From ESPN.com

[WVAPPmountaineer]

In the Year of the Upset, memorable moments were plentiful
ESPN.com

Mark Schlabach: My favorite memory of the 2007 college football season was one of the first moments. While covering Virginia Tech's Sept. 1 opener against East Carolina, I noticed Michigan was struggling against Division I-AA Appalachian State at Michigan Stadium. The Appalachian State campus was about 2½ hours away in the North Carolina mountains, but I wasn't about to miss the aftermath of one of the greatest upsets in college football history. When the Mountaineers completed their shocker over the Wolverines, I hit the road. The party was just beginning when I arrived in Boone at 7 p.m. I met two Appalachian State students outside a bar. They were my campus guides the rest of the night. They showed me how students had torn down the goal posts in Appalachian State's stadium and dragged them across campus to the front yard of the chancellor's home. Several hours later, the football team returned to Boone in several buses. There were hundreds of fans waiting at the football complex. It's a scene I'll never forget.

[lizrdgizrd]

I have to admit that Mark is definitely on my list of Football talking heads who actually makes sense. Even before this! xnodx

[GannonFan]

Appalachian St beat Michigan this year???? xeekx xeekx xeekx xeekx xeekx

[yosef1969]

Appalachian St beat Michigan this year???? xeekx xeekx xeekx xeekx xeekx

Was that this year? Because apparently in the selection commitee's eyes that was ancient history and was given zero consideration!

[GannonFan]

Was that this year? Because apparently in the selection commitee's eyes that was ancient history and was given zero consideration!

What, did they drop Appy St from the playoffs???? Hey, if SIU was 9-2 I could practically guarantee you that Appy St would've gotten the #4 seed over SIU. The other 3 seeds were for undefeated teams - you could've beaten Michigan 9 times this year and being 9-2 still would've had you seeded behind those 3. Besides, what are you complaining about? You got paired on the side of the bracket with McNeese and Montana, the two weakest of the undefeated teams, and the bracket broke nicely for Appy St - you should be thanking the selection committee.

[ASUPATCH]

What, did they drop Appy St from the playoffs???? Hey, if SIU was 9-2 I could practically guarantee you that Appy St would've gotten the #4 seed over SIU. The other 3 seeds were for undefeated teams - you could've beaten Michigan 9 times this year and being 9-2 still would've had you seeded behind those 3. Besides, what are you complaining about? You got paired on the side of the bracket with McNeese and Montana, the two weakest of the undefeated teams, and the bracket broke nicely for Appy St - you should be thanking the selection committee.


I for one am perfectly content with 3 home playoff games.

[ASUMountaineer]

What, did they drop Appy St from the playoffs???? Hey, if SIU was 9-2 I could practically guarantee you that Appy St would've gotten the #4 seed over SIU. The other 3 seeds were for undefeated teams - you could've beaten Michigan 9 times this year and being 9-2 still would've had you seeded behind those 3. Besides, what are you complaining about? You got paired on the side of the bracket with McNeese and Montana, the two weakest of the undefeated teams, and the bracket broke nicely for Appy St - you should be thanking the selection committee.

I concur, I was happy to be in our side of the bracket before McNeese and Montana lost, because it was still a more beneficial draw for us than going the other way.

[lizrdgizrd]

Was that this year? Because apparently in the selection commitee's eyes that was ancient history and was given zero consideration!
xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x

[yosef1969]

What, did they drop Appy St from the playoffs???? Hey, if SIU was 9-2 I could practically guarantee you that Appy St would've gotten the #4 seed over SIU. The other 3 seeds were for undefeated teams - you could've beaten Michigan 9 times this year and being 9-2 still would've had you seeded behind those 3. Besides, what are you complaining about? You got paired on the side of the bracket with McNeese and Montana, the two weakest of the undefeated teams, and the bracket broke nicely for Appy St - you should be thanking the selection committee.

I was referring to the troubling signal from the committee that strength of schedule was not a factor. An undefeated record should not be an automatic seed if the schedule is suspect. By not considering SOS the committee is by default rewarding teams for weak scheduling as a means to increase its chances of being selected and getting a seed.

ASU was very fortunate that Montana and McNeese lost in the first round and I'm not complaining very happy to be where they are now. I have said since the selection process that I'd rather be in our spot than in SIU's.

I'm a homer but I wasn't really talking about ASU per se I was just trying to sarcastically make the point that the selection committee should give more consideration to SOS down the road and communicate that it is an important selection factor. That's all.

I love the playoff system and the football played at this level but the committee should do everything in it's power to encourage more competitive regular season scheduling. Look what it's done for NCAA B-Ball. I'd say MVAC fans, Davidson fans, etc appreciate the SOS push in basketball.

[89Hen]

I was referring to the troubling signal from the committee that strength of schedule was not a factor. An undefeated record should not be an automatic seed if the schedule is suspect.
FWIW, AppSt didn't beat a single team that went to the playoffs. xeyebrowx

[GannonFan]

I was referring to the troubling signal from the committee that strength of schedule was not a factor. An undefeated record should not be an automatic seed if the schedule is suspect. By not considering SOS the committee is by default rewarding teams for weak scheduling as a means to increase its chances of being selected and getting a seed.

ASU was very fortunate that Montana and McNeese lost in the first round and I'm not complaining very happy to be where they are now. I have said since the selection process that I'd rather be in our spot than in SIU's.

I'm a homer but I wasn't really talking about ASU per se I was just trying to sarcastically make the point that the selection committee should give more consideration to SOS down the road and communicate that it is an important selection factor. That's all.

I love the playoff system and the football played at this level but the committee should do everything in it's power to encourage more competitive regular season scheduling. Look what it's done for NCAA B-Ball. I'd say MVAC fans, Davidson fans, etc appreciate the SOS push in basketball.

SOS in football is so spotty because there are only 11 games and very few OOC games - sure there are SOS figures but they aren't anywhere near as useful as in basketball when you're talking about 3x the number of games.

Two of the 3 undefeated teams (McNeese and UNI) both beat FBS level teams as well as winning all of their conference games from conferences that are generally considered strong, especially with UNI from the Gateway. And while I jest about the Big Sky, it isn't that bad of a conference and for Montana to go 11-0 it was still a good accomplishment. I could understand your point if it was Patriot League team (this year) or a MEAC team that went undefeated and got a top seed, especially without an FBS win, but that didn't happen.

And as 89 pointed out, Appy St didn't beat a playoff team all year until the 1st round of the playoffs. I don't see where the committee got things wrong and I don't see where you could've justified Appy St getting a seed over any of the teams that did get seeds.

[griz_fan_in_SanDiego]

The Griz won the National Championship in 2001

Hopefully that wasn't too subtle to make my point xsmiley_wix xpeacex

We KNOW App State beat Michigan and it was the greatest upset of ALL TIME...

[MountaineerGuy]

FWIW, AppSt didn't beat a single team that went to the playoffs. xeyebrowx

except JMU and EWU...................
;)

[MSU_77]

except JMU and EWU...................
;)

I thought JMU's decision to go for it on fourth and one and not making it, and their subsequent fumble at the App goal line were two of the most unfortunate coaching decisions ever. That is, until the other night when the Baltimore Ravens stopped the Patriots dead on fourth and one to end the game, except that the play was negated by the Ravens' coaches time out.

['neers80]

FWIW, AppSt didn't beat a single team that went to the playoffs. xeyebrowx
true, we only beat a team that is playing in a FBS bowl game and there only two other losses were FBS bowl teams as well, one of which is playing for the FBS national championship.

plus we lost to a team that made it to the second round to a richmond team that beat you at home

[MountaineerGuy]

You could argue letting Dexter keep returning kicks after he'd dropped two into the end-zone was a bad coaching call. It comes down to the score, I think, and we've had that on our side for the past few games.

And about the JMU fumble on our goal line...I realize that there is some degree of luck involved in that play, but it seems to me a lot of people are discounting Gary Tharrington's role in that turn of events. JMU didn't just drop the ball on their own...it was knocked out with some authority.

[MSU_77]

And about the JMU fumble on our goal line...I realize that there is some degree of luck involved in that play, but it seems to me a lot of people are discounting Gary Tharrington's role in that turn of events. JMU didn't just drop the ball on their own...it was knocked out with some authority.

Oh, I know he didn't just drop it - it was a forced fumble. The unfortunate coaching decision was to go for the TD instead of kicking a FG to win the game. Notice I said "unfortunate", not stupid. If the play had worked it would have been brilliant, but Tharrington made a hell of a defensive play.

[biggie]

Tharrington didn't. They reviewed and said someone else knocked it out, DB or LB, can't remember now.

Edit, found it:

"UPON FURTHER REVIEW: Upon study of the tape of Appalachian’s game-saving fumble recovery with less than a minute remaining in Saturday’s heart-stopping 28-27 first-round victory over James Madison, credit for the forced fumble has been given to linebacker Jacque Roman.

Footage shows that Roman teamed up with defensive end <ı>Gary Tharrington to stop James Madison’s Jamal Sullivan on the play, but that it was clearly Roman who dislodged the ball from Sullivan’s grasp. Fellow linebacker Pierre Banks recovered the fumble at the JMU 10 yard line, ending the Dukes’ hopes for a game-winning field-goal attempt.

With the forced fumble added to his line, Roman finished with 20 tackles — the second-highest total in ASU postseason history — a forced fumble and a 77-yard fumble return that set up the Mountaineers’ first touchdown."

[CharlestonAppFan]

I was referring to the troubling signal from the committee that strength of schedule was not a factor. An undefeated record should not be an automatic seed if the schedule is suspect. By not considering SOS the committee is by default rewarding teams for weak scheduling as a means to increase its chances of being selected and getting a seed.

I'm a homer but I wasn't really talking about ASU per se I was just trying to sarcastically make the point that the selection committee should give more consideration to SOS down the road and communicate that it is an important selection factor. That's all.

It's very hard for the committee or anyone for that matter to judge strength of schedule of the so-called "power" conferences. My reasoning is that each "power" conference has had at least one team in the past few years to win or get to the national championship. So with McNeese & Montana being undefeated this year, no one really knew if they were weak or not, however the committee could not justifiably leave them out of a seed.

A team going undefeated is no small task especially in the typical usual "national championship" conferences; however we could all speculate against a San Diego last year or another PFL or NEC team because none have ever performed great against the "power" conferences.

[appfan2008]

I thought JMU's decision to go for it on fourth and one and not making it, and their subsequent fumble at the App goal line were two of the most unfortunate coaching decisions ever. That is, until the other night when the Baltimore Ravens stopped the Patriots dead on fourth and one to end the game, except that the play was negated by the Ravens' coaches time out.

yes but both app and the pats find ways to win no matter what that takes... even if it is help from the other teams coaches!

[89Hen]

true, we only beat a team that is playing in a FBS bowl game and there only two other losses were FBS bowl teams as well, one of which is playing for the FBS national championship.

plus we lost to a team that made it to the second round to a richmond team that beat you at home
So had we beaten Villanova, you're saying the Hens (9-2) should have had a seed too. We'd have the same resume. xrolleyesx

[lizrdgizrd]

So had we beaten Villanova, you're saying the Hens (9-2) should have had a seed too. We'd have the same resume. xrolleyesx
At this point, I'd say it's apparent that Richmond, App, and Delaware should have all been seeded. :D

[89Hen]

At this point, I'd say it's apparent that Richmond, App, and Delaware should have all been seeded. :D
xnodx Amazing thing about hindsight. xsmiley_wix

[lizrdgizrd]

xnodx Amazing thing about hindsight. xsmiley_wix
It works for me! xlolx

[mcveyrl]

And about the JMU fumble on our goal line...I realize that there is some degree of luck involved in that play, but it seems to me a lot of people are discounting Gary Tharrington's role in that turn of events. JMU didn't just drop the ball on their own...it was knocked out with some authority.

Someone pointed this out, but they noted on last week's ASU broadcast that somebody else got credit for the fumble.

And I don't attribute any degree of "luck" to the fumble. It was a helmet to ball hit that forced it. Luck would've been if it would've squirted out of bounds. The real "luck" part (and it's not really luck) is that Mickey didn't either kick the field goal on fourth or slide Landers over and take a knee.

[james_lawfirm]

Someone pointed this out, but they noted on last week's ASU broadcast that somebody else got credit for the fumble.

And I don't attribute any degree of "luck" to the fumble. It was a helmet to ball hit that forced it. Luck would've been if it would've squirted out of bounds. The real "luck" part (and it's not really luck) is that Mickey didn't either kick the field goal on fourth or slide Landers over and take a knee.

FYI, Tharrington made the tackle, but one of the LBs forced the fumble. I think it was Jacques Roman. Pierre Banks (LB) recovered it. I have seen a photo posted somewhere of Tharrington tackling the JMU runner & Roman's arm grabbing up high dislodging the ball.

The initial report I heard though was that Lynch forced the fumble. But the photo clearly showed it was Roman. From my seat in the stands, I could not see anything until the ball went squirting out.

[yosef1969]

It's very hard for the committee or anyone for that matter to judge strength of schedule of the so-called "power" conferences. My reasoning is that each "power" conference has had at least one team in the past few years to win or get to the national championship. So with McNeese & Montana being undefeated this year, no one really knew if they were weak or not, however the committee could not justifiably leave them out of a seed.

A team going undefeated is no small task especially in the typical usual "national championship" conferences; however we could all speculate against a San Diego last year or another PFL or NEC team because none have ever performed great against the "power" conferences.

Look, I know that it would have been difficult to justify denying McNeese or Montana of a seed based on current perception and precedent. I'm not even really arguing that the committee got it wrong with the selections. It was more about the statements that came from the committee following the selection.

I was replying to sarcastic remark about ASU beating Michigan with a sacartist remark about statements from the committee following the selection saying that strength of schedule played no role in the seeding decision. It was simply a matter of wins and losses.

Just my opinion, but that is a very troubling signal to send to schedule makers. Frankly I am tired of piling Lenior Rhyne, Mars Hill, Presbyterian etc on the schedule to avoid a "risky" high profile OOC games.

Seriously how many OOC games have the Southern and Gateway teams played outside of the playoffs, or Southern vs CAA, Big Sky vs Gateway etc.? There are exceptions but not many. I'd far rather see ASU playing the likes of Delaware, YSU, UNI, JMU(which they are again next season), and Montana over a couple of bottom feeder regional FCS or division II teams for a home date payday.

To allow this to happen it has to be clear to those making the schedules that SOS will be considered when selection and seeding time come around.
A 12th game has been added, but unless the signals change it essentially will result in another insignificant tailgate "party".

[yosef1969]

SOS in football is so spotty because there are only 11 games and very few OOC games - sure there are SOS figures but they aren't anywhere near as useful as in basketball when you're talking about 3x the number of games.

Two of the 3 undefeated teams (McNeese and UNI) both beat FBS level teams as well as winning all of their conference games from conferences that are generally considered strong, especially with UNI from the Gateway. And while I jest about the Big Sky, it isn't that bad of a conference and for Montana to go 11-0 it was still a good accomplishment. I could understand your point if it was Patriot League team (this year) or a MEAC team that went undefeated and got a top seed, especially without an FBS win, but that didn't happen.

And as 89 pointed out, Appy St didn't beat a playoff team all year until the 1st round of the playoffs. I don't see where the committee got things wrong and I don't see where you could've justified Appy St getting a seed over any of the teams that did get seeds.

Good point regarding the difficulting in measuring SOS due to the sample size but I still think it has to somehow be more of a determining factor.

Nice pull on ASU not beating a playoff team, hadn't really thought about it that way, but then again they did beat Michigan!

[Saint3333]

So had we beaten Villanova, you're saying the Hens (9-2) should have had a seed too. We'd have the same resume. xrolleyesx

You didn't though...

Navy isn't Michigan either...

[RadMann]

For the FCS as a whole and respect in the college football fandom world, ASU not winning the championship this year would be the best thing. Then FCS fans could say, hey an also ran in the FCS beat Michigan. I'm hoping another team that sports the Princeton winged helmets can find a way to go the distance!

[08Dawg]

This brings up an interesting question to me...why don't the so-called stronger FCS conferences try to play each other more often? Maybe I'm just out of it and we already do, but as far as El Cid is concerned, I don't recall us playing much of anybody outside the SoCon, a handful of FBS teams, and VMI in the four years I've been here.

[AAadict]

I know Hen's K.C. Keeler is not exactly a popular FCS coach but he has recommended exactly what you have suggested (08Dawg). He wants West Chester and Navy (yes! Navy) dropped from the Hen's schedule for more FCS teams. Reasoning...I think you can guess why he wants to drop WCU. He claims Navy injures too many players even when we win. He credits the Navy win this year for getting the Hen's in the playoffs but wants to schedule Del. State and other conferences. We did open with Citadel in 2003.

[ASUMountaineer]

I know Hen's K.C. Keeler is not exactly a popular FCS coach but he has recommended exactly what you have suggested (08Dawg). He wants West Chester and Navy (yes! Navy) dropped from the Hen's schedule for more FCS teams. Reasoning...I think you can guess why he wants to drop WCU. He claims Navy injures too many players even when we win. He credits the Navy win this year for getting the Hen's in the playoffs but wants to schedule Del. State and other conferences. We did open with Citadel in 2003.

Love to see you guys come down to the Rock.

[Saint3333]

This brings up an interesting question to me...why don't the so-called stronger FCS conferences try to play each other more often? Maybe I'm just out of it and we already do, but as far as El Cid is concerned, I don't recall us playing much of anybody outside the SoCon, a handful of FBS teams, and VMI in the four years I've been here.

Until the selection committee begins to penalize teams for weak SOS and reward teams for strong SOS programs will continue to schedule weak OOC games for playoff positioningxtwocentsx.

[WVAPPmountaineer]

Until the selection committee begins to penalize teams for weak SOS and reward teams for strong SOS programs will continue to schedule weak OOC games for playoff positioning

EXACTLY, as was pointed out earlier by another APP fan - ASU could have scheduled VMI instead of Michigan in the first game of the season and we would have ended up in the same place in the playoffs - UNTIL the committee awards teams for scheduling tough OOC games nothing will change - And it's not just us - look at who Ohio State played --- Right now there is no advantage whatsoever for scheduling tough OOC games (per the committee, personally I think it an advantage to play as tough a schedule as possible to prepare the team for the long haul) and let me say again - A big ballsy salute to Northern AZ for coming to the Rock!!! You made a lot of fans in this area ---

[Give'emHellApps]

FWIW, AppSt didn't beat a single team that went to the playoffs. xeyebrowx

App has actually beaten two teams that made the playoffs. (JMU & EWU)

[james_lawfirm]

EXACTLY, as was pointed out earlier by another APP fan - ASU could have scheduled VMI instead of Michigan in the first game of the season and we would have ended up in the same place in the playoffs - UNTIL the committee awards teams for scheduling tough OOC games nothing will change - And it's not just us - look at who Ohio State played --- Right now there is no advantage whatsoever for scheduling tough OOC games (per the committee, personally I think it an advantage to play as tough a schedule as possible to prepare the team for the long haul) and let me say again - A big ballsy salute to Northern AZ for coming to the Rock!!! You made a lot of fans in this area ---


A point of clarification here. While there seems to be no reward from the playoff committee in playing tough OOC games, there is an advantage to doing so. This is the SOS argument that all the Montana fans go apoplectic anytime it is mentioned.

The advantage is that by playing tougher OOC opponents during the regular season, a team is better prepared for the playoffs. In terms of big games, pressure situations, dealing with adversity, etc., all these things "build character" to use a tiresome phrase. When a team's OOC games are against cupcakes, you might be 11 - 0, but you might get beat by a team with a tougher SOS.

OK, Montana fans can communicate their displeasure with this truth. Go apoplectic!

[GannonFan]

EXACTLY, as was pointed out earlier by another APP fan - ASU could have scheduled VMI instead of Michigan in the first game of the season and we would have ended up in the same place in the playoffs - UNTIL the committee awards teams for scheduling tough OOC games nothing will change - And it's not just us - look at who Ohio State played --- Right now there is no advantage whatsoever for scheduling tough OOC games (per the committee, personally I think it an advantage to play as tough a schedule as possible to prepare the team for the long haul) and let me say again - A big ballsy salute to Northern AZ for coming to the Rock!!! You made a lot of fans in this area ---

That's just flat out wrong. Appy St would've gotten plenty of advantage from that Michigan win if they had been tied with another 9-2 team that didn't have a win over Michigan. There's no question that Appy St was the most favored 9-2 team in the tournament, Heck, if SIU didn't have an FBS win to their credit Appy St may have gotten a seed over SIU even with SIU having a better record. Where you go off too far, though, is thinking that one win in a 9-2 season where you lost to a non-playoff team would be enough to put you ahead of teams that went 11-0 against schedules, for 2 of the 3, weren't any different than yours (UNI and McNeese also beat FBS teams and didn't lose to anybody). Appy would've gotten a lot of consideration for the Michigan win if they would've been close enough to the teams that got the seeds and who played decent schedules. This wasn't a year where a Hampton-type team skated in on a weak schedule and got a seed.

[89Hen]

App has actually beaten two teams that made the playoffs. (JMU & EWU)
I didn't realize I was watching those games on tape delay... I thought they occurred after the seeds were given out. xconfusedx

[89Hen]

You didn't though...
Not the point. HAD we beaten Villanova I would in no way have expected a seed.

[WVAPPmountaineer]

Where you go off too far, though, is thinking that one win in a 9-2 season where you lost to a non-playoff team would be enough to put you ahead of teams that went 11-0 against schedules,

Sorry, you missed the point --- nowhere in my comments do I say APP should have been given a seed - The point being made was it made no difference that we beat Michigan instead of VMI - If you can convince me that the committee truly gives weight to OOC games then I will shut up - My problem is the future of our football - I want to see more intersectional games, more games like Del-APP or Montana-FU, or UNI-UMass etc. during the season BUT it won't happen as long as there is no advantage to doing so -

[GannonFan]

Sorry, you missed the point --- nowhere in my comments do I say APP should have been given a seed - The point being made was it made no difference that we beat Michigan instead of VMI - If you can convince me that the committee truly gives weight to OOC games then I will shut up - My problem is the future of our football - I want to see more intersectional games, more games like Del-APP or Montana-FU, or UNI-UMass etc. during the season BUT it won't happen as long as there is no advantage to doing so -

Well, then what would've happened differently, in your opinion, if the SOS had been given more weight (assuming it wasn't given any)? What outcome are you complaining about that you think would've changed?

[yosef1969]

Well, then what would've happened differently, in your opinion, if the SOS had been given more weight (assuming it wasn't given any)? What outcome are you complaining about that you think would've changed?

As stated before it's not that the outcome of this year's selection process would have changed. It was the statements from the UMASS AD in the interview following the selection where it was basically stated that SOS played no role it simply came down to wins and losses.

The selection committee missed a very good opportunity to make a point by simply stating that the by virtue of SOS ASU or Richmond were given great consideration for a seed even against two teams with undefeated records. Doesn't even really matter how much consideration was given just a chance to send a signal that teams should schedule better interdivisional OOC games.

Just look what the committee's direction to the NEC has produced. I don't know for sure but I would think Albany fans appreciate the approach to scheduling tougher OOC games.

The point is until the conferences begin playing each other before playoffs we just won't really know how good anybody really is.

[WVAPPmountaineer]

Honestly, I'm not sure - It just irritates me that some teams have found a way to "play the system" - I know this is my opinion, but one I think is shared by many, the CAA and the SoCon are the top 2 conferences year in and year out and we have no seeds - We play all year through a tough conference slate and our teams also schedule tough OOC games and I think somehow, someway, that needs to rewarded or we will continue to have the Montana's and Ohio State's for that matter, playing the system

[MSU_77]

If it makes you guys feel better, next season McNeese opens up at UNC, then Cal-Poly comes to Lake Charles, then MSU travels to SDSU. There should be no complaints about our SOS next year. Now, the rest of the SLC we can't do anything about, but several teams should be better.

[GannonFan]

Since 1999, 18 teams from the CAA or the SoCon have gotten top 4 seeds. That's 18 of the 36 seeds available at that time. Frankly, I think that's fair. It's obviously possible for CAA and SoCon teams to get seeds, and I strongly doubt there's been a 10-1 team from either conference who didn't get a seed, and there have been plenty of 9-2 teams from those conferences that have gotten them too. Problem this year was that no team from either conference did well enough or stood out enough to warrant a seed. Appy St lost two games in conference. UMass didn't play a tough schedule and still went 9-2. It wasn't that other teams "gamed" the system, it was that the CAA and SoCon teams just didn't have that one standout team. That's how conference parity works sometimes.