STATS Poll, 10/30/2023

[kdinva]

https://theanalyst.com/na/2023/10/socon-showdown-one-of-five-fcs-top-25-head-to-head-matchups-this-week/


1. South Dakota State (8-0, 5-0 MVFC), 1,400 points (56 of 56 first-place votes)
2. Furman (7-1, 5-0 SoCon), 1,278
3. Idaho (6-2, 4-1 Big Sky), 1,218
4. Montana (7-1, 4-1 Big Sky), 1,190
5. Delaware (7-1, 5-0 CAA), 1,171
6. Montana State (6-2, 4-1 Big Sky), 1,150
7. Sacramento State (6-2, 3-2 Big Sky), 1,074
8. UIW (7-1, 4-0 Southland), 980
9. South Dakota (6-2, 4-1 MVFC), 964
10. Southern Illinois (6-2, 3-2 MVFC), 862
11. North Dakota State (6-2, 3-2 MVFC), 815
12. North Carolina Central (7-1, 2-0 MEAC), 751
13. North Dakota (5-3, 3-2 MVFC), 648
14. Chattanooga (7-2, 6-1 Southern), 578
15. Florida A&M (7-1, 6-0 SWAC), 576
16. Western Carolina (5-3, 3-2 SoCon), 516
17. Villanova (6-2, 4-1 CAA), 471
18. Northern Iowa (5-3, 4-1 MVFC), 389
19. Austin Peay (6-2, 3-0 UAC), 387
20. Lafayette (7-1, 3-0 Patriot), 354
21. UT Martin (6-2, 3-1 Big South-OVC), 314
22. Youngstown State (5-3, 3-2 MVFC), 269
23. UAlbany (6-3, 4-1 CAA), 249
24. William & Mary (5-3, 3-2 CAA), 184
25. Mercer (6-3, 4-2 SoCon), 103


Dropped Out: Central Arkansas (18),UC Davis (25)

Others Receiving Votes (schools listed on two or more ballots): Central Arkansas (5-3, 2-1 UAC) 94; Harvard (6-1, 3-1 Ivy) 80; Holy Cross (5-3, 3-1 Patriot) 48; Tennessee State (6-2, 2-1 Big South-OVC) 48; Tarleton (6-3, 2-2 UAC) 14; Richmond (6-3, 5-1 CAA) 13; Gardner-Webb (4-4, 2-1 Big South-OVC) 5; UC Davis (4-4, 2-3 Big Sky) 3

[MSUBobcat]

Montana should be 3rd and Idaho 4th. Since the QB change, they're really starting to click. (excuse me, I threw up in my mouth a little)

Some slot voting at it's finest with UND moving UP 2 spots for the home OT victory over winless ISU-b (Murray beat them by 2 points, but didn't need OT to do it). I think I'd have Nova and UNI, along with strong consideration for APSU, Albany and Lafayette, over UND so they should have remained at 15 or even fallen, IMO. Chatty's 1 point win over VMI was similarly underwhelming, but at least it was on the road against a team with some FCS wins.

Albany continues to be slighted, slightly, but should climb with what STATS will call a ranked win over W&M (and they can finally be booted from the poll), as well as winning out to finish 9-3 with a 9-1 FCS record (I forgot they get the extra game for playing HI).

[Chalupa Batman]

Should switch around Montana and Idaho, and move UIW down to 12 or lower (and really at least 15 or lower). Otherwise not too bad.

[MSUBobcat]

Should switch around Montana and Idaho, and move UIW down to 12 or lower (and really at least 15 or lower). Otherwise not too bad.

I forgot my weekly, "UIW overrated" comment after yet another underwhelming W, but at this point I'm really just xdeadhorsex

[uofmman1122]

Totally fine being behind Idaho. They've beaten both MSU and Sac State, and we haven't yet.

If we also beat those teams, we'll be ahead of them. Just have to take care of business.

[Pards Rule]

Lafayette great showing., Number 16 in coaches poll

[SeattleCat]

Totally fine being behind Idaho. They've beaten both MSU and Sac State, and we haven't yet.

If we also beat those teams, we'll be ahead of them. Just have to take care of business.

My reasoning for keeping Idaho ahead of UM was resume, but that can totally change in the next couple weeks.

[uofmman1122]

My reasoning for keeping Idaho ahead of UM was resume, but that can totally change in the next couple weeks.
I know the polls are important, and don't want to downplay anyone who takes part in the AGS poll, but I just can't give a crap about polls before about the last 1 or 2 weeks of the season. It sucks people into narratives too much feeling like they should be invested in where teams are. I used to get bent out of shape arguing for hours online about how the Griz should be above teams x, y, and z, only for the Griz to lose the next weekend. lmao

They have the chance to show they should be #2, so that's good enough for me, for now.

[caribbeanhen]

I know the polls are important, and don't want to downplay anyone who takes part in the AGS poll, but I just can't give a crap about polls before about the last 1 or 2 weeks of the season. It sucks people into narratives too much feeling like they should be invested in where teams are. I think used to get bent out of shape arguing for hours online about how the Griz should be above teams x, y, and z, only for the Griz to lose the next weekend. lmao

They have the chance to show they should be #2, so that's good enough for me, for now.

I smiled when I read that

[robsnotes4u]

I know the polls are important, and don't want to downplay anyone who takes part in the AGS poll, but I just can't give a crap about polls before about the last 1 or 2 weeks of the season. It sucks people into narratives too much feeling like they should be invested in where teams are. I used to get bent out of shape arguing for hours online about how the Griz should be above teams x, y, and z, only for the Griz to lose the next weekend. lmao

They have the chance to show they should be #2, so that's good enough for me, for now.

Valid points


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nodak651]

I know the polls are important, and don't want to downplay anyone who takes part in the AGS poll, but I just can't give a crap about polls before about the last 1 or 2 weeks of the season. It sucks people into narratives too much feeling like they should be invested in where teams are. I used to get bent out of shape arguing for hours online about how the Griz should be above teams x, y, and z, only for the Griz to lose the next weekend. lmao

They have the chance to show they should be #2, so that's good enough for me, for now.

lmfao
I know that feeling.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I forgot my weekly, "UIW overrated" comment after yet another underwhelming W, but at this point I'm really just xdeadhorsex

This x 1000 ... they have played noone in or near the Top 25. Theyve played the Massey #83 SOS to date, which will drop to #89 after next 3 games. They played and lost to a bad FBS and a beat a bad NAIA (92nd of 95). And they have only put away 1 of 5 below average to bad FCS teams .. in fact, 4 straight weak wins. They should be dropping every week, not climbing. Coaches Poll has them at #4 ??? They'd be lucky to finish 7th or 8th in MVFC, especially as the grind would wear them down. My ISUr is putting bad teams away much more impressively, and we aren't in playoff picture currently .. deservedly so. Playe 6 FCS teams ranked by Massey between 44 and 112, and have only put away 1 of 6 so far. Have 3 more weak games ... so they could be #1 on Coaches Poll by end of season.

Scary thought is if IW loses to Nicholls St (3-4, at least against #29 SOS) this weekend .. Nicholls St will likely get the autobid and IW could get an at large, giving Southland 2 bids when neither deserves a spot. In looking at Nicholls St Wins-Losses, they have the more impressive results ... actually putting away the weak teams on their schedule and have 2 FBS losses and 14 pt loss against 6-2 Sacramento for 3 of their 4 losses.

Here are IW and McNeese St results in order of Opponents Massey Rank. Do either of these teams resume's look like playoff teams ? There is good chance both will be in playoffs. If IW wins out, they could be a Top 8 seed .. scratch or bang head now.

Here is IW:



Date


Opponent
Rnk (Rec)
Result
PF
PA



Sat 09-16
at
Abilene Chr (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/18)
44(4-4)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287568)
27
20



Sat 11-04

Nicholls St (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/5455)
46(3-4)






Sat 10-07

SE Louisiana (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7314)
66(1-7)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287889)
33
26



Sat 10-28
at
Lamar (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/3935)
68(4-4)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938288211)
17
7



Sat 10-14

TX A&M Commerce (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7868)
84(1-7)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287995)
28
11



Sat 11-18
at
Houston Chr (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/3354)
85(4-4)






Sat 09-09
at
N Colorado (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/5625)
97(0-8)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287415)
42
7



Sat 10-21
at
McNeese St (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/4613)
107(0-7)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938288130)
35
24



Sat 11-11

Northwestern LA (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/5724)
112(0-6)






Sat 09-23

North American (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/307782)
(1-8)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287665)
63
3



Sat 09-02
at
UTEP (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7933)
(3-6)
L (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287247)
14
28




Here is Nicholls St





Date

Opponent
Rnk/(Rec)
Result
PF
PA



Thu 08-31

CS Sacramento (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/1067)
7(6-2)
L (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287289)
24
38



Sat 11-04
at
Incarnate Word (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/3473)
15(7-1)






Sat 10-28

SE Missouri St (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7300)
25(4-4)
L (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938288213)
31
35



Thu 11-16
at
SE Louisiana (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7314)
66(1-7)






Sat 11-11

Lamar (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/3935)
68(4-4)






Sat 10-21
at
TX A&M Commerce (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7868)
84(1-7)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938288101)
27
7



Sat 10-07

Houston Chr (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/3354)
85(4-4)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287883)
38
7



Sat 09-30
at
McNeese St (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/4613)
107(0-7)
W (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287807)
31
10



Sat 09-23
at
Tulane (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/8092)
(7-1)
L (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287622)
7
36



Sat 09-09
at
TCU (https://masseyratings.com/cf2023/7878)
(4-4)
L (https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=938287372)
6
41

[Redbird 4th & short]

I know the polls are important, and don't want to downplay anyone who takes part in the AGS poll, but I just can't give a crap about polls before about the last 1 or 2 weeks of the season. It sucks people into narratives too much feeling like they should be invested in where teams are. I used to get bent out of shape arguing for hours online about how the Griz should be above teams x, y, and z, only for the Griz to lose the next weekend. lmao

They have the chance to show they should be #2, so that's good enough for me, for now.
The thing is, if noone pays attention to polls and pushes back until last couple weeks, we'll keep getting bad polls .. like Incarnate Word, et al. IMO all the attention and backlash at bad polls does eventually help .. the FCS Selection Committee has buckled under pressure. I like the AGS poll the best, because of it's transparency .. this forum improves their rankings because bad/biased rankings get called out and challenged. Coaches Poll is so worthless for this reason. Stats is somewhere in middle as their site does try to put good info out there. We're not solving world hunger or peace here ... but this doesn't mean we shouldn't react to bad polls with banter .. it actually helps move the needle in right direction over time.

[clenz]

The thing is, if noone pays attention to polls and pushes back until last couple weeks, we'll keep getting bad polls .. like Incarnate Word, et al. IMO all the attention and backlash at bad polls does eventually help .. the FCS Selection Committee has buckled under pressure. I like the AGS poll the best, because of it's transparency .. this forum improves their rankings because bad/biased rankings get called out and challenged. Coaches Poll is so worthless for this reason. Stats is somewhere in middle as their site does try to put good info out there. We're not solving world hunger or peace here ... but this doesn't mean we shouldn't react to bad polls with banter .. it actually helps move the needle in right direction over time.
You aren't wrong

but

By starting with a preseason poll it mentally locks so many voters into what they assumed a team would be before the season and will skew every single poll the rest of the year for them. Too slow to drop. Too slow to rank or move up. It becomes a "I need to justify my previous thoughts" thought pattern. The only way to avoid it is to have voters completely ignore what they submitted the week before and start over every single week for the first month of the season until a full picture is able to be seen. That doesn't happen, and it's not in the human brains capability to do for 99% of the worlds population. "I couldn't have been *that* wrong before. I'm smarter than that."

[Catbooster]

You aren't wrong

but

By starting with a preseason poll it mentally locks so many voters into what they assumed a team would be before the season and will skew every single poll the rest of the year for them. Too slow to drop. Too slow to rank or move up. It becomes a "I need to justify my previous thoughts" thought pattern. The only way to avoid it is to have voters completely ignore what they submitted the week before and start over every single week for the first month of the season until a full picture is able to be seen. That doesn't happen, and it's not in the human brains capability to do for 99% of the worlds population. "I couldn't have been *that* wrong before. I'm smarter than that."

If this problem was limited to only football polls I'd be ok with it.

[uofmman1122]

The thing is, if noone pays attention to polls and pushes back until last couple weeks, we'll keep getting bad polls .. like Incarnate Word, et al. IMO all the attention and backlash at bad polls does eventually help .. the FCS Selection Committee has buckled under pressure. I like the AGS poll the best, because of it's transparency .. this forum improves their rankings because bad/biased rankings get called out and challenged. Coaches Poll is so worthless for this reason. Stats is somewhere in middle as their site does try to put good info out there. We're not solving world hunger or peace here ... but this doesn't mean we shouldn't react to bad polls with banter .. it actually helps move the needle in right direction over time.
I'm saying the best way to do it would be for there to be no polls at all until after the last game is played, then people can go back and look at every team and what they've done without needing to worry at all about where opinions on teams were in August (or September, or October).

I realize this is not fun, nor practical lol, but it's the attitude I've taken when thinking about where my Griz rank relative to other teams. It really doesn't matter until after the game on November 18th.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I'm saying the best way to do it would be for there to be no polls at all until after the last game is played, then people can go back and look at every team and what they've done without needing to worry at all about where opinions on teams were in August (or September, or October).

I realize this is not fun, nor practical lol, but it's the attitude I've taken when thinking about where my Griz rank relative to other teams. It really doesn't matter until after the game on November 18th.
eh, I view the preseason poll and all subsequent polls as a work in progress to get us to best possible rankings. I agree with Clenz, that the preseason poll is sometimes given too much weight ... like it did for IW this year, all the way up to their current ranking because they are 7-1. So while we need a preseason poll, or week 1 would be even more worthless. This is usually one of the weeks where FCS teams play either a very good FBS or a very weak FCS. So waiting until after week 1 wouldn't help much for most games.

I have reached point that I really think 2 things need to be done for all D-I polls:



establish an objective computer generated index for SOS .. both overall and for each game. This honestly is very easy to do .. Massey Composite could do it in a matter of days. Then push the media outlets that publish rankings to also publish the SOS right next to the ranking and record. So everyone would see two teams with 7-1 records ..one with SOS #85, the other with SOS #25 .. or whatever. This would incent people to scrutinize those rankings much more closely
full/easy transparency for all polls, to the point voters could see who all voted for an over-rated team.




RANK
SCHOOL
RECORD
PTS.
SOS Rank


1
South Dakota Stata (25)
8-0
625
25


2
Furman
7-1
577
56


3
Montana
7-1
544
51


4
UIW
7-1
533
83


5
Idaho
6-2
515
4


6
Delaware
7-1
507
22


7
Sacramento State
6-2
471
20


8
Montana State
6-2
458
7


9
North Carolina Central
7-1
407
89


10
North Dakota State
6-2
398
40


11
Southern Illinois
6-2
380
11


12
South Dakota
6-2
330
23


T-13
Chattanooga
7-2
296
86


T-13
Florida A&M
7-1
296
107


15
North Dakota
5-3
260
12


16
Lafayette
7-1
241
63



So when anyone, voter or fan, sees that IW is 7-1 and ranked #4 by Coaches Poll .. they will be able to immediately see they did it against the 83rd ranked Massey SOS - again, I prefer Massey composite, not Massey alone a it tends to cluster teams from really good conferences too much by season end.

But then assuming we have an objective SOS system, then anyone would see above ranking (voter or fan or computer), and could decide to drill down and easily sees IW is barely winning against this #83 SOS in 5 of 6 FCS games. And do same for any other teams over or under-rated. Note, the Composite SOS Rank by itself is not the only indicator .. but it is more of a barometer to look beneath the surface. Because if IW was blowing out all the weak teams, then they might well deserve a high ranking .. maybe not #4 but possibly #8 or #10. All it takes is for sports media who publish rankings post one more column ... SOS to date behind that record.

[wcugrad95]

SOS is also sometimes bloated - the computers take historical info into account, and over time the middle-of-the-pack teams in some conferences just start being assumed as good wins or tough games when they oftentimes aren't really any better than middle-of-the-pack teams from other conferences. But because they were good in the past, or the conference has put "x" number of teams in the playoffs, the SOS is inflated based on some of the same historical bias that people use.

It is better than just a blind-shot that keeps people slot-voting from the start, but when you have some leagues who all play each other (no dodging the other top teams), some teams who play maybe more than 1 legit P5 opponent vs another who plays maybe a Nevada or Buffalo, or start factoring in that some teams play a Pioneer team and/or a D2 team, there starts becoming caveats to the caveats. Meaning it is better than not using more data points, but unless the actual votes that truly count go with the premise that they need to re-work their rankings from top-to-bottom every single week we will continue to get what we have always gotten. AGS is better than most, but there is still plenty of bias going on (I am guilty of it, too).

[uofmman1122]

eh, I view the preseason poll and all subsequent polls as a work in progress to get us to best possible rankings. I agree with Clenz, that the preseason poll is sometimes given too much weight ... like it did for IW this year, all the way up to their current ranking because they are 7-1. So while we need a preseason poll, or week 1 would be even more worthless. This is usually one of the weeks where FCS teams play either a very good FBS or a very weak FCS. So waiting until after week 1 wouldn't help much for most games.

I have reached point that I really think 2 things need to be done for all D-I polls:



establish an objective computer generated index for SOS .. both overall and for each game. This honestly is very easy to do .. Massey Composite could do it in a matter of days. Then push the media outlets that publish rankings to also publish the SOS right next to the ranking and record. So everyone would see two teams with 7-1 records ..one with SOS #85, the other with SOS #25 .. or whatever. This would incent people to scrutinize those rankings much more closely
full/easy transparency for all polls, to the point voters could see who all voted for an over-rated team.




RANK
SCHOOL
RECORD
PTS.
SOS


1
South Dakota Stata (25)
8-0
625
25


2
Furman
7-1
577
56


3
Montana
7-1
544
51


4
UIW
7-1
533
83


5
Idaho
6-2
515
4


6
Delaware
7-1
507
22





RANK
SCHOOL
RECORD
PTS.
SOS Rank


1
South Dakota Stata (25)
8-0
625
25


2
Furman
7-1
577
56


3
Montana
7-1
544
51


4
UIW
7-1
533
83


5
Idaho
6-2
515
4


6
Delaware
7-1
507
22


7
Sacramento State
6-2
471
20


8
Montana State
6-2
458
7


9
North Carolina Central
7-1
407
89


10
North Dakota State
6-2
398
40


11
Southern Illinois
6-2
380
11


12
South Dakota
6-2
330
23


T-13
Chattanooga
7-2
296
86


T-13
Florida A&M
7-1
296
107


15
North Dakota
5-3
260
12


16
Lafayette
7-1
241
63



So when anyone, voter or fan, sees that IW is 7-1 and ranked #4 by Coaches Poll .. they will be able to immediately see they did it against the 83rd ranked Massey SOS - again, I prefer Massey composite, not Massey alone a it tends to cluster teams from really good conferences too much by season end.

But then assuming we have an objective SOS system, then anyone would see above ranking (voter or fan or computer), and could decide to drill down and easily sees IW is barely winning against this #83 SOS in 5 of 6 FCS games. And do same for any other teams over or under-rated. Note, the Composite SOS Rank by itself is not the only indicator .. but it is more of a barometer to look beneath the surface. Because if IW was blowing out all the weak teams, then they might well deserve a high ranking .. maybe not #4 but possibly #8 or #10. All it takes is for sports media who publish rankings post one more column ... SOS to date behind that record.
A computer SOS is also highly subjective. Massey's SOS is based on a preseason weight/ranking of teams that often just circularly affirms whatever the first ranking was, often giving way too much benefit of the doubt to teams from certain conferences. "NDSU is crazy good. USD beat them? Well then obviously USD is crazy good too. UND beat them, well then obviously..." you see what I mean?

I also don't think a preseason poll is worthwhile, at all. It's how you get people that unironically still refer to Weber State as a "top 25 win" for teams in the beginning of the season even though it's clear they aren't good. We've seen the perceptions of a host of teams change dramatically over the last few weeks, but if you had just held off until today to do any rankings, they'd probably look mostly similar, save for maybe a few teams being a few spots higher or lower. That's what I think would be best at the end of the year, too.

Again, these are just my personal feelings. The AGS poll certainly helps people stay abreast of what's going on across the FCS and makes more informed fans of the sport, so it's definitely not all bad.

[Redbird 4th & short]

SOS is also sometimes bloated - the computers take historical info into account, and over time the middle-of-the-pack teams in some conferences just start being assumed as good wins or tough games when they oftentimes aren't really any better than middle-of-the-pack teams from other conferences. But because they were good in the past, or the conference has put "x" number of teams in the playoffs, the SOS is inflated based on some of the same historical bias that people use.

It is better than just a blind-shot that keeps people slot-voting from the start, but when you have some leagues who all play each other (no dodging the other top teams), some teams who play maybe more than 1 legit P5 opponent vs another who plays maybe a Nevada or Buffalo, or start factoring in that some teams play a Pioneer team and/or a D2 team, there starts becoming caveats to the caveats. Meaning it is better than not using more data points, but unless the actual votes that truly count go with the premise that they need to re-work their rankings from top-to-bottom every single week we will continue to get what we have always gotten. AGS is better than most, but there is still plenty of bias going on (I am guilty of it, too).

Agreed .. I used the word clustered .. you used bloated. This is why we would need a Composite of sorts. I really like computers from about game 6 thru game 9. Statisticians have determined it takes about 6 football games for the databade to become "well connected". Interestingly, this is when most teams have played 3 non-conf and 3 conf, so a petty good starting point from that perspective. But by games 9-11, it does seem to cluster/exaggerate very good and very bad conferences together. So Massey ends up showing 6 MVFC teams in the top 12 or 15, or 7 teams in top 25, by end of season ... only in 2014 was this probably true.

[Redbird 4th & short]

A computer SOS is also highly subjective. Massey's SOS is based on a preseason weight/ranking of teams that often just circularly affirms whatever the first ranking was, often giving way too much benefit of the doubt to teams from certain conferences. "NDSU is crazy good. USD beat them? Well then obviously USD is crazy good too. UND beat them, well then obviously..." you see what I mean?

I also don't think a preseason poll is worthwhile, at all. It's how you get people that unironically still refer to Weber State as a "top 25 win" for teams in the beginning of the season even though it's clear they aren't good. We've seen the perceptions of a host of teams change dramatically over the last few weeks, but if you had just held off until today to do any rankings, they'd probably look mostly similar, save for maybe a few teams being a few spots higher or lower. That's what I think would be best at the end of the year, too.

Again, these are just my personal feelings. The AGS poll certainly helps people stay abreast of what's going on across the FCS and makes more informed fans of the sport, so it's definitely not all bad.

Sam Herder put out their resume for the Selection Committee Top 10. They included Massey SOS and also included wins against ranked team both "then" and "now" .. which is to your point. Btw, Herder has IW at #16 .. lowest of any published poll at this point. FCS Selection Committee has IW at #10.

IMO Herder at Hero seems to be the most logical in his approach to this ranking and playoff bid exercise.

[Redbird 4th & short]

You aren't wrong

but

By starting with a preseason poll it mentally locks so many voters into what they assumed a team would be before the season and will skew every single poll the rest of the year for them. Too slow to drop. Too slow to rank or move up. It becomes a "I need to justify my previous thoughts" thought pattern. The only way to avoid it is to have voters completely ignore what they submitted the week before and start over every single week for the first month of the season until a full picture is able to be seen. That doesn't happen, and it's not in the human brains capability to do for 99% of the worlds population. "I couldn't have been *that* wrong before. I'm smarter than that."

agreed ... IW is perfect example. I think incorporating SOS more explicitly would help per my other post. If we can reach consensus on an SOS system to support the human polls. If I'm an objective voter, I want that kind of help.

[clenz]

SOS is also sometimes bloated - the computers take historical info into account, and over time the middle-of-the-pack teams in some conferences just start being assumed as good wins or tough games when they oftentimes aren't really any better than middle-of-the-pack teams from other conferences. But because they were good in the past, or the conference has put "x" number of teams in the playoffs, the SOS is inflated based on some of the same historical bias that people use.

It is better than just a blind-shot that keeps people slot-voting from the start, but when you have some leagues who all play each other (no dodging the other top teams), some teams who play maybe more than 1 legit P5 opponent vs another who plays maybe a Nevada or Buffalo, or start factoring in that some teams play a Pioneer team and/or a D2 team, there starts becoming caveats to the caveats. Meaning it is better than not using more data points, but unless the actual votes that truly count go with the premise that they need to re-work their rankings from top-to-bottom every single week we will continue to get what we have always gotten. AGS is better than most, but there is still plenty of bias going on (I am guilty of it, too).
Computers can/do become a bit of a circular pattern by the end of the year - which is why the Ivy tends to do so well in them and why things like the RPI/BPI in basketball have such a massive lean to the big schools, especially as they work to 20 or 22 conference games. However, it's not because they put weight on previous years. They may start using some previous data but by week 4 or 5 they are completely "unbiased" (terms I see computer ranking creators use, not my phrase) and and unweighted using only current year data. If you want to argue that by starting week 1 with some previous year data it impacts the entire season I can't entirely argue that point, though I'd say the extent to which that happens is significantly smaller than you'd think.

Humans, and this has been shown in a bit of research I've done some reading on (and I can try to find it if you'd really like) are far more likely to rely on historical "but they are usually really good/bad" or "They always do X". Look at the comments about UNI's ranking at the beginning of every season, and how now people don't rank them preseason because "They always start slow and then win late" people will refuse to rank them preseason and then be slow to move them up because their bias from previous seasons. Computers don't have that.

If, say, Lafayette was to do EXACTLY what Montana did through the first 6 weeks of the season (struggle to put away a PFL, nearly lose to a D2, beat Idaho State by 8, lose to NAU, beat Davis by just 8 and then beat Utah Tech) would they have a top 5 ranking? Would any be fighting for them to have a top 5 rankings? I bet you'd struggle to see them in the top 15 because the justification would be "Sure, they are 5-1 but it is against really bad teams and they aren't passing the eye test.".

Hell, I didn't even mean to do this when I started that example of human bias and slot voting - Lafayette is 7-1 and has a SOS of 62. Montana is 7-1 with an SOS of 51. There is actually very little difference in total SOS - both bad - both are 7-1. One is being debated as the #2 team in the country and one is outside the top 20. Yes, I realize there is the Idaho win for Montana, and Lafayette doesn't have that, but is that one singular win worth 20 spots in the AGS poll - or 16 in this one? That NAU loss means that much less than a loss to Duke?

I get it's not a perfect example and is requiring a bit of a stretch on the hypothetical of saying "Would Montana get the same benefit of the doubt if their uniform said Lafeyette?". I get all of that.

With UNI you see the human bias. They start 0-2 and will be lucky to crack the top 13-15 even if they finish the season 8-3 (6-1) because the human bias from early in the season and going "See, they just are doing it again" is so damn strong. Meanwhile the computers have had UNI top 10-12 all season long because the SOS has been #1 ever since the preseason weighted SOS was generated and didn't overreact as humans do with those losses in week 1 and 2. Is 8, where Massey has them currently, too high? Possibly or even probably. But at 5-2 in the FCS with the #1 SOS in the country I'd argue what they've done is as "impressive" record wise as what someone who has played a schedule in the 40s or 50s has done that may be sitting at 7-1

I don't think computers are perfect. They can't take into account injuries, suspensions, teams just having an off day, fluke bounces of the ball, etc. like a human could look at a result and make sense of it. It also isn't going to use those things to rationalize a thought pattern that might be illogical but make sense to that human to fit a bias.

[Puddin Tane]

UIW: They'd be lucky to finish 7th or 8th in MVFC,

xrolleyesx

UIW..living rent free in yalls heads…haaa

[uofmman1122]

Computers can/do become a bit of a circular pattern by the end of the year - which is why the Ivy tends to do so well in them and why things like the RPI/BPI in basketball have such a massive lean to the big schools, especially as they work to 20 or 22 conference games. However, it's not because they put weight on previous years. They may start using some previous data but by week 4 or 5 they are completely "unbiased" (terms I see computer ranking creators use, not my phrase) and and unweighted using only current year data. If you want to argue that by starting week 1 with some previous year data it impacts the entire season I can't entirely argue that point, though I'd say the extent to which that happens is significantly smaller than you'd think.

Humans, and this has been shown in a bit of research I've done some reading on (and I can try to find it if you'd really like) are far more likely to rely on historical "but they are usually really good/bad" or "They always do X". Look at the comments about UNI's ranking at the beginning of every season, and how now people don't rank them preseason because "They always start slow and then win late" people will refuse to rank them preseason and then be slow to move them up because their bias from previous seasons. Computers don't have that.

If, say, Lafayette was to do EXACTLY what Montana did through the first 6 weeks of the season (struggle to put away a PFL, nearly lose to a D2, beat Idaho State by 8, lose to NAU, beat Davis by just 8 and then beat Utah Tech) would they have a top 5 ranking? Would any be fighting for them to have a top 5 rankings? I bet you'd struggle to see them in the top 15 because the justification would be "Sure, they are 5-1 but it is against really bad teams and they aren't passing the eye test.".

Hell, I didn't even mean to do this when I started that example of human bias and slot voting - Lafayette is 7-1 and has a SOS of 62. Montana is 7-1 with an SOS of 51. There is actually very little difference in total SOS - both bad - both are 7-1. One is being debated as the #2 team in the country and one is outside the top 20. Yes, I realize there is the Idaho win for Montana, and Lafayette doesn't have that, but is that one singular win worth 20 spots in the AGS poll - or 16 in this one? That NAU loss means that much less than a loss to Duke?

I get it's not a perfect example and is requiring a bit of a stretch on the hypothetical of saying "Would Montana get the same benefit of the doubt if their uniform said Lafeyette?". I get all of that.

With UNI you see the human bias. They start 0-2 and will be lucky to crack the top 13-15 even if they finish the season 8-3 (6-1) because the human bias from early in the season and going "See, they just are doing it again" is so damn strong. Meanwhile the computers have had UNI top 10-12 all season long because the SOS has been #1 ever since the preseason weighted SOS was generated and didn't overreact as humans do with those losses in week 1 and 2. Is 8, where Massey has them currently, too high? Possibly or even probably. But at 5-2 in the FCS with the #1 SOS in the country I'd argue what they've done is as "impressive" record wise as what someone who has played a schedule in the 40s or 50s has done that may be sitting at 7-1

I don't think computers are perfect. They can't take into account injuries, suspensions, teams just having an off day, fluke bounces of the ball, etc. like a human could look at a result and make sense of it. It also isn't going to use those things to rationalize a thought pattern that might be illogical but make sense to that human to fit a bias.
See, I could worry about stuff like this, or I could realize that, unlike Lafayette, Montana plays 2 more top 10 teams and can earn the #2 spot. Maybe the Griz are overranked right now. I don't honestly care. We'll see where they end up after the Brawl.

[ElCid]

A computer SOS is also highly subjective. Massey's SOS is based on a preseason weight/ranking of teams that often just circularly affirms whatever the first ranking was, often giving way too much benefit of the doubt to teams from certain conferences. "NDSU is crazy good. USD beat them? Well then obviously USD is crazy good too. UND beat them, well then obviously..." you see what I mean?

I also don't think a preseason poll is worthwhile, at all. It's how you get people that unironically still refer to Weber State as a "top 25 win" for teams in the beginning of the season even though it's clear they aren't good. We've seen the perceptions of a host of teams change dramatically over the last few weeks, but if you had just held off until today to do any rankings, they'd probably look mostly similar, save for maybe a few teams being a few spots higher or lower. That's what I think would be best at the end of the year, too.

Again, these are just my personal feelings. The AGS poll certainly helps people stay abreast of what's going on across the FCS and makes more informed fans of the sport, so it's definitely not all bad.

Preseason ratings by the big two computer rating systems have less and less affect each game played. Not sure what game the preseason affect disappears, but it ain't all season. It still appears to me that they have some affect by seasons end but not according to their listed methodology. However, when predicting a game between two teams, I think they also take into account some historic period of the rivalry results, weighted heavier for more recent games. It's the only way I can figure how they come up with some of their predictions. And I've looked at it "real" close for some time.

One problem I have always had is the insular nature of some conferences, cough, Ivy. They have little connection to the rest of the field so if their starting position is higher than deserved, and they play limited OOC opponents, and then just play each other (no playoffs as well), they tend to stay too high as a conf. Their scheduling has gotten better the last few years (more conferences played) and their overall ratings have dropped. They used to play mostly Patriot or CAA. They still do, but they've branched out a little now. That's just one example of problems I've found with the computers.

[robsnotes4u]

A computer SOS is also highly subjective. Massey's SOS is based on a preseason weight/ranking of teams that often just circularly affirms whatever the first ranking was, often giving way too much benefit of the doubt to teams from certain conferences. "NDSU is crazy good. USD beat them? Well then obviously USD is crazy good too. UND beat them, well then obviously..." you see what I mean?

I also don't think a preseason poll is worthwhile, at all. It's how you get people that unironically still refer to Weber State as a "top 25 win" for teams in the beginning of the season even though it's clear they aren't good. We've seen the perceptions of a host of teams change dramatically over the last few weeks, but if you had just held off until today to do any rankings, they'd probably look mostly similar, save for maybe a few teams being a few spots higher or lower. That's what I think would be best at the end of the year, too.

Again, these are just my personal feelings. The AGS poll certainly helps people stay abreast of what's going on across the FCS and makes more informed fans of the sport, so it's definitely not all bad.

Do you have the algorithm or is it an opinion? If you have it, I would love to see it. A friend of mine who has a doctorate, and his computer partner developed an ELO type system for Billiards, FargoRate. I would like him to dissect it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uofmman1122]

Preseason ratings by the big two computer rating systems have less and less affect each game played. Not sure what game the preseason affect disappears, but it ain't all season. It still appears to me that they have some affect by seasons end but not according to their listed methodology. However, when predicting a game between two teams, I think they also take into account some historic period of the rivalry results, weighted heavier for more recent games. It's the only way I can figure how they come up with some of their predictions. And I've looked at it "real" close for some time.

One problem I have always had is the insular nature of some conferences, cough, Ivy. They have little connection to the rest of the field so if their starting position is higher than deserved, and they play limited OOC opponents, and then just play each other (no playoffs as well), they tend to stay too high as a conf. Their scheduling has gotten better the last few years (more conferences played) and their overall ratings have dropped. They used to play mostly Patriot or CAA. They still do, but they've branched out a little now. That's just one example of problems I've found with the computers.
Massey (and 4 other computer rankings) still has NDSU as the #3 team in FCS, which through SOS is affecting other teams, as well. Not sure when that preseason effect is supposed to disappear, but it's clearly still there right now.

I certainly don't think computer rankings are awful and useless. I think they're fine alongside any human polls.

I just bristle at the suggestion that they are "objective". They aren't. As someone who works on algorithms in my job, I know that it's pretty hard for whoever makes them not to put their own biases into them, even when they explicitly try not to.

[ElCid]

Massey (and 4 other computer rankings) still has NDSU as the #3 team in FCS, which through SOS is affecting other teams, as well. Not sure when that preseason effect is supposed to disappear, but it's clearly still there right now.

I certainly don't think computer rankings are awful and useless. I think they're fine alongside any human polls.

I just bristle at the suggestion that they are "objective". They aren't. As someone who works on algorithms in my job, I know that it's pretty hard for whoever makes them not to put their own biases into them, even when they explicitly try not to.

Your last point is spot on. Kind of like the silly AI craze. Besides it not being real AI, if a programmer creates an algorithm that only draws data from sources they select and they restrict other sources, is the output really true and accurate. Of course not, since any result reflects the biases of whoever created the algorithms that a system uses. Or whoever paid for having them created. I would throw out there, if it truly was intelligent, it could do that on its own, sort out the wheat from the chaff. But lots of stories coming out about AI programs using certain sources exclusively because they are programmed to. No, I suspect it'd just a money making scheme at this point and being pushed for "other" reasons.

Same as some of the football computer ratings systems out their. If you ever looked at some of the results used in the Massey composite, they are hilarious. I've selected their links to try and determine how they come up with them, but most do not list even their basic concepts. I would bet good money that many were created by hobbyists in order to favor their favorite team or conf by tweaking their algorithms. In the current results, someone has a computer ranking that lists Drake as #25. Another has Lafayette as #2 (not bashing them, they are a top 20 for sure, but #2...no). Another has Furman as #40...no. Just a few examples. Sure it gets averaged out in the composite, but there are a bunch that need to be dropped by Mr. Massey.

I don't use the composite as a result. I do look at Sagarin and Massey as sources of good, mostly objective, data points. Massey has excellent historic records as well.

[penguinpower]

https://theanalyst.com/na/2023/10/socon-showdown-one-of-five-fcs-top-25-head-to-head-matchups-this-week/


1. South Dakota State (8-0, 5-0 MVFC), 1,400 points (56 of 56 first-place votes)
2. Furman (7-1, 5-0 SoCon), 1,278
3. Idaho (6-2, 4-1 Big Sky), 1,218
4. Montana (7-1, 4-1 Big Sky), 1,190
5. Delaware (7-1, 5-0 CAA), 1,171
6. Montana State (6-2, 4-1 Big Sky), 1,150
7. Sacramento State (6-2, 3-2 Big Sky), 1,074
8. UIW (7-1, 4-0 Southland), 980
9. South Dakota (6-2, 4-1 MVFC), 964
10. Southern Illinois (6-2, 3-2 MVFC), 862
11. North Dakota State (6-2, 3-2 MVFC), 815
12. North Carolina Central (7-1, 2-0 MEAC), 751
13. North Dakota (5-3, 3-2 MVFC), 648
14. Chattanooga (7-2, 6-1 Southern), 578
15. Florida A&M (7-1, 6-0 SWAC), 576
16. Western Carolina (5-3, 3-2 SoCon), 516
17. Villanova (6-2, 4-1 CAA), 471
18. Northern Iowa (5-3, 4-1 MVFC), 389
19. Austin Peay (6-2, 3-0 UAC), 387
20. Lafayette (7-1, 3-0 Patriot), 354
21. UT Martin (6-2, 3-1 Big South-OVC), 314
22. Youngstown State (5-3, 3-2 MVFC), 269
23. UAlbany (6-3, 4-1 CAA), 249
24. William & Mary (5-3, 3-2 CAA), 184
25. Mercer (6-3, 4-2 SoCon), 103


Dropped Out: Central Arkansas (18),UC Davis (25)

Others Receiving Votes (schools listed on two or more ballots): Central Arkansas (5-3, 2-1 UAC) 94; Harvard (6-1, 3-1 Ivy) 80; Holy Cross (5-3, 3-1 Patriot) 48; Tennessee State (6-2, 2-1 Big South-OVC) 48; Tarleton (6-3, 2-2 UAC) 14; Richmond (6-3, 5-1 CAA) 13; Gardner-Webb (4-4, 2-1 Big South-OVC) 5; UC Davis (4-4, 2-3 Big Sky) 3

UNI below Villanova and Western Carolina and Lafayette and Austin Peay above Youngstown shows how illegitimate and dishonest this poll is relative to reality.

Stats Poll ="Mr Madison what you just said is the one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard; at no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered irrational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."


If we're going to have this **** show poll be part of selection committee criteria, then something has to change to ensure fairness. A better idea for how the season is played is as follows: have 7 conference games scheduled each year. After 7 play 32 teams in a tournament based on the rankings. I would love to see the ass whipping Youngstown puts on Lafayette and Austin Peay. I would like to see Youngstown vs Western Carolina. I don't think it would be very competitive toward the end of the game. Ithink Youngstown and UNI would run away with the game towards the end of Q3 because of depth.

This poll is hot trash just like the beta male that runs it. Where are you Craig?

[MSUBobcat]

Computers can/do become a bit of a circular pattern by the end of the year - which is why the Ivy tends to do so well in them and why things like the RPI/BPI in basketball have such a massive lean to the big schools, especially as they work to 20 or 22 conference games. However, it's not because they put weight on previous years. They may start using some previous data but by week 4 or 5 they are completely "unbiased" (terms I see computer ranking creators use, not my phrase) and and unweighted using only current year data. If you want to argue that by starting week 1 with some previous year data it impacts the entire season I can't entirely argue that point, though I'd say the extent to which that happens is significantly smaller than you'd think.

Humans, and this has been shown in a bit of research I've done some reading on (and I can try to find it if you'd really like) are far more likely to rely on historical "but they are usually really good/bad" or "They always do X". Look at the comments about UNI's ranking at the beginning of every season, and how now people don't rank them preseason because "They always start slow and then win late" people will refuse to rank them preseason and then be slow to move them up because their bias from previous seasons. Computers don't have that.

If, say, Lafayette was to do EXACTLY what Montana did through the first 6 weeks of the season (struggle to put away a PFL, nearly lose to a D2, beat Idaho State by 8, lose to NAU, beat Davis by just 8 and then beat Utah Tech) would they have a top 5 ranking? Would any be fighting for them to have a top 5 rankings? I bet you'd struggle to see them in the top 15 because the justification would be "Sure, they are 5-1 but it is against really bad teams and they aren't passing the eye test.".

Hell, I didn't even mean to do this when I started that example of human bias and slot voting - Lafayette is 7-1 and has a SOS of 62. Montana is 7-1 with an SOS of 51. There is actually very little difference in total SOS - both bad - both are 7-1. One is being debated as the #2 team in the country and one is outside the top 20. Yes, I realize there is the Idaho win for Montana, and Lafayette doesn't have that, but is that one singular win worth 20 spots in the AGS poll - or 16 in this one? That NAU loss means that much less than a loss to Duke?

I get it's not a perfect example and is requiring a bit of a stretch on the hypothetical of saying "Would Montana get the same benefit of the doubt if their uniform said Lafeyette?". I get all of that.

With UNI you see the human bias. They start 0-2 and will be lucky to crack the top 13-15 even if they finish the season 8-3 (6-1) because the human bias from early in the season and going "See, they just are doing it again" is so damn strong. Meanwhile the computers have had UNI top 10-12 all season long because the SOS has been #1 ever since the preseason weighted SOS was generated and didn't overreact as humans do with those losses in week 1 and 2. Is 8, where Massey has them currently, too high? Possibly or even probably. But at 5-2 in the FCS with the #1 SOS in the country I'd argue what they've done is as "impressive" record wise as what someone who has played a schedule in the 40s or 50s has done that may be sitting at 7-1

I don't think computers are perfect. They can't take into account injuries, suspensions, teams just having an off day, fluke bounces of the ball, etc. like a human could look at a result and make sense of it. It also isn't going to use those things to rationalize a thought pattern that might be illogical but make sense to that human to fit a bias.

What if I told you that after Week 6, the AGS poll (https://thefcswedge.com/ags-poll/ags-poll-week-6-top-25-results-5/) had dUMb ranked..... 19th. Those "biased" they've-been-good-so they're-still-good voters WERE punishing them for how they were winning (or losing). Even the STATS poll (https://theanalyst.com/na/2023/10/delaware-leads-deep-caa-football-contingent-in-stats-perform-fcs-top-25-poll/) had them at 16. I didn't bother to look at the "Coaches" poll cuz... why? I think generally AGS does pretty good about tossing aside the historical bias. UIW, semifinalist from last year, is undefeated in FCS competition, yet still ranked #10 (still too high IMO, but I digress). Conversely, South Dakota didn't get a single vote in the preseason poll after a 3-8 year, yet still climbed to #4 before losing to SDSU last weekend.

UNI is somewhat underranked IMO, but not egregiously. 1 pretty good win (blowout shutout of UND, though they seem trending down somewhat), 2 nice wins (3pt home win over YSU, 3pt road win over ISU-r), but also 2 pretty bad wins (blown out by SDSU and the lead weight loss to BBQ).

[kab]

How is ndsu 11?
their wins are against teams with a total of 12 wins and 29 losses

[Pards Rule]

UNI below Villanova and Western Carolina and Lafayette and Austin Peay above Youngstown shows how illegitimate and dishonest this poll is relative to reality.

Stats Poll ="Mr Madison what you just said is the one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard; at no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered irrational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."


If we're going to have this **** show poll be part of selection committee criteria, then something has to change to ensure fairness. A better idea for how the season is played is as follows: have 7 conference games scheduled each year. After 7 play 32 teams in a tournament based on the rankings. I would love to see the ass whipping Youngstown puts on Lafayette and Austin Peay. I would like to see Youngstown vs Western Carolina. I don't think it would be very competitive toward the end of the game. Ithink Youngstown and UNI would run away with the game towards the end of Q3 because of depth.

This poll is hot trash just like the beta male that runs it. Where are you Craig?

No respect for the Leopards...werent you the one that said we shouldnt be at large in 2005 and we went to App State and gave them a great game, tied 20-20 mid 4th before falling by 11.

[UNHWildcat18]

How is ndsu 11?
their wins are against teams with a total of 12 wins and 29 losses

I could say the same for UND..
2 wins vs winless teams
1 win vs Pioneer team (who isn't good)
3 losses
only good win is vs NDSU
other win is vs a 3-5 NAU

Not saying UND isn't a good team but 5-3 and being ranked 13 is ridiculous

[F'N Hawks]

I could say the same for UND..
2 wins vs winless teams
1 win vs Pioneer team (who isn't good)
3 losses
only good win is vs NDSU
other win is vs a 3-5 NAU

Not saying UND isn't a good team but 5-3 and being ranked 13 is ridiculous

I get that but it takes time to sort it out. Teams have to go somewhere when they are 5-3 or 6-2. Who was UND going to realistically beat other than UNI? Not SDSU or Boise.

It will all shake out in the next two weeks. It's been pointed out that a team like UND needs to pull an upset over NDSU, SDSU or their FBS opponent - or they are 0-3 before the season even starts. Most other conferences don't have to deal with that.

[Sitting Bull]

How is ndsu 11?
their wins are against teams with a total of 12 wins and 29 losses

I’m guessing because regardless of their schedule, people feel like they’re the 11th best team in FCS.

[Redbird 4th & short]

UIW: They'd be lucky to finish 7th or 8th in MVFC,

xrolleyesx

UIW..living rent free in yalls heads…haaa
no, don't flatter yourself.

But am curious of your specific case for IW being ranked so high. Name their most impressive games in descending order ... which games scream top 4 or top 8 or even top 16 ? They are a top 30 level tem barely beatin average to weak teams.

Ill give you a head start ... Abilene is IW's best win this year, and Massey has then #44; while their Composite has them 55. And IW beat them by just 7. Further problem is 4-4 Abilene Christian just got smoked 52 - 14 by 3-5 Southern Utah last week ... Massey has SUU #32. Abilene also got smoked 52-17 by UCA.

But you somehow think them barely beating weak teams by 10 to 14 pts means they move up. No, they should be sliding down every week. One could maybe make a case for top 20-25 at best, simply due to record ... but again, zero impressive wins.