The FCS Wedge 2023

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The new podcast season has arrived and I uploaded the first episode late last night so you can catch it on all your various outlets.

Google
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR...RnZS9wb2RjYXN0 (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvZ3RhbGtyYWRpby5jb20vdGhlLWZjcy 13ZWRnZS9wb2RjYXN0)

Apple
https://podcasts.apple.com/hu/podcas...ge/id557271012 (https://podcasts.apple.com/hu/podcast/the-fcs-wedge/id557271012)

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

Amazon
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ebe31aae-ea8a-4f5d-8920-29f6c81e648a/the-fcs-wedge
(https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ebe31aae-ea8a-4f5d-8920-29f6c81e648a/the-fcs-wedge)
If you have Amazon speakers you can also just say "Alexa, play the latest episode of The FCS Wedge podcast."

I will stick this thread and update as we progress. Me, Kris & Lance always appreciate your input ladies and gents so chime in if you get the chance.

[Catbooster]

Already listened to it. Nice job guys!

[Preferred Walk-On]

You have just made my day, and I will be listening on the drive home this evening. Thanks, fellas!

[MSUBobcat]

Great show fellas!

[SUPharmacist]

Just listened to the first 2 on my way to work. Glad to have you guys back, good work as always.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

A new goes up each Wed. at 4a Mountain and then the same schedule on Thursday as well...usually. Anyway I listed all the outlets in the first post on this thread. Might have one more outlet tomorrow if I get a bit of time to set it up. Here is the episode from today if you have yet to listen.

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-fcs-wedge/2023/09/13/254--2023-0913--wk2-review

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Today's episode.

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-fcs-wedge/2023/09/14/255--2023-0914--wk3-preview

[Preferred Walk-On]

Thanks for the podcast, and looking forward to tomorrow's release (Week 5 Preview). My thoughts:

1. Thou must keepeth the "Rant of the Week". Love the "being outcoached" by NAU coaches comment, and loved Kris' optimism of the Griz "making a course correction". Lance, do NOT give up this segment.

2. Nice to hear from Tim. I have to agree with him. Heck, if we are really upset about preconceived notions, then maybe we should wait until week 8 (or pick your favorite post-week 4 week here). At week 4, there are 1-2 and 1-3 teams that ARE better than 2-1 and 2-2 teams, and they may have losing records to this point due to their opponents (FBS, maybe?) and not due to what their rankings should be. Yet, some people refuse to rank them...because of their record. Ultimately, one has to overcome preconceived notions for those teams with losing records at week 4. Overcoming preconceived notions are just the nature of the beast, and if one has little faith in another's ability to overcome these notions, why should this faith be different for a different preconceived notion? You are simply asking voters to shift which preconceived notions they need to overcome. Enjoyed the cherry picked example of team that shouldn't be ranked (UC Davis from a few years ago now), but this type of situation goes both ways (not one way, as indicated).

3. The Albany win over Morgan State was in OT (left this out of your mention). I am guessing that Morgan State was just outside your top 25...they are 1-3. ;) All kidding aside, I can see the point, and this was acknowledged in the discussion of the top 25. If that Morgan State game goes like a top 25 vs. team that has yet to even be mentioned as ORV, we would not be having this discussion. Kris, while Morgan State beat Richmond (week 1), they just lost to Towson by 10 pt...in regulation...at home...just last week, so...

Gentlemen, I always appreciate the effort you put into this, and love hearing Tim with his analysis. Nice work! Again, looking forward to the Week 5 Preview show.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Thanks for the podcast, and looking forward to tomorrow's release (Week 5 Preview). My thoughts:

1. Thou must keepeth the "Rant of the Week". Love the "being outcoached" by NAU coaches comment, and loved Kris' optimism of the Griz "making a course correction". Lance, do NOT give up this segment.

2. Nice to hear from Tim. I have to agree with him. Heck, if we are really upset about preconceived notions, then maybe we should wait until week 8 (or pick your favorite post-week 4 week here). At week 4, there are 1-2 and 1-3 teams that ARE better than 2-1 and 2-2 teams, and they may have losing records to this point due to their opponents (FBS, maybe?) and not due to what their rankings should be. Yet, some people refuse to rank them...because of their record. Ultimately, one has to overcome preconceived notions for those teams with losing records at week 4. Overcoming preconceived notions are just the nature of the beast, and if one has little faith in another's ability to overcome these notions, why should this faith be different for a different preconceived notion? You are simply asking voters to shift which preconceived notions they need to overcome. Enjoyed the cherry picked example of team that shouldn't be ranked (UC Davis from a few years ago now), but this type of situation goes both ways (not one way, as indicated).

3. The Albany win over Morgan State was in OT (left this out of your mention). I am guessing that Morgan State was just outside your top 25...they are 1-3. ;) All kidding aside, I can see the point, and this was acknowledged in the discussion of the top 25. If that Morgan State game goes like a top 25 vs. team that has yet to even be mentioned as ORV, we would not be having this discussion. Kris, while Morgan State beat Richmond (week 1), they just lost to Towson by 10 pt...in regulation...at home...just last week, so...

Gentlemen, I always appreciate the effort you put into this, and love hearing Tim with his analysis. Nice work! Again, looking forward to the Week 5 Preview show.

Before I ran the poll I had a view much like Lance and maybe Kris to a lesser extent that just waiting would be better. It's BS once you get into it and see how everyone, or at least a mojority of voters work whatever their system is. Nobody that votes or is involved with the AGS Poll sees it from top to bottom, inside and out as much as I do so I feel like I have fairly good authority on the matter.

If a voter leaves a team off their ballot in the preseason it has almost zero affect, and it would likely have almost zero affect in Wk5 but those mistakes can be made, and sometimes can slip by but for the vast majority of them I can catch it. But the mistake is made sometimes...so why would we want to wait to see or correct that problem (as a voter) until Wk5?

Everybody thinks they are the only ones that do things right and that others are not as good as righteous in their vote as they are. It's is wrong and almost every other voter has the same sort of integrity as all others. Now their opinions on what matters to them, and their view on historical aspects are their own. They would/will be in Wk5 just as they are in Wk0.

Voting in Week 5 we have the exact same amount of information that we would have whether we started in Wk0 or Wk5 so zero advantage there. The difference is a "belief" that others are not analyzing the new information and taking it into account over their original belief that they certainly didn't put a whole lot of weight on when they voted in the pre season. That seems like something obvious to vies with how dynamic the results are in the AGS Poll.

SIU is the prime example that Lance uses as to why, I say it is exactly the opposite. SIU is where they should be considering their record. They are very, very close to what Lance thinks and not everyone thinks or has their system weighted in their head like Lance, Kris, or I may have on our ballots...but they are within a spot or two...that's what we are basing this one?

That is not a strong argument for the AGS Poll. it may be a legit argument for other polls but it does not hold up well under scrutiny on this one.

Sorry to my two favorite podcasters but that **** don't fly if you ask me...and as I said I am f'n god if we are talking about what goes on in this poll and how people work the thing!:D

I will hand it to you SOB's though. It gets some discussion flow going. xlolx

Well played boys.

[Catbooster]

As I was listening to the discussion on the podcast, my thoughts were similar to PWO's and Ursus'. I don't think it would make the poll better to wait until we've gotten 4 weeks into the season. It's still limited data. I hope anyone looking at the poll in the early weeks or preseason would be knowledgeable enough to realize that we're just guessing initially with very little information.

For me personally, the preseason and first few weeks are essentially practice, and trying to get the teams lined up - trying to see which preconceived notions are wrong. I know teams will be making substantial moves. I know I'll have a few teams that don't deserve to be on my poll and a few that should be but aren't. But without the first few weeks of putting the poll together, I'm honestly not sure I would put as much effort into my research until the initial poll got closer. We all have weeks where we are swamped with work/family/etc. and it would be much easier to go lighter on the game reviews/discussions. I suspect the involvement and debates on AGS would suffer during those early weeks.

I'll be a good stereotypical Bobcat fan and pick on my fellow Montanans (the half that root for the wrong team) for an example. Let's say last week and this weeks games were reversed and the Griz had beaten ISU fairly easily at home (which I expect them to do), making them 4-0 with no "good" wins, and then this coming weekend travelled up to NAU and took the same loss that they just did, but a week after the poll started, making them 4-1 with a bad loss and no good wins. In that case, if the poll had started this week, I'm fairly sure that the Griz would still be ranked where they were last week (based on past history and reputation). Heck, they might have even moved up a little. How is that any more accurate than what we had by starting with a preseason poll?

IMO the Griz should have dropped completely out of the poll, but I suspect that those who still have them in their poll would regardless of when the poll started. If I'm right and they continue to struggle, I'm sure they'll drop out of the AGS poll within a few weeks. If I'm wrong I'll be putting them back in my poll in a few weeks. Some are quicker to change their opinion than others but I think the AGS voters do a pretty good job of revising their opinions. Ultimately, I think the poll is largely fodder for discussion early and starts getting more important that we "get it right" as we approach the end of the season.

To use the other extreme, the voters in the coaches' poll don't seem to pay much attention to on the field results but base their votes on preconceived notions all through the season. I doubt that would change if they didn't start their poll until later in the season.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

As I was listening to the discussion on the podcast, my thoughts were similar to PWO's and Ursus'. I don't think it would make the poll better to wait until we've gotten 4 weeks into the season. It's still limited data. I hope anyone looking at the poll in the early weeks or preseason would be knowledgeable enough to realize that we're just guessing initially with very little information.

For me personally, the preseason and first few weeks are essentially practice, and trying to get the teams lined up - trying to see which preconceived notions are wrong. I know teams will be making substantial moves. I know I'll have a few teams that don't deserve to be on my poll and a few that should be but aren't. But without the first few weeks of putting the poll together, I'm honestly not sure I would put as much effort into my research until the initial poll got closer. We all have weeks where we are swamped with work/family/etc. and it would be much easier to go lighter on the game reviews/discussions. I suspect the involvement and debates on AGS would suffer during those early weeks.

I'll be a good stereotypical Bobcat fan and pick on my fellow Montanans (the half that root for the wrong team) for an example. Let's say last week and this weeks games were reversed and the Griz had beaten ISU fairly easily at home (which I expect them to do), making them 4-0 with no "good" wins, and then this coming weekend travelled up to NAU and took the same loss that they just did, but a week after the poll started, making them 4-1 with a bad loss and no good wins. In that case, if the poll had started this week, I'm fairly sure that the Griz would still be ranked where they were last week (based on past history and reputation). Heck, they might have even moved up a little. How is that any more accurate than what we had by starting with a preseason poll?

IMO the Griz should have dropped completely out of the poll, but I suspect that those who still have them in their poll would regardless of when the poll started. If I'm right and they continue to struggle, I'm sure they'll drop out of the AGS poll within a few weeks. If I'm wrong I'll be putting them back in my poll in a few weeks. Some are quicker to change their opinion than others but I think the AGS voters do a pretty good job of revising their opinions. Ultimately, I think the poll is largely fodder for discussion early and starts getting more important that we "get it right" as we approach the end of the season.

To use the other extreme, the voters in the coaches' poll don't seem to pay much attention to on the field results but base their votes on preconceived notions all through the season. I doubt that would change if they didn't start their poll until later in the season.

The Griz are an excellent example as they would have been wrongfully ranked much higher than just barely hanging on to the T25 if the poll had started later I would believe but we've had a few weeks to get in some reps and go over that the record at 3-0 was not overly strong. No discussions or less discussion on it prior to this would not have helped.

A single poll with no new data, then a dynamic poll with each new week is about as good as you can do I think. Anything you are trying to do well and get better at probably involves putting in a few reps.

[Preferred Walk-On]

I just want to point out that I have learned an immense amount regarding voting from Tim, Lance, and Kris, as well as numerous voters in AGS in the poll threads.

- Kris has made me pay attention to SOS much more so than I used to (see comment on Morgan State loss to Towson as example).
- Lance helped me realize that teams could make enormous leaps and falls in the rankings and especially assisted in helping me get over any slot-voting tendencies, or at the very least, seriously consider how teams rank after those above fall or those below do something outstanding.
- Tim was actually one of the first people to jump on a questionable ranking I made in one of my early polls in my first year of voting (and he was right to do so), and although he did not use subjective/objective correctly, he was very influential in pointing out flaws in ranking on "belief". While there is always a bit of "belief" in everyone's ranking, his constructive criticism helped make me reconsider any notion I had about a team before pulling the trigger on their ranking.

It is this type of debate and criticism, even if I don't always agree with it, that makes the AGS Poll a pretty darned good one. It makes one really think about what teams they put where and why. I appreciate that.

It is also why I enjoy this FCS podcast the most...because I usually have a disagreement or three with the podcasters, but I enjoy (and respect) their debate and the conviction in their "beliefs".

[kalm]

Thanks for the outstanding feedback, fellers! And thanks for listening!

[Preferred Walk-On]

As I was listening to the discussion on the podcast, my thoughts were similar to PWO's and Ursus'. I don't think it would make the poll better to wait until we've gotten 4 weeks into the season. It's still limited data. I hope anyone looking at the poll in the early weeks or preseason would be knowledgeable enough to realize that we're just guessing initially with very little information.

I am going to play a little Devil's Advocate now by saying that some Furman/Mercer/Wofford fans have pointed out in the past something that Lance did touch on...the preconceived notion thing. Their argument, and I welcome them to correct me if I am wrong, has often been that SoCon teams often start out lower in preseason polls, and that even if they have a season like Samford had last year, they sometimes cannot break into the seeding (or break into the top 4). The argument is that because they start lower, they cannot climb high enough, even if they dominate their conference...simply because other teams started higher (preseason) and never really did anything to go lower (or maybe did not get dinged enough for their transgressions). The preconceived notion is that if the higher teams were ranked that high to start, then they must be better than lower preseason ranked teams from conferences perceived to be a bit weaker, even at the end of the season. I guess there are two preconceived notions at play here. ;) Anyway, the argument is that voters may (do) not adjust enough to do some of these lower preseason ranked teams justice (and they subsequently go on the road in the playoffs and get beat).

Now to play Devil's Advocate to my Devil's Advocate. The preconceived notion of "weaker" conference will still be in play after week 4 (or insert week here). Therefore, teams that some think should be ranked higher, but have few/no data points outside their conference results, are likely going to ranked with the same "bias" voters had before the season started. So I guess those teams are still going to be screwed until they overcome odds and make a statement (maybe consistently), and win on the road in the playoffs, so that they will be ranked higher at the beginning of the next season. Maybe a case-in-point is the 2010 NDSU Bison. Barely make the playoffs. Go on the road and "slaughter" (as Lance would say) a top 4 ranked team. Go on the road again, and lose to the eventual national champion in OT. The next year, they get ranked higher early and proceed to end up at the #2 seed and win the natty. If they can do that, then why can't another team from a conference outside of the Big Sky/MVFC do that?

[FUBeAR]

I am going to play a little Devil's Advocate now by saying that some Furman/Mercer/Wofford fans have pointed out in the past something that Lance did touch on...the preconceived notion thing. Their argument, and I welcome them to correct me if I am wrong, has often been that SoCon teams often start out lower in preseason polls, and that even if they have a season like Samford had last year, they sometimes cannot break into the seeding (or break into the top 4). The argument is that because they start lower, they cannot climb high enough, even if they dominate their conference...simply because other teams started higher (preseason) and never really did anything to go lower (or maybe did not get dinged enough for their transgressions). The preconceived notion is that if the higher teams were ranked that high to start, then they must be better than lower preseason ranked teams from conferences perceived to be a bit weaker, even at the end of the season. I guess there are two preconceived notions at play here. ;) Anyway, the argument is that voters may (do) not adjust enough to do some of these lower preseason ranked teams justice (and they subsequently go on the road in the playoffs and get beat).

Now to play Devil's Advocate to my Devil's Advocate. The preconceived notion of "weaker" conference will still be in play after week 4 (or insert week here). Therefore, teams that some think should be ranked higher, but have few/no data points outside their conference results, are likely going to ranked with the same "bias" voters had before the season started. So I guess those teams are still going to be screwed until they overcome odds and make a statement (maybe consistently), and win on the road in the playoffs, so that they will be ranked higher at the beginning of the next season. Maybe a case-in-point is the 2010 NDSU Bison. Barely make the playoffs. Go on the road and "slaughter" (as Lance would say) a top 4 ranked team. Go on the road again, and lose to the eventual national champion in OT. The next year, they get ranked higher early and proceed to end up at the #2 seed and win the natty. If they can do that, then why can't another team from a conference outside of the Big Sky/MVFC do that?
NDSU going to Bozeman in Round 2 in 2010 does not equal Hypothetically unseeded Furman hypothetically going to Bozeman in the 3rd round in 2023. Before hypothetically going to Bozeman, playing 2 Playoff games vs. the likes of hypothetical Elon that hypothetically defeated every other hypothetical CAA Team in the Playoffs and then hypothetically traveling to San Antonio to hypothetically battle a hypothetically high-flying UIW Team sure ain’t the same as a light home tune-up vs. a partially-funded NEC Team that had lost to a PFL Team and another partially-funded NEC Team.

In another thread before the season started, FUBeAR covered the triple-stacked deck of the current Playoff structure AND the self-fulfilling nature of the status quo enabled by the triple-stacked deck AND augmented by the extreme weather variation / hostility of environment in great detail, including analysis of Playoff results for the 9 years of 24 Teams / 8 Seeds. Not going to rehash that here, but what you’ve described as the “Furman/Mercer/Wofford argument” omits a lot of the ‘argument.’ You can all also keep just denying it exists, or telling just part of the story (as you’ve done here), or quoting stupid macho cliches, or citing 1 or 2 outliers as “proof” that everything is perfectly fair (a word FUBeAR is loathe to use), but it’s not.

SoCon, Southland, Big South/OVC et al Schools should be, if they aren’t already, exploring and discussing alternatives to participating in the Triple-Stacked FCS Playoffs, if no changes to the structure are effected soon. And, seeding 16 vs 8 would only make it worse - so that ain’t it.

Alternatives, such as the SWAC and MEAC have developed could be interesting and, perhaps, some G5 Teams - former FCS Teams like Appy & GaSou could become involved in some way. Just gotta be creative and find a way for the NCAA Execs to get their pound of flesh out of it….

But y’all keep tellin’ us …


https://youtu.be/2jqQsDklQEM?feature=shared

[Preferred Walk-On]

NDSU going to Bozeman in Round 2 in 2010 does not equal Hypothetically unseeded Furman hypothetically going to Bozeman in the 3rd round in 2023. Before hypothetically going to Bozeman, playing 2 Playoff games vs. the likes of hypothetical Elon that hypothetically defeated every other hypothetical CAA Team in the Playoffs and then hypothetically traveling to San Antonio to hypothetically battle a hypothetically high-flying UIW Team sure ain’t the same as a light home tune-up vs. a partially-funded NEC Team that had lost to a PFL Team and another partially-funded NEC Team.

In another thread before the season started, FUBeAR covered the triple-stacked deck of the current Playoff structure AND the self-fulfilling nature of the status quo enabled by the triple-stacked deck AND augmented by the extreme weather variation / hostility of environment in great detail, including analysis of Playoff results for the 9 years of 24 Teams / 8 Seeds. Not going to rehash that here, but what you’ve described as the “Furman/Mercer/Wofford argument” omits a lot of the ‘argument.’ You can all also keep just denying it exists, or telling just part of the story (as you’ve done here), or quoting stupid macho cliches, or citing 1 or 2 outliers as “proof” that everything is perfectly fair (a word FUBeAR is loathe to use), but it’s not.

SoCon, Southland, Big South/OVC et al Schools should be, if they aren’t already, exploring and discussing alternatives to participating in the Triple-Stacked FCS Playoffs, if no changes to the structure are effected soon. And, seeding 16 vs 8 would only make it worse - so that ain’t it.

Alternatives, such as the SWAC and MEAC have developed could be interesting and, perhaps, some G5 Teams - former FCS Teams like Appy & GaSou could become involved in some way. Just gotta be creative and find a way for the NCAA Execs to get their pound of flesh out of it….

But y’all keep tellin’ us …


https://youtu.be/2jqQsDklQEM?feature=shared

FUBeAR, thanks for chiming in. I figured the Paladin/Bear/Terrier signal had been raised, and I was certain I did not do yours or other's argument justice (those masterpieces are strewn about in numerous threads in AGS history). However, with the jibberish you just said, I am not sure you did your argument justice either.

I am going to dumb-down your argument now, since you did an awful job above trying to explain anything.

SoCon is seeded low (preseason), no matter what they do they will not be seeded high (end of season), will have to go on road, deck is stacked, cannot win...but, if seeded high to begin with, end season with high seed, host all playoff games, then win it all. Is that about right?

I don't disagree that seeding matters, and that teams in the past may not have gotten the best of the deal. And I also agree with the idea that perception does put some teams at a disadvantage come playoff time (and that perception can stem from very early in the season). That was the crux of discussing the merits/pitfalls of preseason vs. week 4 rankings. But as a firm supporter of equality, I cannot begrudge your affirmative action philosophy regarding playoffs and seeding.

Go ahead. Last word it. It's OK. I still respect and appreciate your fervor in your cause.

[FUBeAR]

FUBeAR, thanks for chiming in. I figured the Paladin/Bear/Terrier signal had been raised, and I was certain I did not do yours or other's argument justice (those masterpieces are strewn about in numerous threads in AGS history). However, with the jibberish you just said, I am not sure you did your argument justice either.

I am going to dumb-down your argument now, since you did an awful job above trying to explain anything.

SoCon is seeded low (preseason), no matter what they do they will not be seeded high (end of season), will have to go on road, deck is stacked, cannot win...but, if seeded high to begin with, end season with high seed, host all playoff games, then win it all. Is that about right?

I don't disagree that seeding matters, and that teams in the past may not have gotten the best of the deal. And I also agree with the idea that perception does put some teams at a disadvantage come playoff time (and that perception can stem from very early in the season). That was the crux of discussing the merits/pitfalls of preseason vs. week 4 rankings. But as a firm supporter of equality, I cannot begrudge your affirmative action philosophy regarding playoffs and seeding.

Go ahead. Last word it. It's OK. I still respect and appreciate your fervor in your cause.
FUBeAR is sorry that you have difficulty grasping semi-complex postulates with hypothetical illustrations.

And, you seemed to overlook the clearly stated premise - FUBeAR ain't gonna rehash that ish here. So, FUBeAR ain't really tryna hash/rehash anything.

But - that said - your "dumbed down" version of a complex topic is certainly more than good enough for the amount of serious, reflective, and objective thought y'all will give it.

Other than the aforementioned Secession (something with which we do have a bit of prior experience), THE solution (and FUBeAR has thought long and hard about this) is to make the Playoffs into 4 8-Team Regions and create some type of "Final Four" structure / environment.

LAST WORD...


If the topic is, instead, when should polls start? That's a moot topic. The simple answer is Polls WILL start whenever any media organization or media member can generate enough clicks to make them worthwhile for them to produce. So, no words...don't really care.

[Catbooster]

I am going to play a little Devil's Advocate now by saying that some Furman/Mercer/Wofford fans have pointed out in the past something that Lance did touch on...the preconceived notion thing. Their argument, and I welcome them to correct me if I am wrong, has often been that SoCon teams often start out lower in preseason polls, and that even if they have a season like Samford had last year, they sometimes cannot break into the seeding (or break into the top 4). The argument is that because they start lower, they cannot climb high enough, even if they dominate their conference...simply because other teams started higher (preseason) and never really did anything to go lower (or maybe did not get dinged enough for their transgressions). The preconceived notion is that if the higher teams were ranked that high to start, then they must be better than lower preseason ranked teams from conferences perceived to be a bit weaker, even at the end of the season. I guess there are two preconceived notions at play here. ;) Anyway, the argument is that voters may (do) not adjust enough to do some of these lower preseason ranked teams justice (and they subsequently go on the road in the playoffs and get beat).

Now to play Devil's Advocate to my Devil's Advocate. The preconceived notion of "weaker" conference will still be in play after week 4 (or insert week here). Therefore, teams that some think should be ranked higher, but have few/no data points outside their conference results, are likely going to ranked with the same "bias" voters had before the season started. So I guess those teams are still going to be screwed until they overcome odds and make a statement (maybe consistently), and win on the road in the playoffs, so that they will be ranked higher at the beginning of the next season. Maybe a case-in-point is the 2010 NDSU Bison. Barely make the playoffs. Go on the road and "slaughter" (as Lance would say) a top 4 ranked team. Go on the road again, and lose to the eventual national champion in OT. The next year, they get ranked higher early and proceed to end up at the #2 seed and win the natty. If they can do that, then why can't another team from a conference outside of the Big Sky/MVFC do that?
I agree that teams who haven't established a solid playoff record and/or are from conferences that are perceived to be weaker have a considerably harder time getting into the top 25 and climbing up the rankings.

For a hypothetical case, take a team like Butler. Their only loss was to Montana and they played them pretty well in the first game of the season. Let's assume UM kept winning and ranks around #10 in the poll. The rest of the teams Butler plays typically won't give them a quality win, even if they thrash every remaining team and end up 10-1. It's hard for a team like that to move up in the poll. But an established team that keeps on winning, even against poor competition, tends to maintain their ranking just by winning. They're doing what's expected of them. They can even move up when teams above them lose a game and drop below them.

I remember when MSU, after years of bad teams, started winning again in the early 2000's (back when the Grizzlies dominated the conference) and I was frustrated that we couldn't get as much credit for beating essentially the same teams. It was hard to move up the rankings. It's harder yet for schools in weaker conferences. You have to maintain winning over several seasons (and get some playoff wins) to get the reputation. As an aside, the SoCon had an advantage back then in the polls - App State, Geo Southern, Furman, Wofford were all playoff teams often.

As you said, there are two preconceived notions - teams that have been good are still good (don't drop in the poll because they don't have any bad losses), and teams that have been bad are still bad (don't move up because they don't have any good wins). It's a tough problem to solve.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Thanks for the podcasts this week.

The discussion on promotion/relegation was an interesting one; however, Pete was "spot on" in his assessment of why this type of system will not work for anything lower than FBS P5/maybe some G5. Geography and a budget that is just in too much flux for the "have nots". Even with the potential boost/offset by TV revenue, budgets at these types of universities are just not flexible enough to support that type of change. Given that some states don't even fund their universities they way they should, this becomes an even bigger "burden" for donors, which in some cases will go beyond even what they are willing to give.

Also, could you imagine Sam Houston (for example as a very successful FCS but thus far struggling FBS) being relegated, doing well, being promoted, doing poorly, being relegated, over and over. Also, as stated, 70 million in a two-Idaho equivalent geography can support this, because it is essentially like an Ivy, NEC, MEAC, or Patriot League footprint encompassing ALL (every single one) of the soccer teams (i.e., the geographical limit never really changes). If the entire FBS/FCS fit in this footprint, then it would have a better chance and much more merit. There is some possibility for FBS, but FCS continually moving up, down, up, down, forget it...IMO.

Again, appreciate the guest and discussion. Also, the outros this week were "spot on". ;)

[kalm]

Thanks for the podcasts this week.

The discussion on promotion/relegation was an interesting one; however, Pete was "spot on" in his assessment of why this type of system will not work for anything lower than FBS P5/maybe some G5. Geography and a budget that is just in too much flux for the "have nots". Even with the potential boost/offset by TV revenue, budgets at these types of universities are just not flexible enough to support that type of change. Given that some states don't even fund their universities they way they should, this becomes an even bigger "burden" for donors, which in some cases will go beyond even what they are willing to give.

Also, could you imagine Sam Houston (for example as a very successful FCS but thus far struggling FBS) being relegated, doing well, being promoted, doing poorly, being relegated, over and over. Also, as stated, 70 million in a two-Idaho equivalent geography can support this, because it is essentially like an Ivy, NEC, MEAC, or Patriot League footprint encompassing ALL (every single one) of the soccer teams (i.e., the geographical limit never really changes). If the entire FBS/FCS fit in this footprint, then it would have a better chance and much more merit. There is some possibility for FBS, but FCS continually moving up, down, up, down, forget it...IMO.

Again, appreciate the guest and discussion. Also, the outros this week were "spot on". ;)

Great points. I think it’s more about what happens to FBS and those potential impacts on FCS. This would make it more difficult for many G5 and FCS programs to move up (which is what the P5 wants) and along with the new funding level and transition fees may actually stabilize FCS. The SAM’s KSU’s and smaller G5’s might be nervous now.

I don’t think Idaho regrets their decision to come back.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Gentlemen, listened to the double-header of podcasts this morning. Made the workout fly by. Just wanted to say thanks for what you do.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Gentlemen, listened to the double-header of podcasts this morning. Made the workout fly by. Just wanted to say thanks for what you do.

Late responding but thank you PWO.

[kalm]

Gentlemen, listened to the double-header of podcasts this morning. Made the workout fly by. Just wanted to say thanks for what you do.

Thank you, Brother!

[Houndawg]

I agree that teams who haven't established a solid playoff record and/or are from conferences that are perceived to be weaker have a considerably harder time getting into the top 25 and climbing up the rankings.

For a hypothetical case, take a team like Butler. Their only loss was to Montana and they played them pretty well in the first game of the season. Let's assume UM kept winning and ranks around #10 in the poll. The rest of the teams Butler plays typically won't give them a quality win, even if they thrash every remaining team and end up 10-1. It's hard for a team like that to move up in the poll. But an established team that keeps on winning, even against poor competition, tends to maintain their ranking just by winning. They're doing what's expected of them. They can even move up when teams above them lose a game and drop below them.

I remember when MSU, after years of bad teams, started winning again in the early 2000's (back when the Grizzlies dominated the conference) and I was frustrated that we couldn't get as much credit for beating essentially the same teams. It was hard to move up the rankings. It's harder yet for schools in weaker conferences. You have to maintain winning over several seasons (and get some playoff wins) to get the reputation. As an aside, the SoCon had an advantage back then in the polls - App State, Geo Southern, Furman, Wofford were all playoff teams often.

As you said, there are two preconceived notions - teams that have been good are still good (don't drop in the poll because they don't have any bad losses), and teams that have been bad are still bad (don't move up because they don't have any good wins). It's a tough problem to solve.

Both notions could be right and both notions could be wrong - I think the solutions is in OOC games. If you think you aren't getting your due, play the guys that you think you should be ranked with.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Both notions could be right and both notions could be wrong - I think the solutions is in OOC games. If you think you aren't getting your due, play the guys that you think you should be ranked with.

Sorry, late to the party...as usual.

The thing that always gets me when we criticize a team for their OOC and suggest that they schedule better (or schedule teams you would like to be ranked with), is that schedules are often done years in advance (see future schedules threads), AND that by the time those teams trickle on to the schedule, they are not always the team they were when the future date was made. It would be interesting if there were a way in which, I don't know, AI maybe, could generate an OOC for each team based on "who they are" and a realistic "who they want to become". The other problem is one of finances, where teams want/need to schedule X number of home games, so they might not schedule the competition they want, but the competition they need to make ends meet. This will likely be a problem until the end of time. It is definitely an uphill battle for many of the have-nots.

[Preferred Walk-On]

kalm, thanks for the shoutout on the podcast regarding the HTF. I know it keeps me quite engaged and provides me with a perspective of the FCS as a whole, and not just my neighborhood. Happy to help, and glad it is useful.

[kalm]

kalm, thanks for the shoutout on the podcast regarding the HTF. I know it keeps me quite engaged and provides me with a perspective of the FCS as a whole, and not just my neighborhood. Happy to help, and glad it is useful.

You are most certainly welcome and thank you!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The show will arrive late this week. We are having big trouble with the eStudio this week.

[caribbeanhen]

NDSU going to Bozeman in Round 2 in 2010 does not equal Hypothetically unseeded Furman hypothetically going to Bozeman in the 3rd round in 2023. Before hypothetically going to Bozeman, playing 2 Playoff games vs. the likes of hypothetical Elon that hypothetically defeated every other hypothetical CAA Team in the Playoffs and then hypothetically traveling to San Antonio to hypothetically battle a hypothetically high-flying UIW Team sure ain’t the same as a light home tune-up vs. a partially-funded NEC Team that had lost to a PFL Team and another partially-funded NEC Team.

In another thread before the season started, FUBeAR covered the triple-stacked deck of the current Playoff structure AND the self-fulfilling nature of the status quo enabled by the triple-stacked deck AND augmented by the extreme weather variation / hostility of environment in great detail, including analysis of Playoff results for the 9 years of 24 Teams / 8 Seeds. Not going to rehash that here, but what you’ve described as the “Furman/Mercer/Wofford argument” omits a lot of the ‘argument.’ You can all also keep just denying it exists, or telling just part of the story (as you’ve done here), or quoting stupid macho cliches, or citing 1 or 2 outliers as “proof” that everything is perfectly fair (a word FUBeAR is loathe to use), but it’s not.

SoCon, Southland, Big South/OVC et al Schools should be, if they aren’t already, exploring and discussing alternatives to participating in the Triple-Stacked FCS Playoffs, if no changes to the structure are effected soon. And, seeding 16 vs 8 would only make it worse - so that ain’t it.

Alternatives, such as the SWAC and MEAC have developed could be interesting and, perhaps, some G5 Teams - former FCS Teams like Appy & GaSou could become involved in some way. Just gotta be creative and find a way for the NCAA Execs to get their pound of flesh out of it….

But y’all keep tellin’ us …


https://youtu.be/2jqQsDklQEM?feature=shared

Be creative! I like it. Let’s face it, when they tell you nobody cares about the FCS playoffs they are not really lying. As for the AGS poll, I vote for fun and agree it’s the best poll but who besides us even looks at it? Does the committee look at it?

Don’t blame the SWAC/MEAC a bit for not participating but

Need to get the Ivies involved somehow with the Celebration Bowl Final 4 or something similar, plug it into the FCS playoffs or vice versa. Why are the Ivies afraid of becoming known as football schools?

Another thought, for football I would be for just tearing down the conference structure completely and making a national schedule. We could really see some interesting games as there is not nearly enough OOC games right now. This might be seen as madness but it does kind of match up with FBS and the changing geographic make up of conferences. I realize this idea would be wildly unpopular with traditional fans that go for the food at the tailgate

With a national schedule, you could kind of make the season into a tiered playoff structure from game one! At some point mid season half of FCS could be eliminated and go from there. This would eliminate the committee as you would have play in games to get in the playoffs….

Who’s with me!?!

[Preferred Walk-On]

Was just checking to see if there was a Week 12 Preview show. I can’t seem to find it through my usual podcast apps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Was just checking to see if there was a Week 12 Preview show. I can’t seem to find it through my usual podcast apps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I upped it on Thurs. at 4a like usual, they process the audio and put it out. Bingo, every time it goes out to all. For some reason for the fist time they got it stuck in some process glitch and just did not release it. I could not fix it yesterday as I was in a day surgery so pretty f'd up for the day.

Long story short, I just deleted the former one and redid it so it may be up now? I know it is available at the source at the very least. Sorry about all this guys but I'll catch back up soon. xlolx

[Preferred Walk-On]

No worries and hope you are feeling better today. Looking forward to listening while traveling today. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Pretty slow today yet but all is going great and you should be able to catch it on your trip as I just checked google casts and it is listed. I know Apple takes a bit longer.

[acbearkat]

I'm listening to the latest podcast episode. Texas has six-man football. It's now what's called 1A football. One of the schools near me, Apple Springs, plays six-man football.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm listening to the latest podcast episode. Texas has six-man football. It's now what's called 1A football. One of the schools near me, Apple Springs, plays six-man football.

Thanks for the confirmation. Lance was just going off of memory I am sure. I could look it up but you probably know the field dimensions so why not just ask you and be lazy...xlolx.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Just wanted to let you guys know that I appreciate the past couple of weeks of reviews and previews.

Tim did a great job filling in, and I'm glad Lance is back to rant about the CAA, MVFC getting pushovers, and his happiness that NDSU has to play on the road. ;)

Love hearing Mieke in the background from time-to-time, and since the Northern Iowa Panthers are not in the playoffs, who is she rooting for to win it all? I have to believe it is Villanova.

Kris, you have been a bit soft on your SoCon stance recently, and I have to believe you are rooting that way this upcoming weekend. ;)

Lance, glad your doing better, and I'm with you on seeding 16, but if you are going to seed 16, why not seed all 24? In my opinion, all seeding 16 really does is make it so that bidding for 1st round games is no longer relevant, but still provides that favorite feature of ours...regionalization for the 1st round matchups. Unless 9-16 are also secret ballot (like 1-8 is...yeah, right), regionalization will likely be a continued feature of the 2nd round as well (where possible). I understand that for this tournament, it was wrong that NDSU was a pseudo #11, with YSU pseudo #9 and Chattanooga pseudo #10 (even if FUBeAR would believe this is about right for UTC :D). It was also wrong for NDSU to be unseeded, but they'll get the chance to right that wrong this upcoming weekend...on the field...on the road (enjoy it Lance).

Lance, I do appreciate your two-year, continued "rant" directly/indirectly saying how NDSU should be matched up against SDSU (this year as #9 should have to play #8, not #6 in 2nd round and last year by saying that they should have been a #4 instead of #3, while completely disregarding the #1 and #2 arrangement last year and the arguments for/against...remember, AGS had Sac St #1 and SDSU #2 (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?318675-AGS-Poll-Results-2022-SEASON-Wk-12-SELECTION-SUNDAY&highlight=POLL+RESULTS+2022)). I think NDSU has played SDSU enough in the playoffs in the decade prior to let this one go. ;)

Looking forward to the podcasts this week, and thanks again gentlemen for doing them. They are appreciated.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Finished listening to the 2nd Round Review show. Nice work, gentlemen.

I agree that Montana St probably should have gone for two; however, I also think that that type of gamble is not in Brent Vigen's DNA. He is an outstanding coach, but based on observations of when he was OC at NDSU, he is not one to go against percentages. Kicking problems or not, you need to kick a ball 20 yd through the uprights, and this does have a much higher probability than going for two, no matter what play the coach decides to run. Coach Vigen going for the XP was quite predictable. I'm not sure the kick was that low, but it was low enough, and the arm placement happened to be in a gap right down the middle (i.e., where the ball was going to be). Neither team deserved to lose, so not playing in the 2nd round would have been nice.

Lance, you made the comment that the committee for some reason thinks Montana/Montana St are close to NDSU/UND/SDSU/USD, and therefore, they get paired when they shouldn't...I couldn't agree more. However, I think it is more a product of regionalizing the east coast, and the leftovers (west of the Mississippi) are simply paired as such. Also, one has to balance regionalization with trying to avoid in-season matchups (in the 1st round). I feel like the committee is now trying to prevent these in the 2nd round, and I think a major driver of that is the number of times SDSU and NDSU played in the playoffs (particularly in the 2nd round) in the past decade. I haven't checked this out, but I am wondering how many times Montana v. Montana St has happened in the playoffs in the past decade...two decades? Montana got Eastern Washington a lot, but that was probably because Idaho was not there for a long time (FBS). Seeding all 24 (presumably) eliminates questions about regionalization and avoiding in-season matchups, because at that point, neither would matter (if they happen, they happen). With seeding 16, you are still going to get this for the 1st round AND if bracketed right, some of this for the 2nd round. That was what I was trying to get at last week. That said, I would love to see a bracketing where intraconference play is severely limited (like a quadrant that has a SoCon, CAA, MVFC, and Big Sky, and other quadrants that follow suit), but this is where the almighty dollar will prevail and limit this type of scenario.

Lance, I also appreciate you trying to set up Kris to equate a South Dakota result this weekend to that of an Eastern Washington one over a decade ago...and he dropped the ball. However, the major difference is that USD does not have red turf (ever seen the movie "Super Fuzz"?). BTW Kris, I love that red turf...it is awesome!

[kalm]

Finished listening to the 2nd Round Review show. Nice work, gentlemen.

I agree that Montana St probably should have gone for two; however, I also think that that type of gamble is not in Brent Vigen's DNA. He is an outstanding coach, but based on observations of when he was OC at NDSU, he is not one to go against percentages. Kicking problems or not, you need to kick a ball 20 yd through the uprights, and this does have a much higher probability than going for two, no matter what play the coach decides to run. Coach Vigen going for the XP was quite predictable. I'm not sure the kick was that low, but it was low enough, and the arm placement happened to be in a gap right down the middle (i.e., where the ball was going to be). Neither team deserved to lose, so not playing in the 2nd round would have been nice.

Lance, you made the comment that the committee for some reason thinks Montana/Montana St are close to NDSU/UND/SDSU/USD, and therefore, they get paired when they shouldn't...I couldn't agree more. However, I think it is more a product of regionalizing the east coast, and the leftovers (west of the Mississippi) are simply paired as such. Also, one has to balance regionalization with trying to avoid in-season matchups (in the 1st round). I feel like the committee is now trying to prevent these in the 2nd round, and I think a major driver of that is the number of times SDSU and NDSU played in the playoffs (particularly in the 2nd round) in the past decade. I haven't checked this out, but I am wondering how many times Montana v. Montana St has happened in the playoffs in the past decade...two decades? Montana got Eastern Washington a lot, but that was probably because Idaho was not there for a long time (FBS). Seeding all 24 (presumably) eliminates questions about regionalization and avoiding in-season matchups, because at that point, neither would matter (if they happen, they happen). With seeding 16, you are still going to get this for the 1st round AND if bracketed right, some of this for the 2nd round. That was what I was trying to get at last week. That said, I would love to see a bracketing where intraconference play is severely limited (like a quadrant that has a SoCon, CAA, MVFC, and Big Sky, and other quadrants that follow suit), but this is where the almighty dollar will prevail and limit this type of scenario.

Lance, I also appreciate you trying to set up Kris to equate a South Dakota result this weekend to that of an Eastern Washington one over a decade ago...and he dropped the ball. However, the major difference is that USD does not have red turf (ever seen the movie "Super Fuzz"?). BTW Kris, I love that red turf...it is awesome!

Don’t encourage, him PWO! :)

[Catbooster]

Nice to hear Mika(sp?) is "the best 'Cat fan" in your sign-off of the round 2 review. There's at least one smart member of the family.

:D

[caribbeanhen]

FUBeAR is sorry that you have difficulty grasping semi-complex postulates with hypothetical illustrations.

And, you seemed to overlook the clearly stated premise - FUBeAR ain't gonna rehash that ish here. So, FUBeAR ain't really tryna hash/rehash anything.

But - that said - your "dumbed down" version of a complex topic is certainly more than good enough for the amount of serious, reflective, and objective thought y'all will give it.

Other than the aforementioned Secession (something with which we do have a bit of prior experience), THE solution (and FUBeAR has thought long and hard about this) is to make the Playoffs into 4 8-Team Regions and create some type of "Final Four" structure / environment.

LAST WORD...


If the topic is, instead, when should polls start? That's a moot topic. The simple answer is Polls WILL start whenever any media organization or media member can generate enough clicks to make them worthwhile for them to produce. So, no words...don't really care.

Quiz
A)True
B) damn true
C) False

answer B

damn true

[caribbeanhen]

Be creative! I like it. Let’s face it, when they tell you nobody cares about the FCS playoffs they are not really lying. As for the AGS poll, I vote for fun and agree it’s the best poll but who besides us even looks at it? Does the committee look at it?

Don’t blame the SWAC/MEAC a bit for not participating but

Need to get the Ivies involved somehow with the Celebration Bowl Final 4 or something similar, plug it into the FCS playoffs or vice versa. Why are the Ivies afraid of becoming known as football schools?

Another thought, for football I would be for just tearing down the conference structure completely and making a national schedule. We could really see some interesting games as there is not nearly enough OOC games right now. This might be seen as madness but it does kind of match up with FBS and the changing geographic make up of conferences. I realize this idea would be wildly unpopular with traditional fans that go for the food at the tailgate

With a national schedule, you could kind of make the season into a tiered playoff structure from game one! At some point mid season half of FCS could be eliminated and go from there. This would eliminate the committee as you would have play in games to get in the playoffs….

Who’s with me!?!

Chip Kelly agrees with CH … 64 teams might be a nice number for FCS as well

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-chip-kelly-single-power-224549573.html


“Kelly said we should just all be independent in football. There should be no conferences for football. Football should be separated. Everyone should be independent.”

“You can have a 64-team conference. That's the Power Five. You can have a 64-team conference. That's the group of five. We separate it. They still play each other”