Massey 2023 Pre-Season Projections | W-L | Playoff Teams - AQ & At-Large

[FUBeAR]

The CAA peeps were having some fun with Massey’s pre-season ish, so FUBeAR decided to broaden out their perspective.

So…below are the records Massey projects for the Top-Ranked 105 FCS Teams (down to the final Playoff (Auto)Qualifier).

Bolded Teams with Bolded Conference Names are the Conference AQ’s - that’s assuming FUBeAR has moved everyone to the correct conference (Massey has not) and understands things properly (thinking only 10 AQ’s this year…right?)…and didn’t screw up as he was looking at what Team A did vs. Team B & Team C in Conference X.

The only one that needed a non-head-to-head tie-breaker was the CAA and FUBeAR didn’t find that the CAA has published their scheme yet, so just went with Massey having William & Mary more highly ranked. This almost knocked 10-1 Delaware out of the Playoffs, but with Missouri State and Idaho only having 5 D1 Wins each, they were excluded (via FUBeAR fiat), allowing Delaware and Youngstown State to qualify for At-Large berths.

Bolded Teams with the Conference Name NOT Bolded are At-Large Selections based on Massey’s pre-season rankings…except as noted above.

The 8 Seeds are the Top 8 Teams - 3 MVFC Teams & 5 Big Sky Teams - PERFECT! (cough, sputter, spit, vomit in FUBeAR’s mouth a little).

So, we have…

6 MVFC Teams (3 seeded)
5 Big Sky Teams (All seeded - insert best eye roll meme here)
4 SoCon Teams (LOL - sure we do, nudge, nudge, wink, wink…none seeded, of course)
3 CAA Teams (none seeded)
All other conferences are AQ Team only

Thoughts? Anyone wanna create the bracket?

Villanova fans will not be happy with this projection, will they?



Massey
Rank
Team
Conference
All W's
All L's
FCS W's
FCS L's
FBS W's
FBS L's
< D1 W's
< D1 L's


1
South Dakota State
MVFC
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


2
North Dakota State
MVFC
10
1
10
1
0
0
0
0


3
Montana State
Big Sky
7
4
7
4
0
0
0
0


4
Sacramento State
Big Sky
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


5
Montana
Big Sky
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


6
Weber State
Big Sky
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


7
Northern Iowa
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


8
UC Davis
Big Sky
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


9
Southern Illinois
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


10
Furman
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


11
Incarnate Word
Southland
10
1
9
0
0
1
1
0


12
North Dakota
MVFC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


13
Samford
SoCon
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


14
Chattanooga
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


15
Mercer
SoCon
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


16
Richmond
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


17
Missouri State^
MVFC
5
6
5^
5
0
1
0
0


18
Idaho^
Big Sky
5
6
5^
4
0
2
0
0


19*
William & Mary*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


20*
Delaware*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


21
Youngstown State
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


22
SE Missouri State
OVC/Big South
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


23
South Dakota
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


24
SE Louisiana
Southland
7
4
7
2
0
2
0
0


25
Elon
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


26
Holy Cross
Patriot
8
3
8
1
0
2
0
0


27
Austin Peay
UAC
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


28
Eastern Washington
Big Sky
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


29
Illinois State
MVFC
6
5
6
5
0
0
0
0


30
UT Martin
OVC/Big South
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


31
Princeton
Ivy
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0


32
Central Arkansas
UAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


33
Villanova
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


34
East Tennesee State
SoCon
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


35
Yale
Ivy
9
1
9
1
0
0
0
0


36
Rhode Island
CAA
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


37
Eastern Kentucky
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


38
Stephen F Austin
UAC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


39
Abilene Christian
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


40
Harvard
Ivy
7
3
7
3
0
0
0
0


41
Northern Arizona
Big Sky
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


42
New Hampshire
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


43
Jackson State
SWAC East
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


44
Dartmouth
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


45
Kennesaw
Ind. - Trans.
6
3
3
2
0
1
3
0


46
Western Carolina
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


47
Wofford
SoCon
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


48
Monmouth
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


49
Indiana State
MVFC
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


50
The Citadel
SoCon
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


51
Southern Utah
UAC
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


52
Towson
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


53
Gardner-Webb
OVC/Big South
5
6
5
4
0
2
0
0


54
Maine
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


55
Portland State
Big Sky
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


56
Albany
CAA
4
8
4
6
0
2
0
0


57
Fordham
Patriot
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


58
Campbell
CAA
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


59
Penn
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


60
North Carolina A&T
CAA
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


61
Western Illinois
MVFC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


62
St. Francis PA
NEC
8
2
8
1
0
1
0
0


63
Nicholls State
Southland
4
7
4
5
0
2
0
0


64
Tarleton State
UAC
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


65
McNeese State
Southland
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


66
Idaho State
Big Sky
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


67
VMi
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


68
Florida A&M
SWAC East
6
4
6
2
0
1
0
1


69
Columbia
Ivy
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0


70
Stony Brook
CAA
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


71
Northern Colorado
Big Sky
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


72
Charleston Southern
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


73
Tennessee Tech
OVC/Big South
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


74
Utah Tech
UAC
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


75
Southern U.
SWAC West
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0


76
Texas A&M Commerce
Southland
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


77
Murray State
MVFC
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


78
NC Central
MEAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


79
Tennessee State
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


80
North Alabama
UAC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


81
Prairie View
SWAC West
6
5
6
3
0
1
0
0


82
Alcorn State
SWAC West
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


83
Cal Poly
Big Sky
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


84
Eastern Illinois
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


85
Bryant
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


86
Lindenwood
OVC/Big South
3
7
2
7
0
0
1
0


87
Cornell
Ivy
4
6
4
6
0
0
0
0


88
Colgate
Patriot
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


89
Duquesne
NEC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


90
Lafayette
Patriot
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


91
Northwestern State
Southland
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


92
Sacred Heart
NEC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


93
Hampton
CAA
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


94
SC State
MEAC
5
6
4
4
0
2
1
0


95
Alabama State
SWAC East
6
5
4
5
0
0
2
0


96
Brown
Ivy
1
9
1
9
0
0
0
0


97
Texas Southern
SWAC West
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


98
Howard
MEAC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


99
Lehigh
Patriot
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


100
Alabama A&M
SWAC East
6
5
4
4
0
1
2
0


101
Merrimack
NEC
6
5
5
4
0
1
1
0


102
Lamar
Southland
2
9
1
8
0
1
1
0


103
St. Thomas
PFL
8
3
7
3
0
0
1
0


104
Grambling
SWAC West
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


105
San Diego
PFL
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0

[lionsrking2]

Massey is worthless especially this time of year

[FUBeAR]

Massey is worthless especially this time of year
Was just thinking that SELA folks would not be happy with FUBeAR ‘letting’ YSU in with only 6 D1 wins when a lot of people say 7 is req’d…which would have put SELA as the last Team in this imaginary field. Think the wording that has been previously published says “Teams with less than 6 D1 wins risk…”

Anyway - Massey is not worthless. FUBeAR had a lot of fun looking at how these projections would shake out.

[caribbeanhen]

Massey is worthless especially this time of year

Maybe they will send you another hyped up Big Sky team for Thanksgiving!! You ate lots of potatoes last year

[rhowdyram]

I find it very hard to believe there will be 35 better teams in FCS than Rhode Island if we get to 8 wins. Also, I don't believe an 8 win CAA team has ever missed the playoffs.

[McCowboys]

Was just thinking that SELA folks would not be happy with FUBeAR ‘letting’ YSU in with only 6 D1 wins when a lot of people say 7 is req’d…which would have put SELA as the last Team in this imaginary field. Think the wording that has been previously published says “Teams with less than 6 D1 wins risk…”

Anyway - Massey is not worthless. FUBeAR had a lot of fun looking at how these projections would shake out.

This is why we play the games!
IF McNeese were to raise its record from 4-7 to 8-3 and is still ranked #65, that would be nuts!

[FUBeAR]

I find it very hard to believe there will be 35 better teams in FCS than Rhode Island if we get to 8 wins. Also, I don't believe an 8 win CAA team has ever missed the playoffs.
With 9 win Villanova having a 3 point win over the Rams sitting on the outside looking in, why in the world do you think Rhode Island would possibly get an At-Large bid? With your best win being over the #42 Team, it just ain't happenin'

[MR. CHICKEN]

.........10-1.....AN' HENS.....EEEK IN.......??....xeekx......BRAWK?

[FUBeAR]

This is why we play the games!
IF McNeese were to raise its record from 4-7 to 8-3 and is still ranked #65, that would be nuts!The Cowboys have the same problem as Rhode Island, but worse. The best win is a 2-point squeaker at home over the 63rd ranked Team. That's not gonna move you up much in the rankings.

[FUBeAR]

.........10-1.....AN' HENS.....EEEK IN.......??....xeekx......BRAWK?Yep - this is the NEW (diluted) CAA!

The AzureChickens are lucky FUBeAR decided to adhere to that < 6 D1 wins guideline. Otherwise, y'all would be 10-1 / 10-0 FCS and still home for Thanksgiving - just trying to make sure peeps don't think you're turkeys!

[FUBeAR]

Maybe they will send you another hyped up Big Sky team for Thanksgiving!! You ate lots of potatoes last year
https://storage2.snappages.site/CRSFBG/assets/images/10354007_1280x720_2500.jpg

[rhowdyram]

With 9 win Villanova having a 3 point win over the Rams sitting on the outside looking in, why in the world do you think Rhode Island would possibly get an At-Large bid? With your best win being over the #42 Team, it just ain't happenin'

I'm not saying we will get in with 8, I'm just saying that I don't believe an 8 win CAA team has ever been left out of the playoffs before in real life, let alone a 9 win team like Villanova in his projections.

[caribbeanhen]

I'm not saying we will get in with 8, I'm just saying that I don't believe an 8 win CAA team has ever been left out of the playoffs before in real life, let alone a 9 win team like Villanova in his projections.

I bet if Massey was asked, he would say these really aren’t my projections because the pre season poll is FUBAR …

[FUBeAR]

I bet if Massey was asked, he would say these really aren’t my projections because the pre season poll is FUBAR …
So...are you saying Mercer is NOT going to win the SoCon AutoBid...or that the SoCon is not going to get 4 Teams in the Playoffs...or both?

[caribbeanhen]

So...are you saying Mercer is NOT going to win the SoCon AutoBid...or that the SoCon is not going to get 4 Teams in the Playoffs...or both?

4 Southern Conference teams in playoffs?

I’ll get back to you after week 4 but probably not unless the committee is hypnotized

[Catamount87]

They actually say "Record against Division I opponents (an institution with fewer than six Division I wins may place that team in jeopardy of not being selected)".




Was just thinking that SELA folks would not be happy with FUBeAR ‘letting’ YSU in with only 6 D1 wins when a lot of people say 7 is req’d…which would have put SELA as the last Team in this imaginary field. Think the wording that has been previously published says “Teams with less than 6 D1 wins risk…”

Anyway - Massey is not worthless. FUBeAR had a lot of fun looking at how these projections would shake out.

[Tribe4SF]

Dumbest thread of the year so far.

[FUBeAR]

Dumbest thread of the year so far.
So, are you more upset that W&M didn’t receive a Top 8 Seed or that only 3 CAA Teams made the Playoffs, with Delaware just squeaking in by a hen’s tooth?

[McCowboys]

The Cowboys have the same problem as Rhode Island, but worse. The best win is a 2-point squeaker at home over the 63rd ranked Team. That's not gonna move you up much in the rankings.

I'm not saying McNeese would make or deserve a playoff spot with that record (the Cowboys were "woffed" a few years back with a good record that the "committee" didn't think was good enough), but if McNeese were to be 8-3 and still rank #65, that would be nuts!

[MR. CHICKEN]

So, are you more upset that W&M didn’t receive a Top 8 Seed or that only 3 CAA Teams made the Playoffs, with Delaware just squeaking in by a hen’s tooth?


....BUT EVERAH-ONE SAID....LAST YEARS HENS @ 7-4.....GOT IN WHIFF...ATTENDANCE ADVANTAGE...xsighx...AWQ!

[FUBeAR]

....BUT EVERAH-ONE SAID....LAST YEARS HENS @ 7-4.....GOT IN WHIFF...ATTENDANCE ADVANTAGE...xsighx...AWQ!
The great Mr. Massey does not sully his projections with such shallow mercenary considerations. Unlike the FCS Playoff Selection Committee, Mr. Massey has integrity!

He let YouDee just barely sneak into his Playoff bracket because of a solid record, though a weak OOC schedule AND a weak in-conference schedule nearly sent the mini-turkeys home for T’Giving. Best wins were over #25 Elon and #33 Villanova. Those are OK, but not setting anyone’s tail feathers to a-ruffling.

#DefundTheCommittee

[DFW HOYA]

What happened to the teams below 105?

[FUBeAR]

What happened to the teams below 105?
Ask and ye shall receive. FUBeAR aims to please…



Massey
Rank
Team
Conference
All W's
All L's
FCS W's
FCS L's
FBS W's
FBS L's
< D1 W's
< D1 L's


106
Central Connecticut
NEC
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


107
Houston Christian
Southland
1
10
0
9
0
1
1
0


108
Morgan State
MEAC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


109
Bethune-Cookman
SWAC East
2
9
1
7
0
2
1
0


110
Davidson
PFL
9
2
7
2
0
0
2
0


111
Bucknell
Patriot
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


112
Dayton
PFL
7
4
5
4
0
0
2
0


113
Georgetown
Patriot
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


114
Norfolk State
MEAC
2
9
1
8
0
1
1
0


115
Robert Morris
OVC/Big South
1
10
0
9
0
1
1
0


116
LIU Post
NEC
2
9
2
7
0
2
0
0


117
Delaware State
MEAC
3
8
1
6
0
2
2
0


118
Mississippi Valley State
SWAC East
2
9
1
8
0
0
1
1


119
Arkansas Pine Bluff
SWAC West
1
10
0
9
0
1
1
0


120
Drake
PFL
5
6
5
5
0
0
0
1


121
Stonehill
NEC
1
9
1
9
0
0
0
0


122
Valparaiso
PFL
5
6
3
6
0
0
2
0


123
Butler
PFL
7
4
5
4
0
0
2
0


124
Wagner
NEC
1
10
0
8
0
2
1
0


125
Marist
PFL
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


126
Morehead State
PFL
2
9
1
9
0
0
1
0


127
Stetson
PFL
3
8
1
8
0
0
2
0


128
Presbyterian
PFL
1
10
0
10
0
0
1
0

[Chalupa Batman]

Just so I'm understanding this "exercise" correctly..... we're using Massey preseason ratings (which are based on who knows what) and then after simulating the entire season we're to expect the rankings won't change a single bit, every team stays EXACTLY in the same order they were in the preseason?

[FUBeAR]

Just so I'm understanding this "exercise" correctly..... we're using Massey preseason ratings (which are based on who knows what) and then after simulating the entire season we're to expect the rankings won't change a single bit, every team stays EXACTLY in the same order they were in the preseason?
All games are already projected with outcomes & scores. Why wouldn’t the present rankings be reflective of those projected future outcomes?

Sure, it’s difficult to understand how 7-4 Montana State could lose to 11-0 Big Sky AQ Montana and still be ranked a couple of spots ahead of the Griz, but FUBeAR doesn’t want to overthink it. The great and powerful Massey, much like the Playoff Selection Committee, and all other pre-season polls, computer rankings, prognosticators, and pundits are all widely known to be infallible.

[Chalupa Batman]

All games are already projected with outcomes & scores. Why wouldn’t the present rankings be reflective of those projected future outcomes?

Do we know that? I tried finding if they were trying to predict the upcoming season, or if they were just a starting point to the upcoming season based mostly on how teams ended the previous one. I did a little searching but couldn't find anything stating what exactly the preseason ratings were based off or trying to accomplish. Seems more likely to me that it's based mostly on how teams ended the previous season, but maybe something's out there that changes my mind.

And even if the Massey rating is trying to be a predictor for the season, how is it taking into account (or is it even aware?) teams like Weber State, Sac State, Incarnate Word, SDSU (and others) that have new head coaches? Or losses to graduation along with transfer portal additions/subtractions for each team?


Sure, it’s difficult to understand how 7-4 Montana State could lose to 11-0 Big Sky AQ Montana and still be ranked a couple of spots ahead of the Griz, but FUBeAR doesn’t want to overthink it. The great and powerful Massey, much like the Playoff Selection Committee, and all other pre-season polls, computer rankings, prognosticators, and pundits are all widely known to be infallible.

This I believe. :D

[FUBeAR]

Do we know that? I tried finding if they were trying to predict the upcoming season, or if they were just a starting point to the upcoming season based mostly on how teams ended the previous one. I did a little searching but couldn't find anything stating what exactly the preseason ratings were based off or trying to accomplish. Seems more likely to me that it's based mostly on how teams ended the previous season, but maybe something's out there that changes my mind.

And even if the Massey rating is trying to be a predictor for the season, how is it taking into account (or is it even aware?) teams like Weber State, Sac State, Incarnate Word, SDSU (and others) that have new head coaches? Or losses to graduation along with transfer portal additions/subtractions for each team?
Are you a CPA or an Actuary? C'mon man!

Mr. Massey, using whatever voodoo he do, has a score and an outcome listed for every 2023 FCS game on his website. He may be using crystals or a dowsing rod or string theory to derive his projections, but they is what they is at this point in time.

Whether or not a DB from Northwestern State failed his Cajun Grammar course this spring and may not be eligible this Fall or such stuff is surely not included in Mr. Massey's wonderfulness, because, he, like FUBeAR ain't overthinkin' it.

Are you mad that them Bunny Rabbits beat you bizuns again? Sure that makes it 5 in a row, but look at the bright side - they only won by 6 at their place. Compared to the 4-score beatdown they gave you guys on a neutral field in the most recent matchup, losing by only 6 is really as good as a win, isn't it?

[caribbeanhen]

Dumbest thread of the year so far.

They’ll be committees for hosting and Southern cupcakes for roasting. It’s clear

It the most wonderful thread of the year …

[Gil Dobie]

I would be very happy with a 10-1 season for NDSU, with all the players gone from last years team.

[TribeGuy]

You bring up a great point. It's comparing apples (pre-season rankings) with oranges (12 weeks of results). Every victory/loss is based on pre-season rankings. The rankings are bound to change, even within Massey's own model of predictions.

I am no mathematician. I have the same problem when my little mind thinks of "Strength of Schedule". When Champs lose to Chumps one weekend, all of the SOS rankings have to be retabulated. The Champs value, going forward - win or lose - becomes less valuable.

Massey's (or any other model) is still fun. But, everyone knows, we still have to play the game. LOL

[dewey]

I would be very happy with a 10-1 season for NDSU, with all the players gone from last years team.

Absolutely agreed.

Dewey

[FUBeAR]

You bring up a great point. It's comparing apples (pre-season rankings) with oranges (12 weeks of results). Every victory/loss is based on pre-season rankings. The rankings are bound to change, even within Massey's own model of predictions.

I am no mathematician. I have the same problem when my little mind thinks of "Strength of Schedule". When Champs lose to Chumps one weekend, all of the SOS rankings have to be retabulated. The Champs value, going forward - won or lose - becomes less valuable.

Massey's (or any other model) is still fun. But, everyone knows, we still have to play the game. LOL
So, you don’t think Mr. Massey’s machine takes its own week 1 projections into account when it’s cipherin’ up week 2 results…and week 1 + week 2 when he’s cipherin’ week 3?

Fine. Underestimate Mr. Massey’s work at your own peril.

[TribeGuy]

Honestly - I don't know. It seems if his model predicted a Week 12 resultant, it would have included W-L records.

Being a CAA geek, I extended out his predictions to W-L records for the entire CAA season (as a project from caribbeanhen). Great Fun!
Did you do the same?

Hail! the Great Massey!
I play against "Versus Sports Simulator" every FCS weekend. It's predictions are computed using a model by Pugh, one of Ken Massey's students.
VSS uses typical Vegas data: W-L, W-L Conf., SOS, Margin, Off. For/Against, D F/A, H/A, etc. as well as weighted "soft science".
Winning (accurate) % - VSS -.755

NOT A SOLICITATION. It's very expensive. But, at least, Pugh gives a very confusing, mathematical explanation of the model.

[caribbeanhen]

https://masseyratings.com/faq.php

Massey pulls back the curtains a little bit

it should be noted he said “ Pre-season rankings should not be taken that seriously”

[FUBeAR]

”Pre-season rankings should not be taken that seriously”
Blasphemy!

So…to counteract / atone for your sins here, FUBeAR did a bracket based on Lord Massey’s projections. FUBeAR did the 1st round pairings as best he could using geography and no reg season repeats, minimize intraconference games…9-24 seeds showing are NOT correlated to the Grand Poobah Massey’s rankings. Teams were originally placed in the bracket in those locations, but moved to optimize/reduce travel as much as FUBEAR could cipher out. The balance of the bracket is ‘chalk’ including 1st round winners (based on Emperor Massey’s ranking). No Home/Away Teams are contemplated in Round 1 of this bracket. You can pretend the game was played in whichever of the 2 possible locations for each game that you prefer to imagine.

Really enjoyed Furman & Mercer taking out Richmond and William & Mary in Round 1, but alas, the dreaded trip to the DEATHDome felled the Bears as the Paladins met the same fate in the UNIDome. Seeding…it’s the road to success…but that’s a different story for another thread…

https://i.postimg.cc/vTp7h1Sx/IMG-0620.jpg

[TribeGuy]

Thanks for the FAQ on Massey

[caribbeanhen]

Blasphemy!

So…to counteract / atone for your sins here, FUBeAR did a bracket based on Lord Massey’s projections. FUBeAR did the 1st round pairings as best he could using geography and no reg season repeats, minimize intraconference games…9-24 seeds showing are NOT correlated to the Grand Poobah Massey’s rankings. Teams were originally placed in the bracket in those locations, but moved to optimize/reduce travel as much as FUBEAR could cipher out. The balance of the bracket is ‘chalk’ including 1st round winners (based on Emperor Massey’s ranking). No Home/Away Teams are contemplated in Round 1 of this bracket. You can pretend the game was played in whichever of the 2 possible locations for each game that you prefer to imagine.

Really enjoyed Furman & Mercer taking out Richmond and William & Mary in Round 1, but alas, the dreaded trip to the DEATHDome felled the Bears as the Paladins met the same fate in the UNIDome. Seeding…it’s the road to success…but that’s a different story for another thread…

https://i.postimg.cc/vTp7h1Sx/IMG-0620.jpg

Is that your hand writing? O M G 😂

[FUBeAR]

Is that your hand writing? O M G 
https://i.postimg.cc/dVy40NRF/IMG-1896.jpg

[caribbeanhen]

https://i.postimg.cc/dVy40NRF/IMG-1896.jpg

could be a whale or a rabbit?

[FUBeAR]

could be a whale or a rabbit?You’re just mad because FUBeAR’s 2 favorite SoCon Teams blew up 2 of your CAA stalwarts in Round 1 and then the BunnyWhales laid waste to your flock of chickens in Round 2

[caribbeanhen]

You’re just mad because FUBeAR’s 2 favorite SoCon Teams blew up 2 of your CAA stalwarts in Round 1 and then the BunnyWhales laid waste to your flock of chickens in Round 2

Actually routing Delaware out to the badlands again is maddening

or Holy Cross as they would actually beat Delaware

[SteelSD]

Actually routing Delaware out to the badlands again is maddening

or Holy Cross as they would actually beat Delaware
Well to be fair, from Brookings to the Badlands would be the equivalent of driving to Pittsburgh from Newark...

[Redbird 4th & short]

Massey is worthless especially this time of year

This !!!

Not only is it based entirely on last season at this point. But it also tends to cluster the the best conferences at the top and the worst conferences at the bottom. Their algorithm usually leads to clustering of the best and worst conferences by end of season by virtue of conferences like MVFC playing all MVFC games the last 2 months .. all ships rise, some not so deserving.

But I do I like to use Massey for following:

- quick & dirty relative SOS assessments, though mentally adjusting for above early and late in season when rankings can be skewed
- Massey Composite of 35-40 ranking systems/pollls .. this is at least as objective as it gets
- around weeks 6 to 9, I think their database becomes statistically "well-connected" with 3 OOC and 3 conf games. For this reason, their algorithm works the best during middle third of the season. But then as conf season progresses, it "can" become self-perpetuating the rest of season, and over-rank the lesser teams in conference. So while MVFC and Big Sky are clearly the top conferences, and prove this so in playoffs ... some of the lower level teams tend to get higher rankings than they deserve.

But for me, the best poll is clearly the AGS poll, similarly once we get to about weeks 6-8, and then moreso as season progresses from there. They do way better than Coaches and STATS polls. And mostly better than the Massey Composite. But I trust AGS and Massey Composite (35+) to get it about right by mid season and rest of way come time for playoffs.

I really wish the FCS selection committee would adopt an SOS formula using something objective .. possibly the Massey Composite or some variation of a Composite, maybe throwing out some of the clearly slanted systems .. like the one that puts most of the Ivy League in top 20. Then they could do a much better job of incorporating SOS more objectively and accurately than they do to this point.

[caribbeanhen]

Well to be fair, from Brookings to the Badlands would be the equivalent of driving to Pittsburgh from Newark...

the Brooking Badlands nickname is more about having to play out there in December than it is about geography

[caribbeanhen]

This !!!

Not only is it based entirely on last season at this point. But it also tends to cluster the the best conferences at the top and the worst conferences at the bottom. Their algorithm can lead to clustering of the best and worst conferences by end of season,

I like to use Massey for following:

- quick & dirty relative SOS assessments, though mentally adjusting for above early and late in season when rankings can be skewed
- Massey Composite of 35-40 ranking systems/pollls .. this is at least as objective as it gets
- around weeks 6 to 9, I think their database becomes statistically "well-connected" with 3 OOC and 3 conf games. For this reason, their algorithm works the best. But then as conf season progresses, it "can" become self-perpetuating the rest of season, and over-rank the lesser teams in conference. So while MVFC and Big Sky are clearly the top conferences, and prove this so in playoffs ... some of the lower level teams tend to get higher rankings than they deserve.

But for me, the best poll is clearly the AGS poll once we get to about week 6-8, and moreso as season progresses. They do way better than Coaches and STATS polls. And most better than the Massey Composite. But I trust AGS and Massey Composite (35+) to get it about right by mid season.

The Skies really aren’t that clear

look at the favorable bias Idaho gets after getting beat down in Louisiana for starters

[POD Knows]

I would be very happy with a 10-1 season for NDSU, with all the players gone from last years team.Anybody want to make an avatar bet that NDSU only loses one game during the regular season, any takers??? I will take the over one loss.

[caribbeanhen]

Date

Opponent

Result
PF
PA



Sat 11-1805:00.PM.ET

at
Northern Iowa (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/5641)

7(0-0)

62 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938288622)

28
24



Sat 11-1103:30.PM.ET


S Illinois (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7339)

9(0-0)

80 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938288493)

34
21



Sat 11-0403:00.PM.ET

at
S Dakota St (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7268)

1(0-0)

36 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938288366)

21
27



Sat 10-2803:30.PM.ET


Murray St (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/5228)

77(0-0)

99 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938288234)

42
7



Sat 10-2103:30.PM.ET


W Illinois (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/8754)

61(0-0)

98 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938288123)

41
10



Sat 10-1402:00.PM.ET

at
North Dakota (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/5538)

12(0-0)

71 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938288001)

31
24



Sat 10-0703:00.PM.ET

at
Missouri St (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/4970)

17(0-0)

77 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938287901)

32
21



Sat 09-3002:00.PM.ET


South Dakota (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7262)

23(0-0)

92 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938287785)

35
14



Sat 09-1603:30.PM.ET


Cent Arkansas (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/1351)

32(0-0)

90 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938287550)

38
17



Sat 09-0903:30.PM.ET


Maine (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/4319)

54(0-0)

97 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938287419)

42
13



Sat 09-0203:30.PM.ET

at
E Washington (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/2383)

28(0-0)

79 % (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/game.php?gid=938287298)

35
21




All bets are off

[FUBeAR]

I would be very happy with a 10-1 season for NDSU, with all the players gone from last years team.
*12-2 (see bracket)

[Redbird 4th & short]

The Skies really aren’t that clear

look at the favorable bias Idaho gets after getting beat down in Louisiana for starters

There's aleays isolated stupid looking situations. But the last 4 years, I think the Big Sky are completely legit and on par with MVFC exlcuding our #1 .. at least in the upper half or third.

Prior to the last 4 years, I completely agree with your view and used to say as much going back 5+ years ago .. they were truly "your Paul McCartney & the Wings". Without EWU, they really had no depth or other consistent playoff contender. The last 4 years, they always have 4 to 5 really tough teams, any 3 of which could be a top 8 seed .. with other teams moving in and out of that top tier.

I just believe they are now very strong in their top 5 teams or so of late. And their regular season OOC and playoff records support this.

edit: back to SOS ... maybe Massey should stop using their own algorithms for SOS when ranking teams, and adopt their own Massey Composite for SOS. This would effectively minimize the skewed clustering that tends to occur later in season for the most dominant conferences. This would be an improved SOS system .. but do throw out some of the stupid systems. Those could be determined by looking at conference playoff records, like the work Fubear did. Any alogorithm like this would be better than anything else we have today. Massey or Sagarin alone doesn't cut it.

[ElCid]

So, you don’t think Mr. Massey’s machine takes its own week 1 projections into account when it’s cipherin’ up week 2 results…and week 1 + week 2 when he’s cipherin’ week 3?

Fine. Underestimate Mr. Massey’s work at your own peril.

Umm, he doesn't. All games are based on preseason rankings. After week one, all games will be based on week one results and less weighted preseason. After week two, those two weeks and even less weighted preseason. Not sure which game diminishes preseason to zero, but I would guess anywhere from week 5-6.

But just as a factoid. For two years, in preseason, I recorded every single FCS game based upon preseason ratings. And then compared them with actual results and current week predictions. They actually were not far off the current ratings and had about the same percentage correct for W/L. I didn't take the tedious time to look at spreads though.

[ElCid]

There's aleays isolated stupid looking situations. But the last 4 years, I think the Big Sky are completely legit and on par with MVFC exlcuding our #1 .. at least in the upper half or third.

Prior to the last 4 years, I completely agree with your view and used to say as much going back 5+ years ago .. they were truly "your Paul McCartney & the Wings". Without EWU, they really had no depth or other consistent playoff contender. The last 4 years, they always have 4 to 5 really tough teams, any 3 of which could be a top 8 seed .. with other teams moving in and out of that top tier.

I just believe they are now very strong in their top 5 teams or so of late. And their regular season OOC and playoff records support this.

edit: back to SOS ... maybe Massey should stop using their own algorithms for SOS when ranking teams, and adopt their own Massey Composite for SOS. This would effectively minimize the skewed clustering that tends to occur later in season for the most dominant conferences. This would be an improved SOS system .. but do throw out some of the stupid systems. Those could be determined by looking at conference playoff records, like the work Fubear did. Any alogorithm like this would be better than anything else we have today. Massey or Sagarin alone doesn't cut it.

I've mentioned it before, the composite is seriously flawed. He includes some dudes ratings that are always jacked. No, more than one. Many are hobbyists who have alum interests. It's easy to create an algorithm that favors your school or conference. And some are just based on W/L entirely. I've given examples in the past where a school has been rated anywhere between 10 and 60 in the various ratings used in the composite. It truly is garbage.

[FUBeAR]

Umm, he doesn't. All games are based on preseason rankings. After week one, all games will be based on week one results and less weighted preseason. After week two, those two weeks and even less weighted preseason. Not sure which game diminishes preseason to zero, but I would guess anywhere from week 5-6.

But just as a factoid. For two years, in preseason, I recorded every single FCS game based upon preseason ratings. And then compared them with actual results and current week predictions. They actually were not far off the current ratings and had about the same percentage correct for W/L. I didn't take the tedious time to look at spreads though.
We'll let you and the ChalupaDude sit with Jugdish, Sidney, Mohammed, and Clayton in the Overthinkers room...


https://youtu.be/LuFCaIAnETk

[FUBeAR]

There's aleays isolated stupid looking situations. But the last 4 years, I think the Big Sky are completely legit and on par with MVFC exlcuding our #1 .. at least in the upper half or third.

Prior to the last 4 years, I completely agree with your view and used to say as much going back 5+ years ago .. they were truly "your Paul McCartney & the Wings". Without EWU, they really had no depth or other consistent playoff contender. The last 4 years, they always have 4 to 5 really tough teams, any 3 of which could be a top 8 seed .. with other teams moving in and out of that top tier.

I just believe they are now very strong in their top 5 teams or so of late. And their regular season OOC and playoff records support this.


You may recall from the "Seed a few more Teams..." thread that FUBeAR, and in FUBeAR's interpretation, the data/results do not align with your assessment...

Here's a re-post (slightly edited) from that thread discussing Big Sky Playoff performance, particularly with regard to the number of highly seeded Teams the conference has been granted...


FUBeAR sure doesn’t see where the full data supports the Big Sky being a top conference, particularly in light of the relative number of seeds the conference has been subjectively gifted.

Looks like playing a lot of games against OVC Teams has been the only saving grace keeping the Big Sky from having a HORRIBLE Playoff record (.351 overall without EWU & without OVC games). They even have a losing record vs. the PFL.

What FUBeAR sees, instead, is that the 2018 Playoffs were an anomaly for the Big Sky and it was also the 1st year they ever rec'd 3 Seeds. Perhaps that tells us more about the advantage of being gifted with subjective seeds than it does about the strength of the conference. And, it seems that the Committee continued has continued since 2018 to gift the Big Sky with numerous and high seeds, but the Playoff performance immediately sunk back to, actually, below pre-2018 levels after that 1 solid year. That's what FUBeAR sees in the data. Others may have different interpretations, of course...




Seeds
W
L
Winning %


Big Sky '17-22
13
23
21
0.523


Big Sky-Big Sky '17-'22

18
16
0.529


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '17-'22
12
15
15
0.500









Big Sky '18-22
12
21
18
0.538


Big Sky-Big Sky '18-'22

17
14
0.548


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '18-'22
11
14
13
0.519









Big Sky '19-22
9
15
14
0.517


Big Sky-Big Sky '19-'22

12
11
0.522


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '19-'22
9
11
11
0.500









Big Sky '21-22
5
10
10
0.500


Big Sky-Big Sky '21-'22

8
8
0.500


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '21-'22
5
7
8
0.467





Year
Seed
Team


2022
2
Sacramento State


2022
4
Montana State







2021
4
Sacramento State


2021
6
Montana


2021
8
Montana State







2019
3
Weber State


2019
4
Sacramento State


2019
5
Montana State


2019
6
Montana







2018
2
Weber State


2018
3
Eastern Washington


2018
6
UC Davis







2017
8
Southern Utah







2016
2
Eastern Washington







2015
6
Portland State







2014
4
Eastern Washington







2013
3
Eastern Washington


2013
8
Montana

[TribeGuy]

Yes - Mr. Redbird. The concept is called confirmation bias.
Reinforcing pre-determinant results with actual results = accurate outcome of future competition?
Nay-Nay, I say
As you said, Week 6-9 will discard a notion of "in the hunt" teams from a group of real "contenders".

A model will self-adjust.

[FUBeAR]

Those could be determined by looking at conference playoff records, like the work Fubear did.
Sorry for another post responding to the same post, but FUBeAR did want to address this piece separately.

FUBeAR feels that the only real relevant and 'fair' (gosh FUBeAR hates to use that word) playoff results data that can be used to assess relative conference strength is 1st round data and later round data of games involving only Teams that were both seeded or both unseeded (quite rare). The Round 2 match-ups are too tilted to the Seeded Teams to give reasonable results and later rounds if one Team has slogged out 2 wins in Round 1 and 2, possibly on the road...and their opponent had a week of rest and then a semi-cupcake (it happens) in Round 2, that's also too out of balance to provide 'fair' data.

(Now that FUBeAR has typed the above out...he may go back and do a little analysis based on that criteria. If so, will report back here ... and in the 'few more seeds' thread.

Regular Season OOC data is the best data to compare, but FCS plays so few OOC FCS games AND so few that aren't 'around the corner' we don't get a great read there either.

It's tough.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I've mentioned it before, the composite is seriously flawed. He includes some dudes ratings that are always jacked. No, more than one. Many are hobbyists who have alum interests. It's easy to create an algorithm that favors your school or conference. And some are just based on W/L entirely. I've given examples in the past where a school has been rated anywhere between 10 and 60 in the various ratings used in the composite. It truly is garbage.

agreed, and Massey may want to start excluding some of the regular outliers if they'r going to go to the trouble to maintain a composite on their website using their name. Set some qualifying criteria .. keep it objective. You can even have qualifiers to be assigned weights .. level 1, 2, 3 .. where level 1 gets mpre weight than level 2 etc. They could up their game and make even more money if they did it well.

But I have found their Composite to be generally more predictive than the Coaches or Stats poll come playoff time at predicting winners. But yes, get rid of the stupid ones.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Sorry for another post responding to the same post, but FUBeAR did want to address this piece separately.

FUBeAR feels that the only real relevant and 'fair' (gosh FUBeAR hates to use that word) playoff results data that can be used to assess relative conference strength is 1st round data and later round data of games involving only Teams that were both seeded or both unseeded (quite rare). The Round 2 match-ups are too tilted to the Seeded Teams to give reasonable results and later rounds if one Team has slogged out 2 wins in Round 1 and 2, possibly on the road...and their opponent had a week of rest and then a semi-cupcake (it happens) in Round 2, that's also too out of balance to provide 'fair' data.

(Now that FUBeAR has typed the above out...he may go back and do a little analysis based on that criteria. If so, will report back here ... and in the 'few more seeds' thread.

Regular Season OOC data is the best data to compare, but FCS plays so few OOC FCS games AND so few that aren't 'around the corner' we don't get a great read there either.

It's tough.

Sure, but there are margins that go along with those wins and losses. So while you might have a 3 pt win by a home team, that could be viewed as a "wash". You also have many decisive or blow out wins by home teams that make it clear. And you also have some semblence of rankings to assess the strength of wins depending on whether you are playing a weak autobid or true highly ranked at large bid. The last aspect is taking the results over many many years .. at some point the data is more and more credible, and highly suggestive for ecxample that MVFC should be getting more bids with with 7-4 and sometimes 6-5 teams, depending on their SOS and quality wins/losses associated with that SOS.

[Redbird 4th & short]

You may recall from the "Seed a few more Teams..." thread that FUBeAR, and in FUBeAR's interpretation, the data/results do not align with your assessment...

Here's a re-post (slightly edited) from that thread discussing Big Sky Playoff performance, particularly with regard to the number of highly seeded Teams the conference has been granted...

So first of all, these results are far better than their prior results going back to the 2010 starting point. For starters, they have many more teams regular getting ranked and seeded in playoffs than they did prior to 2018.

But the last couple dimensions to consider of these improvide results ... say .548 win rate in the 2019-22 period against all non-Big Sky teams ... that is pretty good. But the other dimensions to consider are home vs away and SOS in the playoffs. Or whether you even got an easier playin game or a tougher playin game at all. In particular, how many weak auto-bids did they get compared to Colonial and other east coast conference teams given the demographics in play. My review of these dimension goes back to the 2010 to 2018 period before I lost interest. It was pretty clear .. the east coast conferences had most of the easy playin games against weak autobids. And Big Sky had a horrible playoff record excluding EWU for that period .. it was around a .360 win rate. More recently, you see the improvement, even while still not drawing many weak auto-bids in playin rounds.

To other poster ... I understand confirmation bias. Look until you find what you wanted to find and stop looking further. At some point, these records speak for themselves. And the incidence of drawing more easier vs tougher games, or more home vs away games until seeds kick in .. is part of this assessment of conference strength. As for Big Sky, they are playing more and more tough FBS and tough FCS nonconf games and competing well against these tougher nonconf schedules. They were never able to do this consistently outside of EWU prior to 2018. So i would argue their nonconf schedule has been strenghtened and they are competing at much higher leverl overall.

I'm an MVFC guy .. been tooting this horn since 2011, when I though MVFC had emerged as top conference, with lot of help from Dakotas. And now I'm saying I see the same thing happening with Big Sky since 2018 .. they have really stepped up and emerged IMO. So I have no skin in Big Sky game .. it's just what I see and strongly believe looking at their results .. wins-losses, conf vs nonconf, SOS, home vs away, reg vs playoff season ... they are legit #2 right behind MVFC IMO.

[Go...gate]

No Bucknell, Davidson, Georgetown, Marist, others?

[Redbird 4th & short]

Yes - Mr. Redbird. The concept is called confirmation bias.
Reinforcing pre-determinant results with actual results = accurate outcome of future competition?
Nay-Nay, I say
As you said, Week 6-9 will discard a notion of "in the hunt" teams from a group of real "contenders".

A model will self-adjust.

agree that a good model, should self adjust. I think the ain issue with Massey and Sagarin is that rely on their own same model to assess SOS. Maybe this is what you mean by confirmation bias .. though it's more objective than that, yet still can lead to clustering for the strongest or weakest conferences. They need a more independent SOS system - this would fix that problem and improve their ranking algorithm.

[caribbeanhen]

All I know is Massey beats almost all of you college boys in straight up pick em games on here

[FUBeAR]

So - FUBeAR calculated the Playoff Records by Conference during the 24/8 era for the games that FUBeAR is going to reluctantly call 'fair' games - 3 types of those...

1) Round 1 games between unseeded Teams
2) QF, SF, CH between Seeded Teams
3) QF, SF, CH between Unseeded Teams

For this analysis, any intraconference games were removed from the results in any of the 3 types of 'fair' games...

The tables show the Totals of all 3 types (Total of 107 games), the Round 1 results Totals, and the results for Type 2 and Type 3 (only 2 such games) games are combined.

While FUBeAR was not happy with the SoCon performance, it is what it is...and we continue to see, as we've seen with almost every slice/dice of Playoff Performance data the Big Sky Conference is a laggard. Redbird and, obviously, many others (especially Playoff Committee Members) are resolute in their support of the wonderfulness of the Big Sky Conference, but a meek "meh" is about all FUBeAR can manage in his assessment...

EDIT - just looked at this table and thought of something…reckon how things would shake out if we took departed/departing Teams - JMU/CAA, Kennesaw/Big South, JaxSt/OVC, and SHSU/Southland out of those results - that would give us a better look at ‘Today’s FCS.’ Just might do that…



Combined Rd 1 + Seeded vs. Seeded & Unseeded vs. Unseeded (IntraConf removed)


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
34
10
0.773


2
Southland
QF, SF, CH
11
7
0.611


3
CAA
QF, SF, CH
23
16
0.590


4T
OVC
QF, SF, CH
7
6
0.538


4T
Big South
QF, SF, CH
7
6
0.538


6
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
8
10
0.444


7
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
10
19
0.345


8
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
4
9
0.308


9
PFL
QF, SF, CH
2
7
0.222


10
NEC
QF, SF, CH
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
3
0.000


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
5
0.000










Round 1 Games only - Unseeded Teams (Intraconf removed)



Rank
Conference
Round
W
L
%


1
Big South
1
7
3
0.700


2
Southland
1
9
4
0.692


3
MVFC
1
13
6
0.684


4
CAA
1
12
8
0.600


5
OVC
1
6
4
0.600


6
SoCon
1
8
6
0.571


7
Big Sky
1
7
9
0.438


8
Patriot
1
4
6
0.400


9
PFL
1
2
7
0.222


10
NEC
1
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
1
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
1
0
2
0.000


13
MEAC
1
0
5
0.000










Only Seeded vs. Seeded or Unseeded vs. Unseeded (Intraconf removed)


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
21
4
0.840


2
CAA
QF, SF, CH
11
8
0.579


3
Southland
QF, SF, CH
2
3
0.400


4
OVC
QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


5
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
3
10
0.231


6
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


7
Big South
QF, SF, CH
0
3
0.000


8
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
0
3
0.000


9
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
0
4
0.000


10
PFL
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


11
NEC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


12
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!

[Gil Dobie]

*12-2 (see bracket)

FU has a better chance at getting to Frisco than NDSU this year.

[Gil Dobie]

All I know is Massey beats almost all of you college boys in straight up pick em games on here

Massey don't know the transfer portal.

[FUBeAR]

So - FUBeAR calculated the Playoff Records by Conference during the 24/8 era for the games that FUBeAR is going to reluctantly call 'fair' games - 3 types of those...

1) Round 1 games between unseeded Teams
2) QF, SF, CH between Seeded Teams
3) QF, SF, CH between Unseeded Teams

For this analysis, any intraconference games were removed from the results in any of the 3 types of 'fair' games...

The tables show the Totals of all 3 types (Total of 107 games), the Round 1 results Totals, and the results for Type 2 and Type 3 (only 2 such games) games are combined.

While FUBeAR was not happy with the SoCon performance, it is what it is...and we continue to see, as we've seen with almost every slice/dice of Playoff Performance data the Big Sky Conference is a laggard. Redbird and, obviously, many others (especially Playoff Committee Members) are resolute in their support of the wonderfulness of the Big Sky Conference, but a meek "meh" is about all FUBeAR can manage in his assessment...

EDIT - just looked at this table and thought of something…reckon how things would shake out if we took departed/departing Teams - JMU/CAA, Kennesaw/Big South, JaxSt/OVC, and SHSU/Southland out of those results - that would give us a better look at ‘Today’s FCS.’ Just might do that…



Combined Rd 1 + Seeded vs. Seeded & Unseeded vs. Unseeded (IntraConf removed)


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
34
10
0.773


2
Southland
QF, SF, CH
11
7
0.611


3
CAA
QF, SF, CH
23
16
0.590


4T
OVC
QF, SF, CH
7
6
0.538


4T
Big South
QF, SF, CH
7
6
0.538


6
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
8
10
0.444


7
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
10
19
0.345


8
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
4
9
0.308


9
PFL
QF, SF, CH
2
7
0.222


10
NEC
QF, SF, CH
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
3
0.000


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
5
0.000










Round 1 Games only - Unseeded Teams (Intraconf removed)



Rank
Conference
Round
W
L
%


1
Big South
1
7
3
0.700


2
Southland
1
9
4
0.692


3
MVFC
1
13
6
0.684


4
CAA
1
12
8
0.600


5
OVC
1
6
4
0.600


6
SoCon
1
8
6
0.571


7
Big Sky
1
7
9
0.438


8
Patriot
1
4
6
0.400


9
PFL
1
2
7
0.222


10
NEC
1
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
1
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
1
0
2
0.000


13
MEAC
1
0
5
0.000










Only Seeded vs. Seeded or Unseeded vs. Unseeded (Intraconf removed)


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
21
4
0.840


2
CAA
QF, SF, CH
11
8
0.579


3
Southland
QF, SF, CH
2
3
0.400


4
OVC
QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


5
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
3
10
0.231


6
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


7
Big South
QF, SF, CH
0
3
0.000


8
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
0
3
0.000


9
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
0
4
0.000


10
PFL
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


11
NEC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


12
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!



So - FUBeAR did what FUBeAR bolded above (plus also removed Coastal Carolina) ... so what we have below is ONLY results from Playoff games involving current FCS Teams; games that FUBeAR has judged as 'fair' (not so overly tilted for 1 side to be almost guaranteed a win)...

So - FUBeAR thinks this is a pretty good cross-conference evaluation of "Today's FCS" / Playoff-caliber edition - over the past 9 years...

Data-driven Take-aways for FUBeAR are...

1) MVFC deserves the respect it gets. Sure the bizuns and now the bunnies have been carryin' most of that water, but not all of it. The MVFC is the #1 Conference, deserves high rankings, multiple Teams in the Playoffs, and multiple, highly seeded Teams (given the current playoff structure)... as bad as that news is for the rest of FCS Football

2) Southland deserves a bit more respect. FUBeAR has not been fair to the Southland in his rankings / comments / opinions. This conference has had multiple Teams compete in the Playoffs and compete well.

3) SoCon deserves a bit more respect also...but everyone except the Playoff Committee knows that, even if they don't want to admit it. Seeded SoCon Teams have not done well. That said - low seeds, while better than no seeds are not ideal - especially when they so often have led to the FargoDome in the QF's. That 0-5 number is a bit 'skewed' - but it is balanced by the 'legit' 7-2 record in Round 1 games

4) CAA has rec'd the respect it deserves. Maybe a tad more than, but the Colonials have held their own overall.

5) Welp - here we are again - looking at another SadStat for the Big Sky. Any way this pie / onion / watermelon / grapefruit can be sliced, the Big Sky has been vastly over-selected, over-seeded, and has, accordingly, vastly under-performed. There’s really no way around acknowledging it once one looks at the data. Will rankings / poll voters acknowledge it or will they continue to be mere lemmings blindly following the popular narrative? Will the committee admit its past transgressions and select / seed the Big Sky with its OVC/Big South & Patriot League ‘playoff performance peers?’ Doubtful - in both cases.



Combined Rd 1 + Seeded vs. Seeded & Unseeded vs. Unseeded (IntraConf removed) - Today's FCS


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
28
7
0.800


2
Southland
QF, SF, CH
8
5
0.615


3
CAA
QF, SF, CH
17
12
0.586


4
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
7
7
0.500


5
Big South
QF, SF, CH
2
2
0.500


6
OVC
QF, SF, CH
4
5
0.444


7
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
9
15
0.375


8
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
4
8
0.333


9
PFL
QF, SF, CH
2
6
0.250


10
NEC
QF, SF, CH
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
4
0.000










Round 1 Games only - Unseeded Teams (Intraconf removed) - "Today's FCS"


Rank
Conference
Round
W
L
%


1
SoCon
1
7
2
0.778


2
MVFC
1
13
6
0.684


3
Southland
1
7
4
0.636


4
CAA
1
12
7
0.632


5
Big Sky
1
7
7
0.500


6
OVC
1
4
4
0.500


7
Big South
1
2
2
0.500


8
Patriot
1
4
6
0.400


9
PFL
1
2
6
0.250


10
NEC
1
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
1
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
1
0
2
0.000


13
MEAC
1
0
4
0.000










Only Seeded vs. Seeded or Unseeded vs. Unseeded (Intraconf removed) - "Today's FCS"


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
15
1
0.938


2
CAA
QF, SF, CH
5
5
0.500


3
Southland
QF, SF, CH
1
1
0.500


4
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
2
8
0.200


5
OVC
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


6
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


7
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
0
5
0.000


8
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


9
Big South
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


10
PFL
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


11
NEC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


12
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!

[caribbeanhen]

Massey don't know the transfer portal.

nor the weather or injuries

here is something to know about Massey

The purpose of the Massey rankings is to order teams based on achievement. This objective may occasionally yield some surprising results: for instance having good teams from weak conferences ranked higer than one might expect. This is not to say that such a team is "better" than all teams below it. It is simply being rewarded for its success at winning the games it has played

[ElCid]

agreed, and Massey may want to start excluding some of the regular outliers if they'r going to go to the trouble to maintain a composite on their website using their name. Set some qualifying criteria .. keep it objective. You can even have qualifiers to be assigned weights .. level 1, 2, 3 .. where level 1 gets mpre weight than level 2 etc. They could up their game and make even more money if they did it well.

But I have found their Composite to be generally more predictive than the Coaches or Stats poll come playoff time at predicting winners. But yes, get rid of the stupid ones.

He needs to compare a rating's average standard dev to the composite or something. If it's out by X points, it gets tossed. Sure, it averages out, but one system can move teams a few spots if it's egregious enough.

And just an example, I can't resist, one system had St Thomas as #1. Geez!

[ElCid]

Massey don't know the transfer portal.

Or the WX, or the rivalries, or the injury list, or the looking ahead, or coaches in hot seats, or ... just about any other intangible.

[SteelSD]

The Skies really aren’t that clear

look at the favorable bias Idaho gets after getting beat down in Louisiana for starters
I get the idea that you aren’t a fan of the BSC, but really, a beat down? You are pretty loose with that description.

[Paladin1aa]

Massey has YSU where I do ……6-5. That’s the tipping point. Given their personnel , they might do 7-4 with some luck or limp to 5-6 with injuries. Depending on match up, they could do some damage in the playoffs as well. MVFC will be tough this season.

[FUBeAR]

Massey has YSU where I do ……6-5. That’s the tipping point. Given their personnel , they might do 7-4 with some luck or limp to 5-6 with injuries. Depending on match up, they could do some damage in the playoffs as well. MVFC will be tough this season.
Well, they did make the Massey/FUBeAR bracket (barely) and performed as expected, dispatching St. Francis in Round 1, but fell to the Bobcats in Bozeman in Round 2. Hard to beat those well-rested Home Seeds. Good effort ‘Guins!

[caribbeanhen]

Well, they did make the Massey/FUBeAR bracket (barely) and performed as expected, dispatching St. Francis in Round 1, but fell to the Bobcats in Bozeman in Round 2. Hard to beat those well-rested Home Seeds. Good effort ‘Guins!

Total bias on display here

Delaware quickly dissected St Francis and got sent to the frozen tundra

W&M ? Sharing a tube with Teddy Ballgame after Montana State

CAA weak

MVFC team meets same fate and its a sign of strength

[caribbeanhen]

I get the idea that you aren’t a fan of the BSC, but really, a beat down? You are pretty loose with that description.

I like watching Big Sky games but not so fond of the hype of how good they are

Sac St was the # 2 seed and loved watching them play. I had also watched Richmond play several games and thought they were just as good, yet we had fans on here making the case on why Richmond shouldn’t even be ranked 😂 total BS

unseeded CAA Richmond was up 28-10 vs Sac St, but then refs took a TD off the scoreboard and the rains came hard and Sac St pulled out….

[SteelSD]

I like watching Big Sky games but not so fond of the hype of how good they are

Sac St was the # 2 seed and loved watching them play. I had also watched Richmond play several games and thought they were just as good, yet we had fans on here making the case on why Richmond shouldn’t even be ranked  total BS

unseeded CAA Richmond was up 28-10 vs Sac St, but then refs took a TD off the scoreboard and the rains came hard and Sac St pulled out….
So what does any of that have to do with the fact that you've twice talked about the Idaho game.

look at the favorable bias Idaho gets after getting beat down in Louisiana for starters

Maybe they will send you another hyped up Big Sky team for Thanksgiving!! You ate lots of potatoes last year (in reference to a SLU fan post)

So are you referencing the 3 point game that Idaho led with under 10 minutes in the game? The one where Idaho actually outgained SLU? The one where Idaho missed the tying FG with 16 sec to go. Please explain how this proves that Idaho was "hyped" considering they were the road team.

And you haven't discussed the other CAA/BSC matchup. How did the best CAA team fare against the top BSC team again? But please blame the weather. I'm sure condition are always pristine in Newark in December.

[caribbeanhen]

So what does any of that have to do with the fact that you've twice talked about the Idaho game.

look at the favorable bias Idaho gets after getting beat down in Louisiana for starters

Maybe they will send you another hyped up Big Sky team for Thanksgiving!! You ate lots of potatoes last year (in reference to a SLU fan post)

So are you referencing the 3 point game that Idaho led with under 10 minutes in the game? The one where Idaho actually outgained SLU? The one where Idaho missed the tying FG with 16 sec to go. Please explain how this proves that Idaho was "hyped" considering they were the road team.

And you haven't discussed the other CAA/BSC matchup. How did the best CAA team fare against the top BSC team again? But please blame the weather. I'm sure condition are always pristine in Newark in December.

look where Idaho is in the pre-season polls and compare with SLU

ridiculous

I’ve talked plenty about the Montana State vs William & Mary game …. Their ain’t no mountains in Williamsburg

[atthewbon]

So - FUBeAR did what FUBeAR bolded above (plus also removed Coastal Carolina) ... so what we have below is ONLY results from Playoff games involving current FCS Teams; games that FUBeAR has judged as 'fair' (not so overly tilted for 1 side to be almost guaranteed a win)...

So - FUBeAR thinks this is a pretty good cross-conference evaluation of "Today's FCS" / Playoff-caliber edition - over the past 9 years...

Data-driven Take-aways for FUBeAR are...

1) MVFC deserves the respect it gets. Sure the bizuns and now the bunnies have been carryin' most of that water, but not all of it. The MVFC is the #1 Conference, deserves high rankings, multiple Teams in the Playoffs, and multiple, highly seeded Teams (given the current playoff structure)... as bad as that news is for the rest of FCS Football

2) Southland deserves a bit more respect. FUBeAR has not been fair to the Southland in his rankings / comments / opinions. This conference has had multiple Teams compete in the Playoffs and compete well.

3) SoCon deserves a bit more respect also...but everyone except the Playoff Committee knows that, even if they don't want to admit it. Seeded SoCon Teams have not done well. That said - low seeds, while better than no seeds are not ideal - especially when they so often have led to the FargoDome in the QF's. That 0-5 number is a bit 'skewed' - but it is balanced by the 'legit' 7-2 record in Round 1 games

4) CAA has rec'd the respect it deserves. Maybe a tad more than, but the Colonials have held their own overall.

5) Welp - here we are again - looking at another SadStat for the Big Sky. Any way this pie / onion / watermelon / grapefruit can be sliced, the Big Sky has been vastly over-selected, over-seeded, and has, accordingly, vastly under-performed. There’s really no way around acknowledging it once one looks at the data. Will rankings / poll voters acknowledge it or will they continue to be mere lemmings blindly following the popular narrative? Will the committee admit its past transgressions and select / seed the Big Sky with its OVC/Big South & Patriot League ‘playoff performance peers?’ Doubtful - in both cases.



Combined Rd 1 + Seeded vs. Seeded & Unseeded vs. Unseeded (IntraConf removed) - Today's FCS


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
28
7
0.800


2
Southland
QF, SF, CH
8
5
0.615


3
CAA
QF, SF, CH
17
12
0.586


4
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
7
7
0.500


5
Big South
QF, SF, CH
2
2
0.500


6
OVC
QF, SF, CH
4
5
0.444


7
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
9
15
0.375


8
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
4
8
0.333


9
PFL
QF, SF, CH
2
6
0.250


10
NEC
QF, SF, CH
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
4
0.000










Round 1 Games only - Unseeded Teams (Intraconf removed) - "Today's FCS"


Rank
Conference
Round
W
L
%


1
SoCon
1
7
2
0.778


2
MVFC
1
13
6
0.684


3
Southland
1
7
4
0.636


4
CAA
1
12
7
0.632


5
Big Sky
1
7
7
0.500


6
OVC
1
4
4
0.500


7
Big South
1
2
2
0.500


8
Patriot
1
4
6
0.400


9
PFL
1
2
6
0.250


10
NEC
1
1
8
0.111


11
Independent
1
0
1
0.000


12
ASUN-WAC
1
0
2
0.000


13
MEAC
1
0
4
0.000










Only Seeded vs. Seeded or Unseeded vs. Unseeded (Intraconf removed) - "Today's FCS"


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
MVFC
QF, SF, CH
15
1
0.938


2
CAA
QF, SF, CH
5
5
0.500


3
Southland
QF, SF, CH
1
1
0.500


4
Big Sky
QF, SF, CH
2
8
0.200


5
OVC
QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


6
Patriot
QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


7
SoCon
QF, SF, CH
0
5
0.000


8
ASUN-WAC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


9
Big South
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


10
PFL
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


11
NEC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


12
Independent
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!


13
MEAC
QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!




To be fair to the Big Sky and to Redbird's point about the conference improving, in the two years after the covid season the Big Sky's record is 5-6 in these games. I still think the depth of the conference is slightly overrated and some teams have really benefited from favorable schedules the committee does not do a good enough job taking into account.

For reference in the last two years in your "fair games" some conference records are as follows (did this by hand so feel free to correct me):
Southland: 4-1
MVFC: 8-3
CAA: 4-3
Big Sky 5-6
SOCON: 1-2

IMO looking at it this way weights 1st round games to heavily because teams that win their first round game can't show up as a "loss" later in the bracket whereas seeded teams can (3 of the southland's 4 wins came in the first round). Also hurts the MVFC because it undervalues the run unseeded SDSU went on in 2021 because what they did is viewed the same as any other unseeded team losing in the second round, nor does it factor in Villanova's or Sacramento State's losses as seeded teams to unseeded teams. It also punished an 8 seed Montana st for losing in the national championship. Montana st's record in "fair games" that playoff run was 1-1 even though they made it to the Natty as an 8 seed.

If I had to rank the strength of the conferences I would probably go:
MVFC
gap
Big Sky/CAA
SOCON/SOUTHLAND
gap
everyone else

I put the Big Sky and CAA slightly ahead of the SOCON and Southland primarily because of the lack of depth in the Southland and lack of any deep playoff runs from the SOCON. THE UAC and IVY are probably the next two strongest conferences IMO but those are hard to rank.

[FUBeAR]

To be fair to the Big Sky and to Redbird's point about the conference improving, in the two years after the covid season the Big Sky's record is 5-6 in these games. I still think the depth of the conference is slightly overrated and some teams have really benefited from favorable schedules the committee does not do a good enough job taking into account.

For reference in the last two years in your "fair games" some conference records are as follows (did this by hand so feel free to correct me):
Southland: 4-1
MVFC: 8-3
CAA: 4-3
Big Sky 5-6
SOCON: 1-2

IMO looking at it this way weights 1st round games to heavily because teams that win their first round game can't show up as a "loss" later in the bracket whereas seeded teams can (3 of the southland's 4 wins came in the first round). Also hurts the MVFC because it undervalues the run unseeded SDSU went on in 2021 because what they did is viewed the same as any other unseeded team losing in the second round, nor does it factor in Villanova's or Sacramento State's losses as seeded teams to unseeded teams. It also punished an 8 seed Montana st for losing in the national championship. Montana st's record in "fair games" that playoff run was 1-1 even though they made it to the Natty as an 8 seed.

If I had to rank the strength of the conferences I would probably go:
MVFC
gap
Big Sky/CAA
SOCON/SOUTHLAND
gap
everyone else

I put the Big Sky and CAA slightly ahead of the SOCON and Southland primarily because of the lack of depth in the Southland and lack of any deep playoff runs from the SOCON. THE UAC and IVY are probably the next two strongest conferences IMO but those are hard to rank.
* Not sure why we would choose to use only 2 years of data when we have 9 years available. The tradeoff of almost 80% of our sample size to enhance 'recency' (guessing that's the purpose) seems to be more of an exercise in torturing data to yield the results thought 'accurate' than part of a quest for statistical insight.

These are the results using only '21 & '22 - "Fair games" only - All no-longer FCS removed (including KSU), All intraconference removed.



Comb. Rd1+Seeded v. Seeded & Unseeded v. Unseeded (less IntraConf) - Today's FCS - '21/'22


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
Big South
1, QF, SF, CH
1
0
1.000


2
Southland
1, QF, SF, CH
4
1
0.800


3
MVFC
1, QF, SF, CH
8
4
0.667


4
Big Sky
1, QF, SF, CH
5
5
0.500


5
CAA
1, QF, SF, CH
3
3
0.500


6
OVC
1, QF, SF, CH
1
1
0.500


7T
SoCon
1, QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


7T
Patriot
1, QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


9T
PFL
1, QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


9T
MEAC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


11T
NEC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


11T
ASUN-WAC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


13
Independent
1, QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!



Not sure that tells us a lot with n=24. But it sure doesn't show the Big Sky as really standing above any other conference.


"IMO looking at it this way weights 1st round games to heavily because teams that win their first round game can't show up as a "loss" later in the bracket" - Exactly - IFBO, Round 2 games are lambs to slaughter - they are unfair. Think FUBeAR has been pretty clear about that. Counting wins or losses in those games, IFBO, skews that data. If you don't accept that premise or even acknowledge that it 'could be' true, then you really aren't gonna buy into this analysis at all. The rest of that paragraph is just various anecdotal 'issues.' Not really worth considering from a statistical overview perspective.

Not sure why it's so important for MVFC Fans to continue to defend the Big Sky - and torture or just nullify the data.

The Big Sky has been vastly over-selected, vastly over-seeded, and has vastly under-performed in the 24/8 Playoff era with the possible exception of 2018. There is no legitimate way to ignore that is what the data is telling us. The Playoff Selection Committee, in 2023, needs to be aware of their prior errors and stop trying to gain confirmation for their past mistakes by gifting Big Sky Teams with Spots in the Field, Seeds, and High Seeds.

[uni88]

* Not sure why we would choose to use only 2 years of data when we have 9 years available. The tradeoff of almost 80% of our sample size to enhance 'recency' (guessing that's the purpose) seems to be more of an exercise in torturing data to yield the results thought 'accurate' than part of a quest for statistical insight.

These are the results using only '21 & '22 - "Fair games" only - All no-longer FCS removed (including KSU), All intraconference removed.



Comb. Rd1+Seeded v. Seeded & Unseeded v. Unseeded (less IntraConf) - Today's FCS - '21/'22


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
Big South
1, QF, SF, CH
1
0
1.000


2
Southland
1, QF, SF, CH
4
1
0.800


3
MVFC
1, QF, SF, CH
8
4
0.667


4
Big Sky
1, QF, SF, CH
5
5
0.500


5
CAA
1, QF, SF, CH
3
3
0.500


6
OVC
1, QF, SF, CH
1
1
0.500


7T
SoCon
1, QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


7T
Patriot
1, QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


9T
PFL
1, QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


9T
MEAC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


11T
NEC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


11T
ASUN-WAC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


13
Independent
1, QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!



Not sure that tells us a lot with n=24. But it sure doesn't show the Big Sky as really standing above any other conference.

"IMO looking at it this way weights 1st round games to heavily because teams that win their first round game can't show up as a "loss" later in the bracket" - Exactly - IFBO, Round 2 games are lambs to slaughter - they are unfair. Think FUBeAR has been pretty clear about that. Counting wins or losses in those games, IFBO, skews that data. If you don't accept that premise or even acknowledge that it 'could be' true, then you really aren't gonna buy into this analysis at all. The rest of that paragraph is just various anecdotal 'issues.' Not really worth considering from a statistical overview perspective.

Not sure why it's so important for MVFC Fans to continue to defend the Big Sky - and torture or just nullify the data.

The Big Sky has been vastly over-selected, vastly over-seeded, and has vastly under-performed in the 24/8 Playoff era with the possible exception of 2018. There is no legitimate way to ignore that is what the data is telling us. The Playoff Selection Committee, in 2023, needs to be aware of their prior errors and stop trying to gain confirmation for their past mistakes by gifting Big Sky Teams with Spots in the Field, Seeds, and High Seeds.

If "Round 2 games are lambs to slaughter - they are unfair" isn't failing to count the upsets where an unseeded team beat a seeded team be even worse? Shouldn't winning an "unfair" game earn a win on the FUBaARian scale?

Should wins over teams from the Pioneer, NEC or MEAC count? Aren't teams from those conferences "lambs to the slaughter" as well?

[atthewbon]

* Not sure why we would choose to use only 2 years of data when we have 9 years available. The tradeoff of almost 80% of our sample size to enhance 'recency' (guessing that's the purpose) seems to be more of an exercise in torturing data to yield the results thought 'accurate' than part of a quest for statistical insight.

These are the results using only '21 & '22 - "Fair games" only - All no-longer FCS removed (including KSU), All intraconference removed.



Comb. Rd1+Seeded v. Seeded & Unseeded v. Unseeded (less IntraConf) - Today's FCS - '21/'22


Rank
Conference
Rounds
W
L
%


1
Big South
1, QF, SF, CH
1
0
1.000


2
Southland
1, QF, SF, CH
4
1
0.800


3
MVFC
1, QF, SF, CH
8
4
0.667


4
Big Sky
1, QF, SF, CH
5
5
0.500


5
CAA
1, QF, SF, CH
3
3
0.500


6
OVC
1, QF, SF, CH
1
1
0.500


7T
SoCon
1, QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


7T
Patriot
1, QF, SF, CH
1
2
0.333


9T
PFL
1, QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


9T
MEAC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
1
0.000


11T
NEC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


11T
ASUN-WAC
1, QF, SF, CH
0
2
0.000


13
Independent
1, QF, SF, CH
0
0
#DIV/0!



Not sure that tells us a lot with n=24. But it sure doesn't show the Big Sky as really standing above any other conference.


"IMO looking at it this way weights 1st round games to heavily because teams that win their first round game can't show up as a "loss" later in the bracket" - Exactly - IFBO, Round 2 games are lambs to slaughter - they are unfair. Think FUBeAR has been pretty clear about that. Counting wins or losses in those games, IFBO, skews that data. If you don't accept that premise or even acknowledge that it 'could be' true, then you really aren't gonna buy into this analysis at all. The rest of that paragraph is just various anecdotal 'issues.' Not really worth considering from a statistical overview perspective.

Not sure why it's so important for MVFC Fans to continue to defend the Big Sky - and torture or just nullify the data.

The Big Sky has been vastly over-selected, vastly over-seeded, and has vastly under-performed in the 24/8 Playoff era with the possible exception of 2018. There is no legitimate way to ignore that is what the data is telling us. The Playoff Selection Committee, in 2023, needs to be aware of their prior errors and stop trying to gain confirmation for their past mistakes by gifting Big Sky Teams with Spots in the Field, Seeds, and High Seeds.

I just did the past 2 years because I wanted to look at recent results and didn’t want to include the covid season (A lot can change in 9 years, not to say it’s not important to look at, but looking at recent results paints a clearer picture of the strength of the conference right now as opposed to how they did a decade ago). While round 1 games might be the most “fair” to look at (Idk how fair it is for teams to buy home field advantage) my point was about how combining Round 1 results, removing round 2 results (where most round 1 teams lose) and then including the subsequent rounds isn’t a good way of looking at this.

I’m not singing the Big Sky’s praises here, I agree with the idea that the committee has looked at them too favorably, but I think you are overstating the magnitude. The MVFC, and arguably the Southland are the only conferences that have consistently over performed in the playoffs. Everyone else, including the Big Sky tends to underperform.

The Big Sky also doesn’t vastly underperform every year. I’m 2021 they went 1-1 in the first round. Had a 6 seed reach the quarters (what you would expect). A 4 seed get upset in the second round, and an 8 seed reach the national title game. If that’s vastly underperforming than idk what the SOCON who hasn’t made the semis in what feels like forever (and has had 5 teams seeded since the 24 team playoff) has been doing the past decade…

And don’t come at me about how it’s impossible for non top 4 teams to make the semis. It been possible for…
UIW (7 seed, 2022)
Montana st (8 seed, 2021)
SDSU (unseeded, 2021)
Montana st (5 seed, 2019)
SDSU (5 seed, 2018)
Maine (7 seed, 2018)
SDSU (5 seed, 2017)
SHSU (6 seed, 2017)
YSU (unseeded, 2016)
SHSU (unseeded, 2015)
Richmond (7 seed, 2015)
Illinois st (5 seed, 2014)
SHSU (unseeded, 2014)
UHN (unseeded, 2013)
Towson (7 seed, 2013)

42% of teams that have made the semifinals weren’t top 4 seeds.

SOCON has made up 14% of 5-8 seeds since the 24 team playoff and non of them have made the semis
Big Sky has made up 25% of 5-8 seeds and made it twice
For reference the MVFC have also had 14% of the 5-8 seeds and had 4 teams make the seims that weren’t top 4 seeds (including two unseeded teams).

Again I agree the Big Sky has underperformed and has been looked upon favorably from the committee, but it’s not quite as drastic as you make it seem. Since the 24 team playoff the MVFC (primarily NDSU) has dominated it and everyone else but SHSU, JMU, SDSU, and recently Montana st has “underperformed”

[VandalBasher]

https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm

Is there a different link?

[FUBeAR]

https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm

Is there a different link?
Try this…

https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/fcs/ratings

[MSUBobcat]

Try this…

https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/fcs/ratings

That's the only one I've been able to find. Do you know if there is a composite ranking like the one from last year like the one VandalBasher posted? I liked that version to smooth out the various polls.

[clenz]

College Football Ranking Composite (masseyratings.com) (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm)

Not updated for this year at all though

EDIT - That site is dead. He has moved it to his "normal" site Massey Ratings - College Football : FCS Rankings (https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cf&sub=fcs)

[MSUBobcat]

College Football Ranking Composite (masseyratings.com) (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm)

Not updated for this year at all though

EDIT - That site is dead. He has moved it to his "normal" site Massey Ratings - College Football : FCS Rankings (https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cf&sub=fcs)

Thanks, Clenz!

[SeattleCat]

The CAA peeps were having some fun with Massey’s pre-season ish, so FUBeAR decided to broaden out their perspective.

So…below are the records Massey projects for the Top-Ranked 105 FCS Teams (down to the final Playoff (Auto)Qualifier).

Bolded Teams with Bolded Conference Names are the Conference AQ’s - that’s assuming FUBeAR has moved everyone to the correct conference (Massey has not) and understands things properly (thinking only 10 AQ’s this year…right?)…and didn’t screw up as he was looking at what Team A did vs. Team B & Team C in Conference X.

The only one that needed a non-head-to-head tie-breaker was the CAA and FUBeAR didn’t find that the CAA has published their scheme yet, so just went with Massey having William & Mary more highly ranked. This almost knocked 10-1 Delaware out of the Playoffs, but with Missouri State and Idaho only having 5 D1 Wins each, they were excluded (via FUBeAR fiat), allowing Delaware and Youngstown State to qualify for At-Large berths.

Bolded Teams with the Conference Name NOT Bolded are At-Large Selections based on Massey’s pre-season rankings…except as noted above.

The 8 Seeds are the Top 8 Teams - 3 MVFC Teams & 5 Big Sky Teams - PERFECT! (cough, sputter, spit, vomit in FUBeAR’s mouth a little).

So, we have…

6 MVFC Teams (3 seeded)
5 Big Sky Teams (All seeded - insert best eye roll meme here)
4 SoCon Teams (LOL - sure we do, nudge, nudge, wink, wink…none seeded, of course)
3 CAA Teams (none seeded)
All other conferences are AQ Team only

Thoughts? Anyone wanna create the bracket?

Villanova fans will not be happy with this projection, will they?



Massey
Rank
Team
Conference
All W's
All L's
FCS W's
FCS L's
FBS W's
FBS L's
< D1 W's
< D1 L's


1
South Dakota State
MVFC
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


2
North Dakota State
MVFC
10
1
10
1
0
0
0
0


3
Montana State
Big Sky
7
4
7
4
0
0
0
0


4
Sacramento State
Big Sky
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


5
Montana
Big Sky
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


6
Weber State
Big Sky
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


7
Northern Iowa
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


8
UC Davis
Big Sky
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


9
Southern Illinois
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


10
Furman
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


11
Incarnate Word
Southland
10
1
9
0
0
1
1
0


12
North Dakota
MVFC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


13
Samford
SoCon
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


14
Chattanooga
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


15
Mercer
SoCon
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


16
Richmond
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


17
Missouri State^
MVFC
5
6
5^
5
0
1
0
0


18
Idaho^
Big Sky
5
6
5^
4
0
2
0
0


19*
William & Mary*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


20*
Delaware*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


21
Youngstown State
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


22
SE Missouri State
OVC/Big South
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


23
South Dakota
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


24
SE Louisiana
Southland
7
4
7
2
0
2
0
0


25
Elon
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


26
Holy Cross
Patriot
8
3
8
1
0
2
0
0


27
Austin Peay
UAC
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


28
Eastern Washington
Big Sky
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


29
Illinois State
MVFC
6
5
6
5
0
0
0
0


30
UT Martin
OVC/Big South
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


31
Princeton
Ivy
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0


32
Central Arkansas
UAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


33
Villanova
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


34
East Tennesee State
SoCon
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


35
Yale
Ivy
9
1
9
1
0
0
0
0


36
Rhode Island
CAA
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


37
Eastern Kentucky
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


38
Stephen F Austin
UAC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


39
Abilene Christian
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


40
Harvard
Ivy
7
3
7
3
0
0
0
0


41
Northern Arizona
Big Sky
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


42
New Hampshire
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


43
Jackson State
SWAC East
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


44
Dartmouth
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


45
Kennesaw
Ind. - Trans.
6
3
3
2
0
1
3
0


46
Western Carolina
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


47
Wofford
SoCon
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


48
Monmouth
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


49
Indiana State
MVFC
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


50
The Citadel
SoCon
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


51
Southern Utah
UAC
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


52
Towson
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


53
Gardner-Webb
OVC/Big South
5
6
5
4
0
2
0
0


54
Maine
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


55
Portland State
Big Sky
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


56
Albany
CAA
4
8
4
6
0
2
0
0


57
Fordham
Patriot
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


58
Campbell
CAA
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


59
Penn
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


60
North Carolina A&T
CAA
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


61
Western Illinois
MVFC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


62
St. Francis PA
NEC
8
2
8
1
0
1
0
0


63
Nicholls State
Southland
4
7
4
5
0
2
0
0


64
Tarleton State
UAC
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


65
McNeese State
Southland
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


66
Idaho State
Big Sky
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


67
VMi
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


68
Florida A&M
SWAC East
6
4
6
2
0
1
0
1


69
Columbia
Ivy
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0


70
Stony Brook
CAA
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


71
Northern Colorado
Big Sky
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


72
Charleston Southern
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


73
Tennessee Tech
OVC/Big South
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


74
Utah Tech
UAC
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


75
Southern U.
SWAC West
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0


76
Texas A&M Commerce
Southland
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


77
Murray State
MVFC
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


78
NC Central
MEAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


79
Tennessee State
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


80
North Alabama
UAC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


81
Prairie View
SWAC West
6
5
6
3
0
1
0
0


82
Alcorn State
SWAC West
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


83
Cal Poly
Big Sky
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


84
Eastern Illinois
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


85
Bryant
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


86
Lindenwood
OVC/Big South
3
7
2
7
0
0
1
0


87
Cornell
Ivy
4
6
4
6
0
0
0
0


88
Colgate
Patriot
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


89
Duquesne
NEC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


90
Lafayette
Patriot
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


91
Northwestern State
Southland
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


92
Sacred Heart
NEC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


93
Hampton
CAA
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


94
SC State
MEAC
5
6
4
4
0
2
1
0


95
Alabama State
SWAC East
6
5
4
5
0
0
2
0


96
Brown
Ivy
1
9
1
9
0
0
0
0


97
Texas Southern
SWAC West
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


98
Howard
MEAC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


99
Lehigh
Patriot
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


100
Alabama A&M
SWAC East
6
5
4
4
0
1
2
0


101
Merrimack
NEC
6
5
5
4
0
1
1
0


102
Lamar
Southland
2
9
1
8
0
1
1
0


103
St. Thomas
PFL
8
3
7
3
0
0
1
0


104
Grambling
SWAC West
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


105
San Diego
PFL
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0




So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

- - - Updated - - -


The CAA peeps were having some fun with Massey’s pre-season ish, so FUBeAR decided to broaden out their perspective.

So…below are the records Massey projects for the Top-Ranked 105 FCS Teams (down to the final Playoff (Auto)Qualifier).

Bolded Teams with Bolded Conference Names are the Conference AQ’s - that’s assuming FUBeAR has moved everyone to the correct conference (Massey has not) and understands things properly (thinking only 10 AQ’s this year…right?)…and didn’t screw up as he was looking at what Team A did vs. Team B & Team C in Conference X.

The only one that needed a non-head-to-head tie-breaker was the CAA and FUBeAR didn’t find that the CAA has published their scheme yet, so just went with Massey having William & Mary more highly ranked. This almost knocked 10-1 Delaware out of the Playoffs, but with Missouri State and Idaho only having 5 D1 Wins each, they were excluded (via FUBeAR fiat), allowing Delaware and Youngstown State to qualify for At-Large berths.

Bolded Teams with the Conference Name NOT Bolded are At-Large Selections based on Massey’s pre-season rankings…except as noted above.

The 8 Seeds are the Top 8 Teams - 3 MVFC Teams & 5 Big Sky Teams - PERFECT! (cough, sputter, spit, vomit in FUBeAR’s mouth a little).

So, we have…

6 MVFC Teams (3 seeded)
5 Big Sky Teams (All seeded - insert best eye roll meme here)
4 SoCon Teams (LOL - sure we do, nudge, nudge, wink, wink…none seeded, of course)
3 CAA Teams (none seeded)
All other conferences are AQ Team only

Thoughts? Anyone wanna create the bracket?

Villanova fans will not be happy with this projection, will they?



Massey
Rank
Team
Conference
All W's
All L's
FCS W's
FCS L's
FBS W's
FBS L's
< D1 W's
< D1 L's


1
South Dakota State
MVFC
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


2
North Dakota State
MVFC
10
1
10
1
0
0
0
0


3
Montana State
Big Sky
7
4
7
4
0
0
0
0


4
Sacramento State
Big Sky
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


5
Montana
Big Sky
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


6
Weber State
Big Sky
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


7
Northern Iowa
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


8
UC Davis
Big Sky
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


9
Southern Illinois
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


10
Furman
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


11
Incarnate Word
Southland
10
1
9
0
0
1
1
0


12
North Dakota
MVFC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


13
Samford
SoCon
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


14
Chattanooga
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


15
Mercer
SoCon
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


16
Richmond
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


17
Missouri State^
MVFC
5
6
5^
5
0
1
0
0


18
Idaho^
Big Sky
5
6
5^
4
0
2
0
0


19*
William & Mary*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


20*
Delaware*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


21
Youngstown State
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


22
SE Missouri State
OVC/Big South
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


23
South Dakota
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


24
SE Louisiana
Southland
7
4
7
2
0
2
0
0


25
Elon
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


26
Holy Cross
Patriot
8
3
8
1
0
2
0
0


27
Austin Peay
UAC
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


28
Eastern Washington
Big Sky
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


29
Illinois State
MVFC
6
5
6
5
0
0
0
0


30
UT Martin
OVC/Big South
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


31
Princeton
Ivy
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0


32
Central Arkansas
UAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


33
Villanova
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


34
East Tennesee State
SoCon
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


35
Yale
Ivy
9
1
9
1
0
0
0
0


36
Rhode Island
CAA
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


37
Eastern Kentucky
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


38
Stephen F Austin
UAC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


39
Abilene Christian
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


40
Harvard
Ivy
7
3
7
3
0
0
0
0


41
Northern Arizona
Big Sky
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


42
New Hampshire
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


43
Jackson State
SWAC East
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


44
Dartmouth
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


45
Kennesaw
Ind. - Trans.
6
3
3
2
0
1
3
0


46
Western Carolina
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


47
Wofford
SoCon
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


48
Monmouth
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


49
Indiana State
MVFC
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


50
The Citadel
SoCon
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


51
Southern Utah
UAC
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


52
Towson
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


53
Gardner-Webb
OVC/Big South
5
6
5
4
0
2
0
0


54
Maine
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


55
Portland State
Big Sky
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


56
Albany
CAA
4
8
4
6
0
2
0
0


57
Fordham
Patriot
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


58
Campbell
CAA
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


59
Penn
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


60
North Carolina A&T
CAA
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


61
Western Illinois
MVFC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


62
St. Francis PA
NEC
8
2
8
1
0
1
0
0


63
Nicholls State
Southland
4
7
4
5
0
2
0
0


64
Tarleton State
UAC
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


65
McNeese State
Southland
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


66
Idaho State
Big Sky
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


67
VMi
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


68
Florida A&M
SWAC East
6
4
6
2
0
1
0
1


69
Columbia
Ivy
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0


70
Stony Brook
CAA
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


71
Northern Colorado
Big Sky
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


72
Charleston Southern
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


73
Tennessee Tech
OVC/Big South
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


74
Utah Tech
UAC
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


75
Southern U.
SWAC West
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0


76
Texas A&M Commerce
Southland
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


77
Murray State
MVFC
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


78
NC Central
MEAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


79
Tennessee State
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


80
North Alabama
UAC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


81
Prairie View
SWAC West
6
5
6
3
0
1
0
0


82
Alcorn State
SWAC West
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


83
Cal Poly
Big Sky
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


84
Eastern Illinois
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


85
Bryant
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


86
Lindenwood
OVC/Big South
3
7
2
7
0
0
1
0


87
Cornell
Ivy
4
6
4
6
0
0
0
0


88
Colgate
Patriot
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


89
Duquesne
NEC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


90
Lafayette
Patriot
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


91
Northwestern State
Southland
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


92
Sacred Heart
NEC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


93
Hampton
CAA
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


94
SC State
MEAC
5
6
4
4
0
2
1
0


95
Alabama State
SWAC East
6
5
4
5
0
0
2
0


96
Brown
Ivy
1
9
1
9
0
0
0
0


97
Texas Southern
SWAC West
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


98
Howard
MEAC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


99
Lehigh
Patriot
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


100
Alabama A&M
SWAC East
6
5
4
4
0
1
2
0


101
Merrimack
NEC
6
5
5
4
0
1
1
0


102
Lamar
Southland
2
9
1
8
0
1
1
0


103
St. Thomas
PFL
8
3
7
3
0
0
1
0


104
Grambling
SWAC West
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


105
San Diego
PFL
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0




So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

- - - Updated - - -


The CAA peeps were having some fun with Massey’s pre-season ish, so FUBeAR decided to broaden out their perspective.

So…below are the records Massey projects for the Top-Ranked 105 FCS Teams (down to the final Playoff (Auto)Qualifier).

Bolded Teams with Bolded Conference Names are the Conference AQ’s - that’s assuming FUBeAR has moved everyone to the correct conference (Massey has not) and understands things properly (thinking only 10 AQ’s this year…right?)…and didn’t screw up as he was looking at what Team A did vs. Team B & Team C in Conference X.

The only one that needed a non-head-to-head tie-breaker was the CAA and FUBeAR didn’t find that the CAA has published their scheme yet, so just went with Massey having William & Mary more highly ranked. This almost knocked 10-1 Delaware out of the Playoffs, but with Missouri State and Idaho only having 5 D1 Wins each, they were excluded (via FUBeAR fiat), allowing Delaware and Youngstown State to qualify for At-Large berths.

Bolded Teams with the Conference Name NOT Bolded are At-Large Selections based on Massey’s pre-season rankings…except as noted above.

The 8 Seeds are the Top 8 Teams - 3 MVFC Teams & 5 Big Sky Teams - PERFECT! (cough, sputter, spit, vomit in FUBeAR’s mouth a little).

So, we have…

6 MVFC Teams (3 seeded)
5 Big Sky Teams (All seeded - insert best eye roll meme here)
4 SoCon Teams (LOL - sure we do, nudge, nudge, wink, wink…none seeded, of course)
3 CAA Teams (none seeded)
All other conferences are AQ Team only

Thoughts? Anyone wanna create the bracket?

Villanova fans will not be happy with this projection, will they?



Massey
Rank
Team
Conference
All W's
All L's
FCS W's
FCS L's
FBS W's
FBS L's
< D1 W's
< D1 L's


1
South Dakota State
MVFC
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


2
North Dakota State
MVFC
10
1
10
1
0
0
0
0


3
Montana State
Big Sky
7
4
7
4
0
0
0
0


4
Sacramento State
Big Sky
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


5
Montana
Big Sky
11
0
10
0
0
0
1
0


6
Weber State
Big Sky
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


7
Northern Iowa
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


8
UC Davis
Big Sky
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


9
Southern Illinois
MVFC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


10
Furman
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


11
Incarnate Word
Southland
10
1
9
0
0
1
1
0


12
North Dakota
MVFC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


13
Samford
SoCon
9
2
8
1
0
1
1
0


14
Chattanooga
SoCon
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


15
Mercer
SoCon
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


16
Richmond
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


17
Missouri State^
MVFC
5
6
5^
5
0
1
0
0


18
Idaho^
Big Sky
5
6
5^
4
0
2
0
0


19*
William & Mary*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


20*
Delaware*
CAA
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


21
Youngstown State
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


22
SE Missouri State
OVC/Big South
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


23
South Dakota
MVFC
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


24
SE Louisiana
Southland
7
4
7
2
0
2
0
0


25
Elon
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


26
Holy Cross
Patriot
8
3
8
1
0
2
0
0


27
Austin Peay
UAC
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


28
Eastern Washington
Big Sky
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


29
Illinois State
MVFC
6
5
6
5
0
0
0
0


30
UT Martin
OVC/Big South
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


31
Princeton
Ivy
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0


32
Central Arkansas
UAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


33
Villanova
CAA
9
2
9
1
0
1
0
0


34
East Tennesee State
SoCon
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


35
Yale
Ivy
9
1
9
1
0
0
0
0


36
Rhode Island
CAA
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


37
Eastern Kentucky
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


38
Stephen F Austin
UAC
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


39
Abilene Christian
UAC
6
5
6
3
0
2
0
0


40
Harvard
Ivy
7
3
7
3
0
0
0
0


41
Northern Arizona
Big Sky
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


42
New Hampshire
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


43
Jackson State
SWAC East
10
1
10
0
0
1
0
0


44
Dartmouth
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


45
Kennesaw
Ind. - Trans.
6
3
3
2
0
1
3
0


46
Western Carolina
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


47
Wofford
SoCon
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


48
Monmouth
CAA
6
5
6
4
0
1
0
0


49
Indiana State
MVFC
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


50
The Citadel
SoCon
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


51
Southern Utah
UAC
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


52
Towson
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


53
Gardner-Webb
OVC/Big South
5
6
5
4
0
2
0
0


54
Maine
CAA
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


55
Portland State
Big Sky
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


56
Albany
CAA
4
8
4
6
0
2
0
0


57
Fordham
Patriot
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


58
Campbell
CAA
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


59
Penn
Ivy
6
4
6
4
0
0
0
0


60
North Carolina A&T
CAA
5
6
5
5
0
1
0
0


61
Western Illinois
MVFC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


62
St. Francis PA
NEC
8
2
8
1
0
1
0
0


63
Nicholls State
Southland
4
7
4
5
0
2
0
0


64
Tarleton State
UAC
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


65
McNeese State
Southland
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


66
Idaho State
Big Sky
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


67
VMi
SoCon
2
9
2
8
0
1
0
0


68
Florida A&M
SWAC East
6
4
6
2
0
1
0
1


69
Columbia
Ivy
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0


70
Stony Brook
CAA
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


71
Northern Colorado
Big Sky
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


72
Charleston Southern
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


73
Tennessee Tech
OVC/Big South
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


74
Utah Tech
UAC
0
11
0
10
0
1
0
0


75
Southern U.
SWAC West
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0


76
Texas A&M Commerce
Southland
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


77
Murray State
MVFC
1
10
1
8
0
2
0
0


78
NC Central
MEAC
7
4
6
3
0
1
1
0


79
Tennessee State
OVC/Big South
5
6
4
5
0
1
1
0


80
North Alabama
UAC
1
10
1
9
0
1
0
0


81
Prairie View
SWAC West
6
5
6
3
0
1
0
0


82
Alcorn State
SWAC West
7
4
7
3
0
1
0
0


83
Cal Poly
Big Sky
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


84
Eastern Illinois
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


85
Bryant
OVC/Big South
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


86
Lindenwood
OVC/Big South
3
7
2
7
0
0
1
0


87
Cornell
Ivy
4
6
4
6
0
0
0
0


88
Colgate
Patriot
3
8
3
7
0
1
0
0


89
Duquesne
NEC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


90
Lafayette
Patriot
4
7
4
6
0
1
0
0


91
Northwestern State
Southland
3
8
3
6
0
2
0
0


92
Sacred Heart
NEC
8
3
8
2
0
1
0
0


93
Hampton
CAA
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


94
SC State
MEAC
5
6
4
4
0
2
1
0


95
Alabama State
SWAC East
6
5
4
5
0
0
2
0


96
Brown
Ivy
1
9
1
9
0
0
0
0


97
Texas Southern
SWAC West
4
7
3
5
0
2
1
0


98
Howard
MEAC
6
5
5
3
0
2
1
0


99
Lehigh
Patriot
2
9
2
9
0
0
0
0


100
Alabama A&M
SWAC East
6
5
4
4
0
1
2
0


101
Merrimack
NEC
6
5
5
4
0
1
1
0


102
Lamar
Southland
2
9
1
8
0
1
1
0


103
St. Thomas
PFL
8
3
7
3
0
0
1
0


104
Grambling
SWAC West
3
8
2
7
0
1
1
0


105
San Diego
PFL
9
2
8
2
0
0
1
0




So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

[MSUBobcat]

So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

- - - Updated - - -



So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

- - - Updated - - -



So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

TLDR... xlolx

[clenz]

So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

- - - Updated - - -



So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol

- - - Updated - - -



So Massey thinks the griz will win the conference.... lol
https://img.ifunny.co/images/d8f66d222a6e7a670c02af9d89a2d70e2c8881a101f5ab347a 695649382bf352_1.jpg

[SeattleCat]

not sure why that quoted 3 times... I guess I'm special.

[caribbeanhen]

College Football Ranking Composite (masseyratings.com) (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm)

Not updated for this year at all though

EDIT - That site is dead. He has moved it to his "normal" site Massey Ratings - College Football : FCS Rankings (https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cf&sub=fcs)

Yes nice find Clenz

AGS poll included too

[Redbird 4th & short]

College Football Ranking Composite (masseyratings.com) (https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm)

Not updated for this year at all though

EDIT - That site is dead. He has moved it to his "normal" site Massey Ratings - College Football : FCS Rankings (https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cf&sub=fcs)

I think Massey takes a couple weeks before putting up the Composite page .. I may be wrong, but think so.

[FUBeAR]

Are we still looking for this? FUBeAR is confused…

https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cf&sub=fcs

Massey Composite updated thru 9/4

[Gil Dobie]

*12-2 (see bracket)

4 or 5 losses, see real time standings.

[Gil Dobie]

All I know is Massey beats almost all of you college boys in straight up pick em games on here

What was Masseys record in picking MVFC games?

[caribbeanhen]

What was Masseys record in picking MVFC games?

Fair

Here are the current standings ranked by total wins:



Chalupa Batman
68
10

87.18%


atthewbon
67
11

85.90%


Gil Dobie

67
11

85.90%


JacksFan40

66
12

84.62%


Bisonator

65
13

83.33%


bonarae

65
13

83.33%


Massey (clenz)
64
14

82.05%


Paladin1aa
64
14

82.05%


Professor Chaos
64
14

82.05%


POD Knows

63
15

80.77%


RahRahRabbits

63
15

80.77%


The Yo Show

61
15

80.26%


SDFS

60
9

86.96%


OSRacer

57
21

73.08%


The Cats

53
13

80.30%


SUPharmacist
26
8

76.47%


mvfcfan

20
6

76.92%


Dewey

15
3

83.33%


DCWIU11

7
4

63.64%


kdniva

6
0

100.00%


Mike296

3
2

60.00%


Bison Fan in NW MN

2
3

40.00%

[ElCid]

What was Masseys record in picking MVFC games?

He does better with some confs than others. At least that's what I found. I never did track it specifically for confs, but I've looked at him enough to see a trend with certain conferences. It's been a while since I looked at every game prediction/result in a season, but as I recall his predictions for the Big Sky were usually more correct than all the others. Just looking at W/L. But all that may mean is they were more stratified and not as competitive top to bottom. Have a conf with a clear pecking order and it becomes much easier to pick