently being ranked higher (and currently undefeated). Thoughts?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

SIU is just a miss I think when they were rolling on the fly like that. All points about them put them very high at this point and probably more deserving than the 4 top listed so far as you mentioned.

[Preferred Walk-On]

SIU is just a miss I think when they were rolling on the fly like that. All points about them put them very high at this point and probably more deserving than the 4 top listed so far as you mentioned.

Yeah, no worries. Just thought they deserved mention, and honestly, I think they have the team and the path to be the #2 seed. Sam Houston (on paper) appears to have the path of least resistance, but it will be interesting to see the committee’s true colors when seeding the teams. Highest seed based on record and defending national champs or highest seed based on current (this year’s) resume. As a Bison fan, I could see it either way and would not have a problem with it; although I am still admittedly slightly miffed about being seeded behind ISUr after beating them in the previous year’s championship game, so…?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chalupa Batman]

Yeah, no worries. Just thought they deserved mention, and honestly, I think they have the team and the path to be the #2 seed. Sam Houston (on paper) appears to have the path of least resistance, but it will be interesting to see the committee’s true colors when seeding the teams. Highest seed based on record and defending national champs or highest seed based on current (this year’s) resume. As a Bison fan, I could see it either way and would not have a problem with it; although I am still admittedly slightly miffed about being seeded behind ISUr after beating them in the previous year’s championship game, so…?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In 2015, we had 2 FCS losses while ISUr only had 1 (also losing to Iowa) so I would assume that's why they were higher. The fact that our QB going into the playoffs had 4 career starts probably played into the way the two teams were seeded too. Admittedly I wasn't paying close attention to the FCS as a whole at the time, but I was pleasantly surprised we still got a #3 seed when the bracket came out.

It will be interesting how SH, NDSU, & SIU are seeded should we all win out. I think the fact that the only upper tier Valley team we miss is SIU, while on top of missing us SIU also misses South Dakota would give us the slight edge over the Salukis. Realistically we would be #1 & #2 since our resumes will be way better than Sam's, but with the unique circumstance of them being able to have the exact same team that just won the title in the spring do they get bumped to one of the top two seeds?

[Preferred Walk-On]

In 2015, we had 2 FCS losses while ISUr only had 1 (also losing to Iowa) so I would assume that's why they were higher. The fact that our QB going into the playoffs had 4 career starts probably played into the way the two teams were seeded too. Admittedly I wasn't paying close attention to the FCS as a whole at the time, but I was pleasantly surprised we still got a #3 seed when the bracket came out.

It will be interesting how SH, NDSU, & SIU are seeded should we all win out. I think the fact that the only upper tier Valley team we miss is SIU, while on top of missing us SIU also misses South Dakota would give us the slight edge over the Salukis. Realistically we would be #1 & #2 since our resumes will be way better than Sam's, but with the unique circumstance of them being able to have the exact same team that just won the title in the spring do they get bumped to one of the top two seeds?

Admittedly, I had to look back at the schedules and remind myself of the way the 2015 season played out for each. NDSU's first loss was @ Montana in the Week 0 game. It was likely their second loss that did them in (USD in a game where Carson Wentz got injured). I suppose that given that the loss was to USD AND Carson Wentz was not going to be the QB to start the playoffs probably factored in. I added the miffed part (although it is hard to continue to be miffed since NDSU did win it all that year), more so because the two teams in the previous year's national championship were placed in the same half of the bracket AND at that time, I probably leaned a bit more towards giving the defending champ the benefit of the doubt, given both had identical conference records. Benefit of the doubt is also why I would not be upset of SHSU gets the #1 seed this year. My prediction is that if NDSU and SIU win out, they will be the #2 and #3 seeds, with NDSU hosting throughout the playoffs (as long as they win...see 2015 ISUr), and SHSU will be a lock for the #1 seed.

With four games left, the apparent (on paper) path of most resistance for a top 4 seed is for NDSU, Montana State, Eastern Washington, and UC Davis (mostly because the last three play each other or Montana). The path of least resistance (again, on paper) for a top 4 seed appears to be SHSU, SIU, Villanova, James Madison, and SLU (although they do have the difficulty of playing a couple of teams twice). Honestly, I don't see a top 4 seed coming from a team besides those above, but stranger things have happened. Seeds 5-8 could definitely come from outside this list though.

[Chalupa Batman]

Admittedly, I had to look back at the schedules and remind myself of the way the 2015 season played out for each. NDSU's first loss was @ Montana in the Week 0 game. It was likely their second loss that did them in (USD in a game where Carson Wentz got injured). I suppose that given that the loss was to USD AND Carson Wentz was not going to be the QB to start the playoffs probably factored in. I added the miffed part (although it is hard to continue to be miffed since NDSU did win it all that year), more so because the two teams in the previous year's national championship were placed in the same half of the bracket AND at that time, I probably leaned a bit more towards giving the defending champ the benefit of the doubt, given both had identical conference records. Benefit of the doubt is also why I would not be upset of SHSU gets the #1 seed this year. My prediction is that if NDSU and SIU win out, they will be the #2 and #3 seeds, with NDSU hosting throughout the playoffs (as long as they win...see 2015 ISUr), and SHSU will be a lock for the #1 seed.

With four games left, the apparent (on paper) path of most resistance for a top 4 seed is for NDSU, Montana State, Eastern Washington, and UC Davis (mostly because the last three play each other or Montana). The path of least resistance (again, on paper) for a top 4 seed appears to be SHSU, SIU, Villanova, James Madison, and SLU (although they do have the difficulty of playing a couple of teams twice). Honestly, I don't see a top 4 seed coming from a team besides those above, but stranger things have happened. Seeds 5-8 could definitely come from outside this list though.

It wasn't so much us and the Redbirds that got placed on one side of the bracket, it was that every Valley team got placed on one side of the bracket that irked so many people.

You're probably right that SH now has the inside track on the #1 seed after EWU lost. I think the 4 teams that control their destiny for a top 4 seed are SH, NDSU, SIU, and next week's EWU/MSU winner. Should any of them trip up next in line (in order) would be UC Davis, Villanova, JMU, SLU, and I'd also add ETSU to the list as they have a couple resume boosters on tap with VMI & Mercer.

Agreed about seeds 5-8 coming from outside this list, and there is a LOT of teams at a quick glance that can play their way (with a little help elsewhere) into one of those seeds. Sac State, Montana, William & Mary (very unlikely but possible), Missouri State, UNI, SDSU, UT-Martin (also unlikely IMO), Kennesaw State, EKU (very unlikely), maybe even VMI or Mercer (these would be pretty unlikely too).

[acbearkat]

It wasn't so much us and the Redbirds that got placed on one side of the bracket, it was that every Valley team got placed on one side of the bracket that irked so many people.

You're probably right that SH now has the inside track on the #1 seed after EWU lost. I think the 4 teams that control their destiny for a top 4 seed are SH, NDSU, SIU, and next week's EWU/MSU winner. Should any of them trip up next in line (in order) would be UC Davis, Villanova, JMU, SLU, and I'd also add ETSU to the list as they have a couple resume boosters on tap with VMI & Mercer.

Agreed about seeds 5-8 coming from outside this list, and there is a LOT of teams at a quick glance that can play their way (with a little help elsewhere) into one of those seeds. Sac State, Montana, William & Mary (very unlikely but possible), Missouri State, UNI, SDSU, UT-Martin (also unlikely IMO), Kennesaw State, EKU (very unlikely), maybe even VMI or Mercer (these would be pretty unlikely too).

If North Dakota State would likely get the #1 seed if both the Bison and Bearkats are undefeated. The Kats wouldn’t have the wins North Dakota State would, and likely not even a win over a playoff team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Preferred Walk-On]

If North Dakota State would likely get the #1 seed if both the Bison and Bearkats are undefeated. The Kats wouldn’t have the wins North Dakota State would, and likely not even a win over a playoff team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm usually not a conspiracy theorist; however, I think that if two MVFC teams make the top 4, they will either be #1 and #4 or #2 and #3. If NDSU and SIU were to win out, it would be difficult in my mind to see SIU at #4, when it is likely that the #3 seed would not have as good a resume as SIU. This is my reasoning for why NDSU would be #2, and I would add onto that the status that SHSU earned as defending national champ (which would likely soften the debate of them being placed as the #1 seed). Of course, all three (SHSU, NDSU, and SIU) would still have to win out, so I am just spitballing here. It will be an interesting, dare I say exciting, last four weeks.

[Preferred Walk-On]

It wasn't so much us and the Redbirds that got placed on one side of the bracket, it was that every Valley team got placed on one side of the bracket that irked so many people.

You're probably right that SH now has the inside track on the #1 seed after EWU lost. I think the 4 teams that control their destiny for a top 4 seed are SH, NDSU, SIU, and next week's EWU/MSU winner. Should any of them trip up next in line (in order) would be UC Davis, Villanova, JMU, SLU, and I'd also add ETSU to the list as they have a couple resume boosters on tap with VMI & Mercer.

Agreed about seeds 5-8 coming from outside this list, and there is a LOT of teams at a quick glance that can play their way (with a little help elsewhere) into one of those seeds. Sac State, Montana, William & Mary (very unlikely but possible), Missouri State, UNI, SDSU, UT-Martin (also unlikely IMO), Kennesaw State, EKU (very unlikely), maybe even VMI or Mercer (these would be pretty unlikely too).

Good analysis. I wonder what members' thoughts are on how many of these teams have a legitimate shot as national champion. Ten teams as potential top 4 seeds and another 11 teams as potential 5-8 seeds. If my math is correct (and it usually isn't), that is 21 teams. I also count eight conferences here, so this along with three additional auto-bids could be your playoff field. Hopefully this has reinvigorated some that have been turned off to the FCS for lack of parity.

[Catbooster]

...

You did bring up a really good point though. Is it fair to consider a win over X-ranked team when that team they beat/lost to does not end up with X-rank. In other words, is it the rank at the time or the current rank that matters when someone boasts about their team?
I recall Supe saying that for his results spreadsheet it would be difficult to go back each week and update every teams' top 25 W/L record as the teams move up and down. So regardless of the arguments either way it was based on at the time they played, which makes sense. I can imagine that would make putting out that spreadsheet much more time consuming. I assume you're doing it the same this year.

But I think it's a hard question to answer. It would depend on why the team is dropping (or rising) in the polls. Some teams drop because they lost a few star players to injury. So the team might have been as tough as their ranking indicates in week 2 but might not be any good in week 10. Some teams may have simply been over-rated to begin with so it inflates the perception of the team that beat them. It depends on the specifics of that team and would be subjective if you tried to update which wins/losses deserve to count as against ranked teams Much simpler to leave it as when they played and hope the voters scrutinize it.

[Preferred Walk-On]

SIU's final rating was very defensible:

Wins over #1, #4, and #15 and a couple of stinkers, in conference play.

Playoff win over #3, and semi-final loss on a pick at the 10 yard line to #2.

2-0 vs OOC opponents - both were ranked at gametime.

That would get anybody from any conference at least the same ranking I think


I recall Supe saying that for his results spreadsheet it would be difficult to go back each week and update every teams' top 25 W/L record as the teams move up and down. So regardless of the arguments either way it was based on at the time they played, which makes sense. I can imagine that would make putting out that spreadsheet much more time consuming. I assume you're doing it the same this year.

But I think it's a hard question to answer. It would depend on why the team is dropping (or rising) in the polls. Some teams drop because they lost a few star players to injury. So the team might have been as tough as their ranking indicates in week 2 but might not be any good in week 10. Some teams may have simply been over-rated to begin with so it inflates the perception of the team that beat them. It depends on the specifics of that team and would be subjective if you tried to update which wins/losses deserve to count as against ranked teams Much simpler to leave it as when they played and hope the voters scrutinize it.

Yes, in the How They Fared sheets I put together, the win-loss against AGS Top 25 is only applicable if the opponent was ranked the week of the game. It would be a bit too much work to go back and correct these each week depending on where a team's opponents were currently.

I brought up the point, because I was pretty sure that Houndawg was referring to NDSU as the #1 team that SIU beat last year (in week 2), and #4 and #15 teams were #7 and #16 according to AGS (Houndawg used the FCS Coaches' poll for the rank numbers). I won't mention the stinkers, but in general, teams I just listed did not end up quite that high at the end of the season (NDSU #5, UNI NR, SLU #16). However, with the exception of UNI, those teams did not finish that much lower either. Of course, the #2 and #3 teams listed as close playoff loss and playoff win ended as #2 and #9 (but this is likely based on where Weber exited; i.e., SIU's win).

So the question was, is it fair to tout one's resume while also knowing exactly how things turned out, but using the ranks that most benefit the argument. Sure one could make an argument for touting it in the moment, but knowing how NDSU, UNI, and SLU finished certainly diminishes the resume touting a little bit. I am not trying to pick on Houndawg at all for this (as his post is exactly how SIU's official website lists the rankings), but it is a fair question, as things can be spun a bit to make things seem better than they actually are (were).

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I recall Supe saying that for his results spreadsheet it would be difficult to go back each week and update every teams' top 25 W/L record as the teams move up and down. So regardless of the arguments either way it was based on at the time they played, which makes sense. I can imagine that would make putting out that spreadsheet much more time consuming. I assume you're doing it the same this year.

But I think it's a hard question to answer. It would depend on why the team is dropping (or rising) in the polls. Some teams drop because they lost a few star players to injury. So the team might have been as tough as their ranking indicates in week 2 but might not be any good in week 10. Some teams may have simply been over-rated to begin with so it inflates the perception of the team that beat them. It depends on the specifics of that team and would be subjective if you tried to update which wins/losses deserve to count as against ranked teams Much simpler to leave it as when they played and hope the voters scrutinize it.

Spot on everywhere here.

[MSUBobcat]

Well, sonuvabitch.... boy, do I feel dumb! When Lance mentioned Massey ratings and how you can see each team's record, and those of their opponents (both played and upcoming), I had to go find it. How did I not realize that team names in the left column str a hyperlink that takes you to the team schedule with records displayed (and hyperlinks for each team on the schedule)?!? xdohx That's gonna save me a pile of time doing my pick 'em! I've got Google predicting damn near every FCS team's schedule within 3-4 letters at this point. Type "br" and it autofills Brown's schedule's address. Add a "y" and I get Bryant. Type "go" and I get the Griz, Yotes, Camels and Bison. And here I was getting excited that I almost to the point where I no longer have to type in "(team name) football schedule", search, then click on the result. Turns out you CAN teach an old dog....

My own dip****tery aside, great work as always, fellas. xbowx

[MTfan4life]

Great review guys. I was a bit surprised to not hear anything about Southern Illinois as a potential top 4 seed (I didn't just miss this, did I?). They are 6-1, realistically can (should?) win out, and would only have a one-score (8 pt) FBS loss to Kansas State. I could imagine this being like the year both Illinois State and North Dakota State were the #2 and #3 seeds, mostly because they did not play each other (and likely seeded as such to avoid a championship game rematch...my editorial there). Anyway, I think Southern Illinois has the inside track for a top 4 seed, even over North Dakota State at this point, despite the Bison being currently being ranked higher (and currently undefeated). Thoughts?


I think it was because the question was "what are the most likely teams to get a top 4 seed" if I remember correctly. Or at least that's how I took it. Southern Illinois has been far too volatile so far to be considered in the "most likely" camp, especially with back to back games @UNI and vs Missouri State coming up. They've won their last three games by a total of 5 points. They're on the right track, but it's hard to give full confidence to a team with 4 Valley games remaining that needed overtime to beat Western Illinois. If a WIU upset can happen, so could Indiana State or Youngstown.

[Houndawg]

Yes, in the How They Fared sheets I put together, the win-loss against AGS Top 25 is only applicable if the opponent was ranked the week of the game. It would be a bit too much work to go back and correct these each week depending on where a team's opponents were currently.

I brought up the point, because I was pretty sure that Houndawg was referring to NDSU as the #1 team that SIU beat last year (in week 2), and #4 and #15 teams were #7 and #16 according to AGS (Houndawg used the FCS Coaches' poll for the rank numbers). I won't mention the stinkers, but in general, teams I just listed did not end up quite that high at the end of the season (NDSU #5, UNI NR, SLU #16). However, with the exception of UNI, those teams did not finish that much lower either. Of course, the #2 and #3 teams listed as close playoff loss and playoff win ended as #2 and #9 (but this is likely based on where Weber exited; i.e., SIU's win).

So the question was, is it fair to tout one's resume while also knowing exactly how things turned out, but using the ranks that most benefit the argument. Sure one could make an argument for touting it in the moment, but knowing how NDSU, UNI, and SLU finished certainly diminishes the resume touting a little bit. I am not trying to pick on Houndawg at all for this (as his post is exactly how SIU's official website lists the rankings), but it is a fair question, as things can be spun a bit to make things seem better than they actually are (were).

I'm not feeling picked on at all; I didn't intentionally use the Coaches Poll, the numbers I used were from the SIU site and while I did use the at-the-time rankings to justify the final ranking I think using the final rankings puts us right in the same place +/- 1 spot.

[Houndawg]

I think it was because the question was "what are the most likely teams to get a top 4 seed" if I remember correctly. Or at least that's how I took it. Southern Illinois has been far too volatile so far to be considered in the "most likely" camp, especially with back to back games @UNI and vs Missouri State coming up. They've won their last three games by a total of 5 points. They're on the right track, but it's hard to give full confidence to a team with 4 Valley games remaining that needed overtime to beat Western Illinois. If a WIU upset can happen, so could Indiana State or Youngstown.

Amen. (The homer in me wants to point out that while you're exactly right about our volatility, the three game stretch you mention above was played without All-Americans at CB an WR.)

[Houndawg]

I'm usually not a conspiracy theorist; however, I think that if two MVFC teams make the top 4, they will either be #1 and #4 or #2 and #3. If NDSU and SIU were to win out, it would be difficult in my mind to see SIU at #4, when it is likely that the #3 seed would not have as good a resume as SIU. This is my reasoning for why NDSU would be #2, and I would add onto that the status that SHSU earned as defending national champ (which would likely soften the debate of them being placed as the #1 seed). Of course, all three (SHSU, NDSU, and SIU) would still have to win out, so I am just spitballing here. It will be an interesting, dare I say exciting, last four weeks.

I guess SIU just took the wind out of that conspiracy theory..... Villanova lost too, now what...?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Well damn, I was having so much fun seeing people jumping in and commenting on a thread abut the show...but nothing this week?

For me, these shows were really fun listens. I really enjoyed the "off the cuff" in both shows.

[Chalupa Batman]

Well damn, I was having so much fun seeing people jumping in and commenting on a thread abut the show...but nothing this week?

For me, these shows were really fun listens. I really enjoyed the "off the cuff" in both shows.

Just finally listened to it today. Great job as always.

[kalm]

Just finally listened to it today. Great job as always.

Thank you!

If anyone has suggestions for specific topics you’d like us to cover or cover in more detail, please let us know.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Thank you!

If anyone has suggestions for specific topics you’d like us to cover or cover in more detail, please let us know.

I'd like better mic mgmt. if that is possible? xlolx

It's time we PC back to do a good section on going over playoff stuff too I think. I'll text you and LB Dawg with a direction if you want cuz it could be a great two part thing.

[kalm]

I'd like better mic mgmt. if that is possible? xlolx

It's time we PC back to do a good section on going over playoff stuff too I think. I'll text you and LB Dawg with a direction if you want cuz it could be a great two part thing.

I’m going to build a podcast studio. Lance sounding even close to these magnificent pipes is totally unacceptable!

Yes on playoffs.

[Chalupa Batman]

Thank you!

If anyone has suggestions for specific topics you’d like us to cover or cover in more detail, please let us know.

More detail would be pretty tough considering you guys make sure to cover all the FCS (or as much as possible) instead of the same handful of teams. Which I prefer and greatly appreciate!

You guys generally keep things at 30 minutes, have you thought about longer shows or do you keep them that length because you’ll get more listens?

[kalm]

More detail would be pretty tough considering you guys make sure to cover all the FCS (or as much as possible) instead of the same handful of teams. Which I prefer and greatly appreciate!

You guys generally keep things at 30 minutes, have you thought about longer shows or do you keep them that length because you’ll get more listens?

We have a limited amount of time in the virtual studio but will continue to try and squeeze the most out of it. Thanks for the feedback and compliments!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I’m going to build a podcast studio. Lance sounding even close to these magnificent pipes is totally unacceptable!

Yes on playoffs.

I hear ya, hard to match the golden dulcet ones of the LB'r. xlolx

He has probably seen this but I will pm.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

More detail would be pretty tough considering you guys make sure to cover all the FCS (or as much as possible) instead of the same handful of teams. Which I prefer and greatly appreciate!

You guys generally keep things at 30 minutes, have you thought about longer shows or do you keep them that length because you’ll get more listens?

We used to have 1 hr. shows but it was basically the review and the preview together so it would not have been more in depth necessarily. I don't really want to get large audio files that are double this size, double or triple the edit time, and also double the time that the fella's have to set aside to lay them down.

But I am interested in your idea for next season if you can let me know what you think would be better with more in depth? Are you saying each game we do now, or go over more games than we do now? I think we generally hit 8 or 10 of the games that were most interesting for varying reasons.

Also, we used to do a quick recap on each conference in every show and I had a guy for each conference. It was a 3 minute fly by. Very hard managing 10 or 12 guys each week to turn in audio on time etc. but I also would like if others that wanted to do some say individual conferece podcasting, and so forth wanted to come in and do something to get a hold of me and I can help them start putting something out under The FCS Wedge banner, I pay for the products to do it and they are really only used one day/week.

[Chalupa Batman]

We have a limited amount of time in the virtual studio but will continue to try and squeeze the most out of it. Thanks for the feedback and compliments!


We used to have 1 hr. shows but it was basically the review and the preview together so it would not have been more in depth necessarily. I don't really want to get large audio files that are double this size, double or triple the edit time, and also double the time that the fella's have to set aside to lay them down.

But I am interested in your idea for next season if you can let me know what you think would be better with more in depth? Are you saying each game we do now, or go over more games than we do now? I think we generally hit 8 or 10 of the games that were most interesting for varying reasons.

Also, we used to do a quick recap on each conference in every show and I had a guy for each conference. It was a 3 minute fly by. Very hard managing 10 or 12 guys each week to turn in audio on time etc. but I also would like if others that wanted to do some say individual conferece podcasting, and so forth wanted to come in and do something to get a hold of me and I can help them start putting something out under The FCS Wedge banner, I pay for the products to do it and they are really only used one day/week.

With the time constraint in the virtual studio and wanting to keep file size down, 30 minutes or so makes a lot of sense. Like I said previously, I much prefer the quick blasts about a larger number of games rather than focus all your time to 3 or 4 since those 3 or 4 would be the same 10-12 teams most of the time.

Given all that there isn’t much I would change. You do a pretty good job of referencing threads on the board to steer the podcasts, but one idea I would have is to start a weekly thread dedicated to specific questions users can ask and you pick the best two or three to answer.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

With the time constraint in the virtual studio and wanting to keep file size down, 30 minutes or so makes a lot of sense. Like I said previously, I much prefer the quick blasts about a larger number of games rather than focus all your time to 3 or 4 since those 3 or 4 would be the same 10-12 teams most of the time.

Given all that there isn’t much I would change. You do a pretty good job of referencing threads on the board to steer the podcasts, but one idea I would have is to start a weekly thread dedicated to specific questions users can ask and you pick the best two or three to answer.

Ooh, that is a pretty sharp idea my friend. Do you think it needs to be a different thread each week or would utilizing this one work for that? I know it gets long but I really like the idea of have one thread to reference and keeping it as a sticky cuz it is pretty easy to go to each week for anyone looking.

Separate threads sure wouldn't bother me by any means.

Throw one out, let's see if/how it works.

[Chalupa Batman]

Ooh, that is a pretty sharp idea my friend. Do you think it needs to be a different thread each week or would utilizing this one work for that? I know it gets long but I really like the idea of have one thread to reference and keeping it as a sticky cuz it is pretty easy to go to each week for anyone looking.

Separate threads sure wouldn't bother me by any means.

Throw one out, let's see if/how it works.

A single thread would work, and if it’s not a sticky you could do a weekly bump to remind folks. Maybe I’m in the minority here, but for whatever reason a lot of times I don’t even look at the sticky threads when I use the desktop version and miss when there are new posts to look at. Just a habit from when I first started visiting the board that I haven’t got out of.

[Preferred Walk-On]

We used to have 1 hr. shows but it was basically the review and the preview together so it would not have been more in depth necessarily. I don't really want to get large audio files that are double this size, double or triple the edit time, and also double the time that the fella's have to set aside to lay them down.

But I am interested in your idea for next season if you can let me know what you think would be better with more in depth? Are you saying each game we do now, or go over more games than we do now? I think we generally hit 8 or 10 of the games that were most interesting for varying reasons.

Also, we used to do a quick recap on each conference in every show and I had a guy for each conference. It was a 3 minute fly by. Very hard managing 10 or 12 guys each week to turn in audio on time etc. but I also would like if others that wanted to do some say individual conferece podcasting, and so forth wanted to come in and do something to get a hold of me and I can help them start putting something out under The FCS Wedge banner, I pay for the products to do it and they are really only used one day/week.

30 min podcasts are perfect, IMO. Listen on my way to/from work, walking the dog, waiting in line. I have tried other podcasts, but they tend to drone on to fill up 40-60 min. Really like the format of your shows (review/preview).

Also, I realize that kalm was just trying to make MTfan4life sound better by talking through a tin can for the review show this week, but I think he shouldn't play down to the competition. xoopsx

Finally, there are rivalry games each year, and I would like to hear a bit about their history, records, odd events, traditions, and such. One might even be able to recruit an AGS'er to talk about them a bit. Managing 10-12 guys per week is a nightmare, but a guest every other/third week might be interesting.

I'm also waiting for the video version of the show. :D

[Preferred Walk-On]

Thank you!

If anyone has suggestions for specific topics you’d like us to cover or cover in more detail, please let us know.

Perhaps you could have a very short "tailgating recipe of the week" segment?

[MTfan4life]

30 min podcasts are perfect, IMO. Listen on my way to/from work, walking the dog, waiting in line. I have tried other podcasts, but they tend to drone on to fill up 40-60 min. Really like the format of your shows (review/preview).

Also, I realize that kalm was just trying to make MTfan4life sound better by talking through a tin can for the review show this week, but I think he shouldn't play down to the competition. xoopsx

Finally, there are rivalry games each year, and I would like to hear a bit about their history, records, odd events, traditions, and such. One might even be able to recruit an AGS'er to talk about them a bit. Managing 10-12 guys per week is a nightmare, but a guest every other/third week might be interesting.

I'm also waiting for the video version of the show. :D

You DO NOT want to see a video version of this show! Kalm looks like Brett Summers with a beard. (She was on Match Play, back in the day, google that to get a picture.) Then I'm a little more like the caricatures of Alexander the Great. To get a picture of our set up, I just rock back and forth on a banana chair with a microphone on a step stool next to me and one of my black cats likely nearby. From the sound of his mic most days, I can only imagine Kalm records from one of the filming locations for The Goonies. Or I always imagine he's Clark Griswold trapped in the attic, a la Christmas Vacation.

Much appreciated for your comments on the length and format. I feel we drone even with our short length. Kalm is kind of a tangent diatribe guy, and then I ramble on while trying to access oft missing memory regarding what I actually had wanted to say.

[kalm]

You DO NOT want to see a video version of this show! Kalm looks like Brett Summers with a beard. (She was on Match Play, back in the day, google that to get a picture.) Then I'm a little more like the caricatures of Alexander the Great. To get a picture of our set up, I just rock back and forth on a banana chair with a microphone on a step stool next to me and one of my black cats likely nearby. From the sound of his mic most days, I can only imagine Kalm records from one of the filming locations for The Goonies. Or I always imagine he's Clark Griswold trapped in the attic, a la Christmas Vacation.

Much appreciated for your comments on the length and format. I feel we drone even with our short length. Kalm is kind of a tangent diatribe guy, and then I ramble on while trying to access oft missing memory regarding what I actually had wanted to say.

You son of a bitch!

[Chalupa Batman]

I like Full Ride's idea of getting a guest on every now and then to go in depth about a rivalry, or even a team that isn't represented very much or at all here. I'm not sure how one would reach out, but I say it wouldn't even have to be a member of this board. Could be a great way to get us more information about teams and to attract new blood to AGS.

[MTfan4life]

I like Full Ride's idea of getting a guest on every now and then to go in depth about a rivalry, or even a team that isn't represented very much or at all here. I'm not sure how one would reach out, but I say it wouldn't even have to be a member of this board. Could be a great way to get us more information about teams and to attract new blood to AGS.

Just no more homers!! haha We brought on a few people several seasons ago for a "State of the Conference" segment we did that year. All of them were rabid homers in their predictions and all of their teams subsequently massively failed as a result. If we conducted a search for outside guests, I vote they'd have to be sandbaggers only! If we bring on NDSU fans, they should speak fondly of UND. If we bring on a JMU fan, they should say "Richmond su...rprisingly is pretty good this year!" Or maybe a SHSU fan who doesn't think Southern Speed is that fast at all! If we can find those people, that would be great! No drastic sandbaggers either, though, haha.

[MSUBobcat]

Good show, "Brett" and "Alexander". 2 long streaks ended in the EWU-MSU game. I was not aware of the EWU streak of 53 games of winning the TO battle without a loss. MSU also ended a streak of about 35 or 36 straight games of recording at least one takeaway. If I had been told that the Bobcats would not get a TO, I would have put our chances to win pretty low. If you said we'd lose the TO battle by -2, I would have thought we had no chance.

[kalm]

Good show, "Brett" and "Alexander". 2 long streaks ended in the EWU-MSU game. I was not aware of the EWU streak of 53 games of winning the TO battle without a loss. MSU also ended a streak of about 35 or 36 straight games of recording at least one takeaway. If I had been told that the Bobcats would not get a TO, I would have put our chances to win pretty low. If you said we'd lose the TO battle by -2, I would have thought we had no chance.

Thanks, agreed. That’s a really good team you guys have. McKay doesn’t throw the prettiest ball but he delivers. Scary closing speed on d and the safeties played great.

[MSUBobcat]

Thanks, agreed. That’s a really good team you guys have. McKay doesn’t throw the prettiest ball but he delivers. Scary closing speed on d and the safeties played great.

That's putting it politely.....

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The fellers did some great work this week. Truly enjoyable humor and entertainment for me. There is a bonus show Friday 11/12/2021 with the guys having Professor Chaos on for some playoff prognostications. It is a fun listen as well.

Thank you Lance, Kris, and Tim. It has been a really fun week. Great work boys.

Google
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0

Apple
https://podcasts.apple.com/hu/podcast/the-fcs-wedge/id557271012

Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/show/61mEEl1qDeDIDIile6g3q0

Amazon
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ebe31aae-ea8a-4f5d-8920-29f6c81e648a/the-fcs-wedge

[ursus arctos horribilis]

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0/episode/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ibG9ndGFsa3JhZGlvLmNvbS90aGUtZmNzLX dlZGdlLzIwMjEvMTEvMTcvdGhlLWZjcy13ZWRnZS0yMDIxLTEx MTctLXdrMTEtcmV2aWV3?sa=X&ved=0CCoQz4EHahgKEwio6eaa2p30AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQyxA

New episode is up. I somehow missed the normal scheduling cuz it has been in the cue for like 10 hrs. now.

Oh well, it is there now.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Google
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0

Apple
https://podcasts.apple.com/hu/podcast/the-fcs-wedge/id557271012

Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/show/61mEEl1qDeDIDIile6g3q0

Amazon
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ebe31aae-ea8a-4f5d-8920-29f6c81e648a/the-fcs-wedge

Review went up today, preview up in a couple hours from now.

Man, you guys really let this thread die. I only take partial blame, very small part.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

hmm, not sure why the current review is not showing on google home spot for the wedge but this is the direct link.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0/episode/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ibG9ndGFsa3JhZGlvLmNvbS90aGUtZmNzLX dlZGdlLzIwMjEvMTIvMDEvdGhlLWZjcy13ZWRnZS0yMDIxLTEy MDEtLTIwMjFyZDEtcmV2aWV3?sa=X&ved=0CCoQz4EHahgKEwjQy4vDy8T0AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQqQY

[MSUBobcat]

I'm still listening Ursus, Kalm, and MTfan! Excellent work as always. I use the 3rd link in the first post of this thread and all of the podcasts are listed, most current on top, if anyone has trouble finding them.

[kalm]

I'm still listening Ursus, Kalm, and MTfan! Excellent work as always. I use the 3rd link in the first post of this thread and all of the podcasts are listed, most current on top, if anyone has trouble finding them.

Thank you!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm still listening Ursus, Kalm, and MTfan! Excellent work as always. I use the 3rd link in the first post of this thread and all of the podcasts are listed, most current on top, if anyone has trouble finding them.

Dang it, I read this last week and must have forgot to respond to you with my whipping around the place but as kalm said thanks and that is some good advice on the navigation.

[Chalupa Batman]

I'm still listening too. Sometimes I don't get to the previous week review but always listen to the preview show. Great work and appreciate your efforts!

[Preferred Walk-On]

kalm, MTfan4life, ursus, thanks for putting these together each week. I have listened to all of them and look forward to both shows each week. I cannot imagine the amount of time and effort that goes into each show, so just wanted to let you know that I appreciate them.

As for this week's show, I agree that Eastern Washington should have been seeded. Sac State was seeded IMO, because they were Big Sky co-champs. They had the luxury of not playing Montana State, Weber State, or...Eastern Washington during the regular season. Furthermore, Montana State had the misfortune of recency bias (losing to Montana) to be seeded #8 as co-champs. That unbalanced schedule in the Big Sky, while beneficial potentially for multiple seeds, may have actually done in EWU and Sac St by simply altering the early matchups, as you astutely mentioned. Losing Southern Utah will be beneficial from the unbalanced schedule aspect, but there will still be 3 teams missed each year and will likely result in a similar playoff situation in the future.

Also, "Let It Ride" is solid, but I think it might have been more appropriate to exit the review show with either "Looking Out for #1" or "Takin' Care of Business". Just my $0.02. ;)

[MSUBobcat]

Excellent work on the Round 2 review. About to check out the preview.


kalm, MTfan4life, ursus, thanks for putting these together each week. I have listened to all of them and look forward to both shows each week. I cannot imagine the amount of time and effort that goes into each show, so just wanted to let you know that I appreciate them.

As for this week's show, I agree that Eastern Washington should have been seeded. Sac State was seeded IMO, because they were Big Sky co-champs. They had the luxury of not playing Montana State, Weber State, or...Eastern Washington during the regular season. Furthermore, Montana State had the misfortune of recency bias (losing to Montana) to be seeded #8 as co-champs. That unbalanced schedule in the Big Sky, while beneficial potentially for multiple seeds, may have actually done in EWU and Sac St by simply altering the early matchups, as you astutely mentioned. Losing Southern Utah will be beneficial from the unbalanced schedule aspect, but there will still be 3 teams missed each year and will likely result in a similar playoff situation in the future.

Also, "Let It Ride" is solid, but I think it might have been more appropriate to exit the review show with either "Looking Out for #1" or "Takin' Care of Business". Just my $0.02. ;)

Sac State was the sole conference champ, having the only undefeated conference record. MSU would have shared, but.... the Brawl. xembarrassedx EWU and UM both finished tied for 3rd, so Sac not having the highest seed would have taken some mental gymnastics. That's not to say they deserved the highest seed of the Big Sky teams, but as everyone has mentioned, the unbalanced schedule dictated it. They beat Montana (when they were beaten up and not playing very well) who beat MSU, who beat EWU, who beat Montana. With the circular results of those 3 teams, having beaten the only one they played and finishing undefeated, it would be very difficult to seed UM #4 and Sac #6 (or #8).

[ursus arctos horribilis]

kalm, MTfan4life, ursus, thanks for putting these together each week. I have listened to all of them and look forward to both shows each week. I cannot imagine the amount of time and effort that goes into each show, so just wanted to let you know that I appreciate them.

As for this week's show, I agree that Eastern Washington should have been seeded. Sac State was seeded IMO, because they were Big Sky co-champs. They had the luxury of not playing Montana State, Weber State, or...Eastern Washington during the regular season. Furthermore, Montana State had the misfortune of recency bias (losing to Montana) to be seeded #8 as co-champs. That unbalanced schedule in the Big Sky, while beneficial potentially for multiple seeds, may have actually done in EWU and Sac St by simply altering the early matchups, as you astutely mentioned. Losing Southern Utah will be beneficial from the unbalanced schedule aspect, but there will still be 3 teams missed each year and will likely result in a similar playoff situation in the future.

Also, "Let It Ride" is solid, but I think it might have been more appropriate to exit the review show with either "Looking Out for #1" or "Takin' Care of Business". Just my $0.02. ;)

I'd have to look but I think I've used BTO fairly recently but maybe it was 2019...can't remember. I just choose it based on a feeling from editin the show or sometimes just something said that relates in some way. I started thinking about the movie "Let it ride" and I wanted to put an easter egg thing of his final be in the tail end and relate the let it ride in that way but just thought the scened needed to be full and it would have added too much time.

I loved this movie, pretty fun watch back when and I knew very few would get the reference but I do things for a very small audience that gets what I'm doing most of the time anyway...sometimes the audience is one but that one guy has a smile and chuckle while putting it together.

I love you suggestions though and need to include those in the minds eye for future use my friend.

A lot of big underdog types letting it ride in this round so I'll post it here for those that want to take that trip. xlolx


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VosZzVlqxTg

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Excellent work on the Round 2 review. About to check out the preview.



Sac State was the sole conference champ, having the only undefeated conference record. MSU would have shared, but.... the Brawl. xembarrassedx EWU and UM both finished tied for 3rd, so Sac not having the highest seed would have taken some mental gymnastics. That's not to say they deserved the highest seed of the Big Sky teams, but as everyone has mentioned, the unbalanced schedule dictated it. They beat Montana (when they were beaten up and not playing very well) who beat MSU, who beat EWU, who beat Montana. With the circular results of those 3 teams, having beaten the only one they played and finishing undefeated, it would be very difficult to seed UM #4 and Sac #6 (or #8).

Agree on all that and wanted everyone to know that we in the BSC dislike this unbalanced schedule as much as anyone out there does. It is tolerated, but widely disliked and the base membership would like very much to get back to the 9 team schedule I would bet. It does not really matter if the unbalanced perception out there is that it helps the BSC, it is possible, but it really sucks even if that were the case.

[MSUBobcat]

Agree on all that and wanted everyone to know that we in the BSC dislike this unbalanced schedule as much as anyone out there does. It is tolerated, but widely disliked and the base membership would like very much to get back to the 9 team schedule I would bet. It does not really matter if the unbalanced perception out there is that it helps the BSC, it is possible, but it really sucks even if that were the case.

Yeah, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person who is a fan of a 13-team FCS conference. If there were divisions and a championship game to ensure an undefeated team doesn't shirk playing all or most of the other top teams in the conference, that would help. Going to 12 next year will help. No one seems to be saying having 12 teams is giving the CAA any advantage. Getting down to 10 would even be acceptable - each team would play everyone except 1 team and there would be enough round robin among the teams to get a general idea of the pecking order (unless like this year Team A beat Team B who beat Team C who beat..... Team A xrotatehx). 13 though... you're only playing 2/3 of the teams. Way too much subjectivity.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Excellent work on the Round 2 review. About to check out the preview.

Sac State was the sole conference champ, having the only undefeated conference record. MSU would have shared, but.... the Brawl. xembarrassedx EWU and UM both finished tied for 3rd, so Sac not having the highest seed would have taken some mental gymnastics. That's not to say they deserved the highest seed of the Big Sky teams, but as everyone has mentioned, the unbalanced schedule dictated it. They beat Montana (when they were beaten up and not playing very well) who beat MSU, who beat EWU, who beat Montana. With the circular results of those 3 teams, having beaten the only one they played and finishing undefeated, it would be very difficult to seed UM #4 and Sac #6 (or #8).

Yep, sorry about that mis-step (i.e., sole conference champ), but the song remains the same. Sac State missed arguably the three of the four best teams in the Big Sky, so it really made it difficult to place the teams. Perhaps only two should have been seeded. Perhaps all four should have been seeded. Who knows? As an outside observer, I don't think Sac State should have been the #4 seed. I am not saying they shouldn't have been seeded, just maybe not #4. The consensus in the bracket challenge supports this, as Sac State was the only team predicted to be beaten by an unseeded team in the 2nd round by the ~55 challenge players with a margin of 86% to 14% (that's pretty big). I am curious about what other Big Sky fans think about the order that the Big Sky seeds should have been. It was a tough situation, but perhaps the committee needed to acknowledge the unbalanced schedule and use it to justify the Big Sky seeds.

[acbearkat]

Yeah, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person who is a fan of a 13-team FCS conference. If there were divisions and a championship game to ensure an undefeated team doesn't shirk playing all or most of the other top teams in the conference, that would help. Going to 12 next year will help. No one seems to be saying having 12 teams is giving the CAA any advantage. Getting down to 10 would even be acceptable - each team would play everyone except 1 team and there would be enough round robin among the teams to get a general idea of the pecking order (unless like this year Team A beat Team B who beat Team C who beat..... Team A xrotatehx). 13 though... you're only playing 2/3 of the teams. Way too much subjectivity.

The SEC is going to 16 no later than 2025.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTfan4life]

The consensus in the bracket challenge supports this, as Sac State was the only team predicted to be beaten by an unseeded team in the 2nd round by the ~55 challenge players with a margin of 86% to 14% (that's pretty big).

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

[MTfan4life]

Yeah, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person who is a fan of a 13-team FCS conference. If there were divisions and a championship game to ensure an undefeated team doesn't shirk playing all or most of the other top teams in the conference, that would help. Going to 12 next year will help. No one seems to be saying having 12 teams is giving the CAA any advantage. Getting down to 10 would even be acceptable - each team would play everyone except 1 team and there would be enough round robin among the teams to get a general idea of the pecking order (unless like this year Team A beat Team B who beat Team C who beat..... Team A xrotatehx). 13 though... you're only playing 2/3 of the teams. Way too much subjectivity.

Ten would be most ideal, imo. Toss NAU and Cal Poly aside and we'd be set. Also, I believe the WAC has 8 at this point, right? Just send them over there! Problem solved. Two conferences at 10.

[Chalupa Batman]

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

I'm still pretty shocked, and relieved, that SDSU didn't get funneled to Fargo.

[Preferred Walk-On]

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

Or be the #8 seed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Preferred Walk-On]

I'm still pretty shocked, and relieved, that SDSU didn't get funneled to Fargo.

Send Matt Larsen a thank you. I also think the committee has this inkling to avoid a potential national championship game rematch in the actual national championship game. I think that’s why they are in Sam’s half (and as a consequence would avoid NDSU until potentially the natty). All bets would have been off if Sam were not the #1 and NDSU were not the #2 seed (at least for funneling through NDSU), but I think one would be hard pressed to say either Sam or NDSU did not deserve their seeds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Preferred Walk-On]

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

I do agree that the first round games funneling into Montana State and Sac State could have been reversed, but Missouri State finished higher than SDSU, so technically Sac State DID get the better (potential) matchup. This is the logic one would have to use, if they are going to argue Sac State was the best Big Sky team and deserved a #4 seed, so I guess the committee was consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

The SEC is going to 16 no later than 2025.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they'll have 2 divisions and a championship game to decide which (or both, as is the case this year) of the division winners will get selected for the CFP. It won't be "which of these 4 SEC teams, who each only played 1 of the other 3, should get a top 8 seed".

[MSUBobcat]

Ten would be most ideal, imo. Toss NAU and Cal Poly aside and we'd be set. Also, I believe the WAC has 8 at this point, right? Just send them over there! Problem solved. Two conferences at 10.

Wholeheartedly agree. The other correct answer is "Toss NAU and No Co aside and we'd be set". Greeley and Flagstaff are not "bus trips" to a single Big Sky school. Poly would be a bus trip for Sac State and Davis. PSU is a bit of an island but 2 quasi-divisions could be fairly close (at least in terms of how the West considers distance) with Poly, Davis, Sac, PSU and either EWU or Weber. PSU is actually a bus trip to Cheney and they have the Dam Cup rivalry. In the other you have the 2 MT schools, 2 ID schools and either EWU or Weber. That "mountain division" division would be quite compact by current Big Sky standards. UM would have 3 bus trips, with their 4th "division game" being 490 mi (Ogden). MSU would have 3 bus trips, with the 4th being 451 mi (Moscow). ISU would have 3, with the 4th being 561 mi (crazily to their in-state foe in Moscow). BBQ gets 2 bus trips, the 490 mi trip to Missoula and a 602 mi jaunt to Moscow. Poor Idaho only gets one bus trip to UM, a 451 mi trip to Bozeman, and the previously mentioned jaunts to Idaho Falls (561 mi) and Ogden (602 mi). Then you'd play 4 of the 5 teams in the other "division" on rotating basis. Having only a couple protected rivalry games and rotating the other 7 teams would be acceptable also.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If the original BSC schools want to stay, they stay imo but the later adds might want to move on over to the WAC and that would be good to balance it out as well.

[MSUBobcat]

If the original BSC schools want to stay, they stay imo but the later adds might want to move on over to the WAC and that would be good to balance it out as well.

I did feel bad about hypothetically kicking out NAU, but they would seem to fit better geographically with the WAC (I think... it's hard to keep straight who's going and staying these days).

[Catbooster]

You guys are going to make me wait until January to get the recap of this weekend's games??!!?? What kind of Christmas spirit is that?

I can see it now on Christmas morning:
"Dad! Are you going to open the present I just gave you?"
"What's that? Oh. I'm sorry honey. I just can't quit wondering what Kris and Lance have to say about our big win over SDSU."

[ursus arctos horribilis]

You guys are going to make me wait until January to get the recap of this weekend's games??!!?? What kind of Christmas spirit is that?

I can see it now on Christmas morning:
"Dad! Are you going to open the present I just gave you?"
"What's that? Oh. I'm sorry honey. I just can't quit wondering what Kris and Lance have to say about our big win over SDSU."

xlolx

[kalm]

I did feel bad about hypothetically kicking out NAU, but they would seem to fit better geographically with the WAC (I think... it's hard to keep straight who's going and staying these days).


You guys are going to make me wait until January to get the recap of this weekend's games??!!?? What kind of Christmas spirit is that?

I can see it now on Christmas morning:
"Dad! Are you going to open the present I just gave you?"
"What's that? Oh. I'm sorry honey. I just can't quit wondering what Kris and Lance have to say about our big win over SDSU."

lol!

”Lance! How do feel about me getting the Cats win correct? Didn’t you go with the Jack’s? If someone tracked all of our predictions over the years I’d clearly be way ahead!”

”Well Kris, as a matter of fact, I’ve created a spreadsheet and went back over all of our archived shows jotting down the predictions and I’m ahead of you by….ahg…where is it…oh yeah there it is…I lead the picks 349-101 vs YOUR dismal 258-192…(Lance chuckling)”

“Lance, who ya got in the chipper?”

”Anyone but UNH”.

[MSUBobcat]

Well done on the championship preview (and playoff recap), gentlemen! Been kinda waiting to see a recent comment saying the preview was up. I was starting to think y'all were forgetting to do one, but then I checked the 3rd link from the 1st post of this thread and.... there she be! Appreciate all your work throughout the year and look forward to your insight next season. Have a great offseason, fellas!

Kalm, I'll throw a compliment to you over MTfan because you correctly picked the winner of the chipper! xthumbsupx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It went up at 5am today and I was coming over to tell the peops but I'm running way behind so thanks for bumping it up.

BTW, I think you can just subscribe on any of the formats and it will just notify on your phone shortly after they go up.

[Catbooster]

Great job once again Troy, Lance and Kris.

Well, great job Kalm. Lance picked the wrong team.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Great job once again Troy, Lance and Kris.

Well, great job Kalm. Lance picked the wrong team.

Great job, MTfan4life...at least on the pick. As for the time-clock operator, doesn't a referee on the field keep the time as well? I have seen referees stop play, review, and put one second back on the clock, so it is unclear why the SoCon? (I think I heard this somewhere) crew missed that. I totally agree that JMU got screwed on the clock operation at the end, disagree on the missed delay of game (but honestly have not gone back to watch), but I am sure there were no other missed calls, errors, etc. that might have gone the other way, right? This is where kalm gets credit for pointing out that sometimes teams need to overcome some of those things, and that good teams often do. JMU is a very good team, but as you said, NDSU was clearly the better team. The thing that worries me is that it never should have come down to talking about the clock, but we'll see which Bison team shows up on Sat.

Appreciate all the hard work in doing the show, even if I don't always agree with the takes. Thanks, fellas! Enjoyed listening to the show on the drive to Texas.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Great job, MTfan4life...at least on the pick. As for the time-clock operator, doesn't a referee on the field keep the time as well? I have seen referees stop play, review, and put one second back on the clock, so it is unclear why the SoCon? (I think I heard this somewhere) crew missed that. I totally agree that JMU got screwed on the clock operation at the end, disagree on the missed delay of game (but honestly have not gone back to watch), but I am sure there were no other missed calls, errors, etc. that might have gone the other way, right? This is where kalm gets credit for pointing out that sometimes teams need to overcome some of those things, and that good teams often do. JMU is a very good team, but as you said, NDSU was clearly the better team. The thing that worries me is that it never should have come down to talking about the clock, but we'll see which Bison team shows up on Sat.

Appreciate all the hard work in doing the show, even if I don't always agree with the takes. Thanks, fellas! Enjoyed listening to the show on the drive to Texas.

I was a bit confused on what Lance was saying there as well. The clock is ran by the refs, not a home cooking guy on the sideline. Now they sure as hell can make mistakes no doubt and I felt at the end of the 1st half it was a bit iffy on what was going on but did not go back to look it over...but I think I will now. That is a lot of time to lose for sure.

Here's the text from the NCAA on it:


Timing Devices

ARTICLE 4.



Game Clock. Playing time shall be kept with a game clock that may be either a stop watch operated by the line judge, back judge, field judge or side judge, or a game clock operated by an assistant under the direction of the appropriate judge. The type of game clock shall be determined by the game management.



I'm not positive on this but I think there is also a backup type of timing device either by the replay crew, or another judge on the field? Maybe someone with more knowledge on officiating can chime in on that one. I know we have some former officials in the goup somewhere here.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Also, none of the Cats so far have picked up on the song's significance huh?

[MSUBobcat]

When does the Wedge for 2022 start up???

[ursus arctos horribilis]

When does the Wedge for 2022 start up???

We are going with the same schedule I think this year in that review will go up early Wed. norning (usually around 2a to catch early E. Costers etc.) and then the preview will go up around that same time on Thursdays.

I need to get a new 2022 thread started don't I?