DO "COMPARATIVE" SCORES MEAN ANYTHIGN IN FCS?

[MUHAWKS]

I understand that most people on this board do not care much about The Big South and my team, The Monmouth Hawks, but this really applies to everything in FCS- it just seems to matter more to me and the "lower" conferences since we are always fighting for recognition. I do understand that the name of this board is "ANY GIVEN SATURDAY" but with that said, this year has shown that anything really can happen, and WINNING football games is a hard thing to do! I am using Monmouth and some related Ivy, NEC, Patriot and CAA teams in examples b/c it is what I am most familiar and intimate with. So for those that are not East Coast FCS people it may not matter.

I understand we have no choice but to rank teams on actual outcomes and wins/losses and cannot really put too much weight into other things but I guess my overall point is there is way more parity in FCS than I think most people think.

Here are some crazy examples- and I will start with Monmouth just b/c it is my team- (a little tough to follow unless you actually really care)

We get blown out by an FBS, beat Fordham by 3, get blown out by Holy Cross, have 3 league wins in which we essentially routed each team and lose to Princeton on a last second FG. We came INTO the year ranked in the TOP 15 in most polls yet we were essentially an afterthought after the Holy Cross loss. People actually saw Fordham as a "bad win", yet Fordham beat Stony Brook by 17. Stony Brook in turn took URI to double OT, beat Delaware by 17 and just beat Richmond by two scores. People will say well "URI is overrated, Delaware sucks and so does Richmond" Yet Richmond played Nova as tough as anyone, hung with Virginia Tech and did not get truly blown out against JMU. Delaware lost their QB but holy Christmas they were still a top 10 team coming in and were able to hang with JMU a bit yesterday? I can go on and on but it makes Monmouth's 3 point win against Fordham (in which their best defensive player was still playing) look decent to me? If not, what does it say for the mighty CAA?

How about The Ivy League? Columbia barely escapes a BAD Central Connecticut team- I mean they lost to LIU and a D-2 team! yet they go look like a top 20 team against Dartmouth! To me, Dartmouth looked awful and Columbia looked very good- fast and physical yet Dartmouth destroyed New Hampshire, a team who barely beat Stony Brook but almost beat JMU?. Not to turn it back to Monmouth but we controlled the Princeton game and yes we lost on a last second FG but Columbia barely moved the ball against Princeton. Which team(s) are good/bad? We can now be like "well New Hampshire stinks they just lost to Elon" but Elon barely escaped Campbell? Campbell is a team That Monmouth and Kennesaw beat handily yet Elon barely escapes? Is Elon good or bad? It seems they are NOT GOOD but if that is the case how did they beat Richmond more convincingly than Nova did? How did they beat UNH and Maine? Is it b/c UNH and Maine both stink too? Again, what does this say for The CAA? Seems like it is JMU and Nova and they all just beat each other and get credit for being this good conference yet are they really?

How about the NEC? Duquesne just got rolled by Sacred Heart, a team that lost to that same Dartmouth team by 38 pts! a Team who lost to Bryant and Howard. Yet The Dukes beat an FBS and rolled Merrimack! Merrimack sucks right? Well than what does that make Holy Cross? Okay, The Cross have tailed off but they smoked us? is Monmouth "bad"?? Well, Harvard, a team that beat HC by 25, just LOST to a Princeton team that needed almost a miracle type finish to beat Monmouth? So if Holy Cross sucks, that means Monmouth really sucks right? But if the latter is true, than what does that make Princeton and therefore what does it make Harvard or the Ivy league in general?

You want a more relevant team? Let's Take Villanova. Some blowout wins against the worst The Patriot League has to offer. A good win against JMU, fared well against FBS Penn State but then they beat Richmond by 7? They beat Albany by 7? Albany is freaking 0-7. Remember above? Richmond sucks right? Or do they not? Yet the benefit of the doubt is given and rightfully so b/c Nova has backed it up with ONE great win? Yet a team like Monmouth is looked at worse for BEATING Fordham- Kennesaw is looked at as "lets see you in the playoffs"...

I can even look at JMU a TOP 5-10 TEAM ALL YEAR. They beat this same "Bad" New Hampshire team by 2 pts!! They beat a down and out Delaware team in lackluster fashion and this awful Richmond team 19-3?

I am not mad, I have no beef but I guess the end result of what I am saying is that if you take away The Big Sky and MVFC, it seems to me the rest of FCS football is way more even than people think. I think this is b/c of "perception".. So CAA teams will keep getting "credit" for beating each other and being "good" meanwhile a team like Monmouth takes a lopsided loss to HC and they suck or Duquesne lays an egg one day and they are forgotten about, meanwhile some IVY team will find themselves in the top 12 soon enough for beating the same types of teams and a CAA team will still be ranked 23rd b/c they handles their business against teams like Albany, Richmond and Elon.

It is hard to win games. I think teams SHOULD get credit for winning I just do not think that certain tams in the East are as bad as perception and I also do not think some teams are as good as perception. The perfect example is URI. What did they do this year before yesterday? They were ranked 18, 19 and 20 in the 3 polls including this. They beat Bryant, Albany, Brown, Stony Brook and Delaware before losing to Towson. I get it- there has to some teams ranked etc etc but all I am saying is "perception" ruins what is really going in. I cannot prove this but I truly feel that teams like Campbell and even North Alabama would give 3/4 of the CAA serious problems. I also feel that a team like Fordham or Holy Cross o a GOOD NEC team could step up and beat a top 25 CAA team or similar any given week. Yet b/c of lackluster performances against other teams they quickly get downgraded.

So how much does comparative scoring matter? Do people look at it? Is it more about just win games? Is it both? It is not a secret that the gist of my angst is b/c I think The Big South is a lot better than what is perceived. It is almost as if people are like "Okay Kennesaw and Monmouth go beat up on The Charleston Southern and Campbell's and Gardner Web's of the world and it really does not mean much yet we will let CAA teams o IVY teams beat up on similar or worse and it is good. Yet Then a team like Ch Southern goes out and almost beats East Carolina and destroys Citadel or a team like Gardner Webb blows out Western Carolina by a much larger margin than Mercer and almost beats Georgia Southern and they still are considered garbage teams yet teams Like Monmouth and Kennesaw roll over these teams with ease.

IMO the answer is it is hard to win games and teams are all probably where they should be but had Monmouth gotten blown out in their playoff game last year against Sammy, RIGHT NOW they would not even be in the getting votes category and all b/c they get NO CREDIT for blowing teams like Gardner Webb, Campbell, Charleston Southern and get almost docked for BEATING Fordham while other teams get credit for beating teams that Fordham beat and similar. Again, I think teams are where they should be for the most part, I just do not think people understand that some teams that are considered to be bad are not bad while some teams that are considered decent really are in the same category as those perceived bad teams. So how much do comparative scores matter?

[taper]

It's well known that the transitive property doesn't work in football. This season is especially bad because so many took last year off. Early games still count towards standings but imho mean a lot less in subjective rankings. I think the AGS poll is pretty good at averaging out a lot of bias, but nobody has ever claimed polls are perfect.

[CenMEBlackBearFan]

Checked out the Massey ratings which is strictly a computer based ratings and found that many of the CAA teams are below your team and the Cross. I question the idea that Monmouth is better than all the CAA teams except for JMU, Nova and W&M. Not saying I agree with this ratings but thought I would share them with you and maybe make you feel a little better. Here's to hoping Maine and Monmouth get to make up their game from last year.
JMU-10
Nova-12
W&M-29
HC-40
Monmouth-41
URI-43
Elon-44
UNH-46
Towson-49
Richmond-53
Maine-61
Albany-67, this might show the CAA is sort of competitive at 0-7xthumbsupx

[smilo]

Frankly, I hate to make excuses, but your examples are terrible.

The Albany game was a) in the rain and no passes could be completed - hence why our high-powered offense was 9/22 passing; b) Albany is much better than their record indicates and it was a road game - they've lost by 2, 5, 7, and 3 in conference and to the #2 FCS team. And besides that, it is one data point. Is Coastal Carolina better than Oklahoma because they has a much easier time with an atrocious Kansas team?

And, for the record, Villanova dominated Richmond in all efficiency statistics and yardage (480 to 326!!), victimized by a kickoff return, a bad fumble giving Richmond a very short field, and an interception for a touchback on a missed PI call. I have been very critical of Villanova, but outside of the 3rd quarter of this game, they've been pretty close to perfect this year.

Convenient to ignore the massacre we put on Rhode Island yesterday. The score line is gentle compared to the yardage. You shouldn't be looking at scores anyway if you want to know who a good team is. You need to look at yardage (and more specifically yardage by down, broken down by distance).


James Madison similarly throttled Delaware 314-109 and Richmond 370-188 and UNH 432-162. These are not close and considered elite defensive performances against far better teams than Monmouth will play. The passing game is imperfect, but that's why they aren't a top 5 team this year and may get stuck with a first round game. James Madison also beat a very good Weber State team on the road, but the game was closer than the score line indicates in that case.

[MUHAWKS]

Frankly, I hate to make excuses, but your examples are terrible.

The Albany game was a) in the rain and no passes could be completed - hence why our high-powered offense was 9/22 passing; b) Albany is much better than their record indicates and it was a road game - they've lost by 2, 5, 7, and 3 in conference and to the #2 FCS team. And besides that, it is one data point. Is Coastal Carolina better than Oklahoma because they has a much easier time with an atrocious Kansas team?

And, for the record, Villanova dominated Richmond in all efficiency statistics and yardage (480 to 326!!), victimized by a kickoff return, a bad fumble giving Richmond a very short field, and an interception for a touchback on a missed PI call. I have been very critical of Villanova, but outside of the 3rd quarter of this game, they've been pretty close to perfect this year.

Convenient to ignore the massacre we put on Rhode Island yesterday. The score line is gentle compared to the yardage. You shouldn't be looking at scores anyway if you want to know who a good team is. You need to look at yardage (and more specifically yardage by down, broken down by distance).


James Madison similarly throttled Delaware 314-109 and Richmond 370-188 and UNH 432-162. These are not close and considered elite defensive performances against far better teams than Monmouth will play. The passing game is imperfect, but that's why they aren't a top 5 team this year and may get stuck with a first round game. James Madison also beat a very good Weber State team on the road, but the game was closer than the score line indicates in that case.

Sure, YOU can say Albany is much better than their record but imagine I say North Alabama is much better than their record? And yes I am NOT saying that one data point of comparing scores matters too much (your CCU/Oklahoma example) I am just using it to make a point that teams that are "considered" average to not good will stay that way even thought he actual facts of comparing similar games, many times say otherwise. So when Elon, who is now considered in the upper half or even 1/3 of the CAA barely gets by Campbell, nobody blinks an eye, yet when Kennesaw and Monmouth handle them it is " a win against a bad team"... Or when New Hampshire gets routed by Dartmouth it is b/c The Ivy League is all of a sudden The Big Sky yet Dartmouth looked like a high school team against Columbia, who although improved still beat CCSU by 2 and has not really been dominant. I am def not picking on Nova at all not even close. I did not leave out URI but I thought it was common knowledge that URI was vastly overrated? THAT IS MY POINT> Beating URI 44-0 is a big deal and good win but why should it be any diff than beating a Big South team by the same? URI needed overtime to beat Stony Brook who everyone here told me is pure trash. They got blown out by Towson, beat a middle of the pack IVY, beat winless Albany by 2 and beat a sub .500 Delaware team without their QB- I am not saying its bad to win games but how does that make URI "good"?? Why does beating Albany by 2 and needing overtime to beat Stony Brook make a team a ranked up and comer? It is clearly b/c its the "CAA" which relies on perception over performance. So Unless guys are going to now actually give credit to a team like Monmouth for beating Fordham (who blew out Stony Brook) I think it is absurd to call beating CAA teams by 2 and 5 a bigger deal than Monmouth blowing out their Big South teams, the same Big South teams that play competitively against very similar comp as some of these CAA teams.

So again, no axe to grind against the CAA but I just do not see how "Elon" is considered a good win for anyone in the CAA when Campbell went for 2 to win the game and missed, yet Campbell is an also ran in The Big South? How many times can we say "it is just one data point" -- My main gripe is that a Big South team like Monmouth can go 6-1 in conference for example, and 2-2 or 1-3 OOC and there is not even a sniff of anyone thinking they belong in the playoffs at 7-4 or 8-3 yet EVERY YEAR multiple CAA teams either make it or are strongly considered and it is all b/c Monmouth, Kennesaw do not get any credit for beating teams in their conf. who are just as good as many of the teams in the CAA not named JMU or Nova. And again you make assumptions that teams like Richmond, Delaware and UNH are "far better teams" than Monmouth will play. That is my basic point. I DO NOT THINK Elon, Albany, Towson, URI, Richmond are that good. I think they are decent FCS teams on a similar level as Campbell, North Alabama, Charleston Southern, Gardener Webb. You can call me crazy but that is only b/c people base stuff on perception form past years. It is also why I asked about comparative scores. I appreciate your response and I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. Clearly Nova is very good, but that does not mean Albany, Richmond, URI Elon are. I think 100% of CAA people automatically assume UNH and Richmond are better than the whole Big South sans Monmouth and Kennesaw and what would it be backed up with? In UNH case how can it be backed up? A 6 pt win against Stony Brook? Beating Towson and a 6 pt win against Lafayette? 70 pt loss to Pitt? ooh look they played JMU close!! then get taken to school by what looks to be the 3rd or 4th best Ivy. Then they lose to Elon by 2 scores! A team Campbell was 2 yards away from beating. So I ask, is UNH good? How about Richmond? Are they good? I am honestly not sure, they seem competitive but they got beat by Stony Brook and Elon by 2 scores each. I just do not see how beating teams like are considered better than beating Big South or Patriot teams? I could be wrong, and I know I am in the minority and none of this is really provable so I will stop here but the CAA is vastly overrated and the Big South is under rated, a combo of the two. The TOP of the CAA is better for sure but the bottom and middle of the CAA is identical to The Big South in my opinion yet The top 1/3 of the CAA get way way more credit for beating the rest of that CAA which I think is BS>.

[MUHAWKS]

Checked out the Massey ratings which is strictly a computer based ratings and found that many of the CAA teams are below your team and the Cross. I question the idea that Monmouth is better than all the CAA teams except for JMU, Nova and W&M. Not saying I agree with this ratings but thought I would share them with you and maybe make you feel a little better. Here's to hoping Maine and Monmouth get to make up their game from last year.
JMU-10
Nova-12
W&M-29
HC-40
Monmouth-41
URI-43
Elon-44
UNH-46
Towson-49
Richmond-53
Maine-61
Albany-67, this might show the CAA is sort of competitive at 0-7xthumbsupx


Thank You! yes, tough to put much faith in these, but obviously this helps my argument only a bit. I do agree. I think the top of The Big South is better than the rest of the CAA but I think the tp of the CAA is better than The top of The Big South. My wish os for the eventual 7-4, 8-3 CAA teams to stop getting so much credit for beating the bottom teams in the CAA when compared to other conferences. Nobody is going to be able to convince me that Elon, Towson, Maine, Richmond,, UNH wins are any better than beating Charleston Southern, North Alabama, Gardner Webb, Campbell etc etc..

[smilo]

"No one is going to convince you" as you say, but SP+ which is the best predictive measure alive says Richmond would be favored by 16 over North Alabama, and Delaware/Rhode Island would favored by 12 (before this last week's disaster). Tack on another 4 for vs
Gardner-Webb and 9 vs. Hampton.

Charleston Southern would be a Pick 'Em against winless Albany. Definitely no gimme but not a huge threat.

Also would like to point out that despite what the standings may say, Elon only barely rates better than Albany and Maine, and I'm skeptical that they will finish above both. So certainly not too half of the conference.

Monmouth is already ranked ahead of the bottom 10 CAA teams and rightfully so. The CAA stinks this year, a fourth straight season of major decline. You have a lot to be proud of as a program. Firstly, remember you are not competing with these teams for playoff spots this season - you are competing with the Valley and Big Sky, which are a lot better, and maybe WAC which is on par and why it's tough to call them top 25.

Secondly, ignoring KSU which would be a good loss, your conference has 3 teams on par with the CAA afterthoughts and 4 teams significantly worse. It should be taken for granted that you go 4-0 in those games. For the other 3 (CSU, Campbell, A&T), you can go 3-0, and it doesn't necessarily make it much more impressive than a CAA school that goes 5-2 with loss(es) to e.g., Albany and Stony Brook. It's easier across to win a smaller sample size and when you don't have this relatively grueling schedule week in and week out instead of every other week. Fortunately for you, I don't think that 5-2 team exists this season, but Monmouth isn't just 3-0 either. They can be 3-1 because they scheduled HC from that same tier. (I'll call Princeton a good loss.)

Don't feel too bad about public perception. On the plus side, you'll have less wear cone playoff time which counts for a lot. I wouldn't exactly want to be paired up.

Good luck though, and I hope you are invited as JMU's replacement so you see the grind of the "power" conference schedule in a down year. Great program, great fit - fun rivalry potential.

[MUHAWKS]

Smilo- yeah good points- I re read what I wrote and I feel I sound a little angry and harsh LOL- which was not my true intent. I just see some of these Big South teams play every week with huge o lines and FBS transfers and athletes all over the field and they may not know how to win yet consistently but I get the feel that the rest of the country thinks that playing Campbell or North Alabama or similar is like playing Lehigh every week and some of these teams are good! No sense in continuing the debate you seem pretty fair in your assessment. Yes I really hope we move to the CAA- I am sick of the geography- I used to go to a lo of Monmouth road games but going to some of these schools is tough.

As for the playoffs, I know we ruined our chance at an at large by losing to HC and Princeton but I guess where it matters is if we HAD beaten Princeton but lose to Kennesaw, we would be 8-3 with an FBS loss, loss to Kennesaw and HC- I think 99% of folks would think that is no deserving of an at large and while it may be right I think at the same time a 7-4 CAA team would get more consideration and 8-3 CAA would be in. Who knows, we need to win our last 4 games and then we can see what happens.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Smilo- yeah good points- I re read what I wrote and I feel I sound a little angry and harsh LOL- which was not my true intent. I just see some of these Big South teams play every week with huge o lines and FBS transfers and athletes all over the field and they may not know how to win yet consistently but I get the feel that the rest of the country thinks that playing Campbell or North Alabama or similar is like playing Lehigh every week and some of these teams are good! No sense in continuing the debate you seem pretty fair in your assessment. Yes I really hope we move to the CAA- I am sick of the geography- I used to go to a lo of Monmouth road games but going to some of these schools is tough.

As for the playoffs, I know we ruined our chance at an at large by losing to HC and Princeton but I guess where it matters is if we HAD beaten Princeton but lose to Kennesaw, we would be 8-3 with an FBS loss, loss to Kennesaw and HC- I think 99% of folks would think that is no deserving of an at large and while it may be right I think at the same time a 7-4 CAA team would get more consideration and 8-3 CAA would be in. Who knows, we need to win our last 4 games and then we can see what happens.

Monmouth is in same position as Holy Cross right now. Win your conference or go home.

As far as at-large berths from the CAA this year, that league is basically Villanova, JMU and then everyone else. I don't see 7-4 out of the CAA as a birthright to make the playoffs this year...unless a school with that record finishes in the Top 3 in the conference standings.

I think Holy Cross would have had a great shot at an at-large at 9-2 IF we had beaten EITHER Merrimack or Harvard (of course neither game was particularly close so no need to harp on it) and ended up in 2nd place in the PL at 5-1. Monmouth same if they'd beaten either Princeton or HC IMO. But good luck to you guys winning the Big South!

[MUHAWKS]

Monmouth is in same position as Holy Cross right now. Win your conference or go home.

As far as at-large berths from the CAA this year, that league is basically Villanova, JMU and then everyone else. I don't see 7-4 out of the CAA as a birthright to make the playoffs this year...unless a school with that record finishes in the Top 3 in the conference standings.

I think Holy Cross would have had a great shot at an at-large at 9-2 IF we had beaten EITHER Merrimack or Harvard (of course neither game was particularly close so no need to harp on it) and ended up in 2nd place in the PL at 5-1. Monmouth same if they'd beaten either Princeton or HC IMO. But good luck to you guys winning the Big South!


Yep, 100%- Looking forward to HC/Fordham result, feels like it will be a great game..Although I assume HC people are slightly worried about Lafayette.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Sure, YOU can say Albany is much better than their record but imagine I say North Alabama is much better than their record? And yes I am NOT saying that one data point of comparing scores matters too much (your CCU/Oklahoma example) I am just using it to make a point that teams that are "considered" average to not good will stay that way even thought he actual facts of comparing similar games, many times say otherwise. So when Elon, who is now considered in the upper half or even 1/3 of the CAA barely gets by Campbell, nobody blinks an eye, yet when Kennesaw and Monmouth handle them it is " a win against a bad team"... Or when New Hampshire gets routed by Dartmouth it is b/c The Ivy League is all of a sudden The Big Sky yet Dartmouth looked like a high school team against Columbia, who although improved still beat CCSU by 2 and has not really been dominant. I am def not picking on Nova at all not even close. I did not leave out URI but I thought it was common knowledge that URI was vastly overrated? THAT IS MY POINT> Beating URI 44-0 is a big deal and good win but why should it be any diff than beating a Big South team by the same? URI needed overtime to beat Stony Brook who everyone here told me is pure trash. They got blown out by Towson, beat a middle of the pack IVY, beat winless Albany by 2 and beat a sub .500 Delaware team without their QB- I am not saying its bad to win games but how does that make URI "good"?? Why does beating Albany by 2 and needing overtime to beat Stony Brook make a team a ranked up and comer? It is clearly b/c its the "CAA" which relies on perception over performance. So Unless guys are going to now actually give credit to a team like Monmouth for beating Fordham (who blew out Stony Brook) I think it is absurd to call beating CAA teams by 2 and 5 a bigger deal than Monmouth blowing out their Big South teams, the same Big South teams that play competitively against very similar comp as some of these CAA teams.

So again, no axe to grind against the CAA but I just do not see how "Elon" is considered a good win for anyone in the CAA when Campbell went for 2 to win the game and missed, yet Campbell is an also ran in The Big South? How many times can we say "it is just one data point" -- My main gripe is that a Big South team like Monmouth can go 6-1 in conference for example, and 2-2 or 1-3 OOC and there is not even a sniff of anyone thinking they belong in the playoffs at 7-4 or 8-3 yet EVERY YEAR multiple CAA teams either make it or are strongly considered and it is all b/c Monmouth, Kennesaw do not get any credit for beating teams in their conf. who are just as good as many of the teams in the CAA not named JMU or Nova. And again you make assumptions that teams like Richmond, Delaware and UNH are "far better teams" than Monmouth will play. That is my basic point. I DO NOT THINK Elon, Albany, Towson, URI, Richmond are that good. I think they are decent FCS teams on a similar level as Campbell, North Alabama, Charleston Southern, Gardener Webb. You can call me crazy but that is only b/c people base stuff on perception form past years. It is also why I asked about comparative scores. I appreciate your response and I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. Clearly Nova is very good, but that does not mean Albany, Richmond, URI Elon are. I think 100% of CAA people automatically assume UNH and Richmond are better than the whole Big South sans Monmouth and Kennesaw and what would it be backed up with? In UNH case how can it be backed up? A 6 pt win against Stony Brook? Beating Towson and a 6 pt win against Lafayette? 70 pt loss to Pitt? ooh look they played JMU close!! then get taken to school by what looks to be the 3rd or 4th best Ivy. Then they lose to Elon by 2 scores! A team Campbell was 2 yards away from beating. So I ask, is UNH good? How about Richmond? Are they good? I am honestly not sure, they seem competitive but they got beat by Stony Brook and Elon by 2 scores each. I just do not see how beating teams like are considered better than beating Big South or Patriot teams? I could be wrong, and I know I am in the minority and none of this is really provable so I will stop here but the CAA is vastly overrated and the Big South is under rated, a combo of the two. The TOP of the CAA is better for sure but the bottom and middle of the CAA is identical to The Big South in my opinion yet The top 1/3 of the CAA get way way more credit for beating the rest of that CAA which I think is BS>.

......WINNIN' DUH 16-14 GAMES........ARE DUH SEASON MAKERS FO' TEAMS.........LEE CORSO SAID.......UH TEAM WILL ENCOUNTER AN AVG UH 3 LIKELY GAMES O' DIS NATURE....INNA SEASON....ALL KINDS UH REASONS....TEAMS COMIN' OFF BYES....OUTTAH SYNC AN' SPEED O' GAME.....TRAPS AS BIG WINS EXTOLLIN' MUCHO EFFORT.....LEAVES NUFFIN' IN TANK NEXT WEEK.......WHAA 'BOUT TIPPED BALLS....BLOCKS....INTS.......AGAIN CORSO.....80% UH TEAMS WHO ARE ON PLUS SIDE OF A PICK-SIX.....SCOOP/SCORE ETC.....PUNT/KICK RETURN TD.....WILL WIN DAT GAME.......EACH GAME IS AN ENTITY OF IT'S OWN....DELAWARE HELD JMU TA 22 POINTS......WEBER STATE 37....AN' DUH DWEEB ARE NOTED FO' "D"........IT'S WHAA VEGAS ALWAYS COMES OUT ON TOP.........BRAWK!

[NY Crusader 2010]

Yep, 100%- Looking forward to HC/Fordham result, feels like it will be a great game..Although I assume HC people are slightly worried about Lafayette.

Yes. But I'd rather lose to Lafayette than lose to Fordham. In that case (lose to Laffy but beat Fordham), we could end up with a 3-way tie if HC, Lafayette and Fordham win the rest of their games. I'm fairly certain that HC would get the AQ in that scenario.

[CHIP72]

At this point in the season, teams have enough results that their win-loss records, and their opponents' (and even opponents' opponents') win-loss records are a better indicator of team quality than scoring margins. Early in the season scoring margins can mean something and are usually more important.

[Professor Chaos]

I think comparative scores/transitive property do/does have some value but you can't treat it as gospel. The thing you have to be careful of is that every team is going to have a few games where they play above their actual level and a few games where they play below their actual level so that can really skew things if you put too much stock in comparative scores. When you're able to line up 2-3 or more instances of comparative scores that say the same thing you can be a little more confident in using it to judge one team vs another. xtwocentsx

[MSUBobcat]

My weekly pick 'em scores, from oldest to newest: 17, 24, 20, 17, 22, 15, 13, 20. Making my weekly picks I have used results against common opponents (or opponents' opponents) where possible. In weeks 1-5, there was not a lot of crossover and I averaged 20 pts/wk. In weeks 6 and 7, where there was starting to be a bit more common opponents.... I straight up SUCKED, averaging 70% of the first 5 weeks' average. In week 8, I tried to use results against common opponents less and.... I went back up to 20 pts (my average before I was able to use common opponents). Anecdotal evidence at best, but in my case... the more heavily I try to weigh results against common opponents, the worse I do.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Comparative scores mean everything!!!

Especially when you're me and you're a JETS fan. We beat the Titans. Titans beat the by Chiefs by 24. So safe to say the Jets would easily beat Kansas City by 4 scores.

[CenMEBlackBearFan]

Comparative scores mean everything!!!

Especially when you're me and you're a JETS fan. We beat the Titans. Titans beat the by Chiefs by 24. So safe to say the Jets would easily beat Kansas City by 4 scores.

OMG, a J E T S fan, yesterday was hell for you or maybe you are used to it, hopefully notxpeacex

[HootyHoo]

Remember kids: scores don’t matter. Did South Dakota St and Eastern Washington really “lose” this weekend? The casual fan would say yes. But look again, they didn’t lose. They just had less points than their opponent after 4 quarters.
And let’s be honest, Northern Iowa has probably beaten North Dakota St at some point this century, so really South Dakota St should go up in the rankings for playing such a competitive game. It’s Science.

[HensRock]

This year, even JMU is not the JMU we are used to seeing.
I've been telling anyone who would listen that Delaware was way over-rated since week 2. Rhody's "signature" win was Delaware, so they by extension should fall from the rankings now too since they were shutout by Nova on Saturday. As others here have said, the CAA is probably a 2-bid league this season. Maybe W&M can make a run at it.

There is not a whole lot to choose from for say #15-#25 in the nation this year. It's a crapshoot.
For what it is worth, I think Monmouth should get some consideration for a ranking maybe in the #22-#25 range.

[ElCid]

My weekly pick 'em scores, from oldest to newest: 17, 24, 20, 17, 22, 15, 13, 20. Making my weekly picks I have used results against common opponents (or opponents' opponents) where possible. In weeks 1-5, there was not a lot of crossover and I averaged 20 pts/wk. In weeks 6 and 7, where there was starting to be a bit more common opponents.... I straight up SUCKED, averaging 70% of the first 5 weeks' average. In week 8, I tried to use results against common opponents less and.... I went back up to 20 pts (my average before I was able to use common opponents). Anecdotal evidence at best, but in my case... the more heavily I try to weigh results against common opponents, the worse I do.

I could have written this. Followed my process exactly.

I scored 27 the first week!!! 13 in week eight!!! Got to remember exactly what I did.

[Rjones61]

I think this website gives the best illustration for why the transitive property is irrelevant in football.

https://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/path

https://i.imgur.com/cJzRRtW.png

[MUHAWKS]

I think this website gives the best illustration for why the transitive property is irrelevant in football.

https://myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/path

https://i.imgur.com/cJzRRtW.png

THIS IS AWESOME!

[atthewbon]

THIS IS AWESOME!

Yea this site is amazing. I think it also works for college basketball.