CSN's 11/10/08 Gridiron Power Index (GPI), James Madison Locked at No. 1

[CSN-info]

The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the index ranking for the NCAA Division I FCS and a top indicator of at-large playoff selection continues with James Madison in the top spot again this week. No other team has been ranked No. 1 this year in the GPI.

The Colonial Athletic Association, the largest league in the FCS has seven teams in the top 25; the Southern Conference has six; the Missouri Valley Football and the Big Sky Conferences have four each; the Southland Conference has two; and the Great West Football Conference and the Ivy League have one each. (Games through 11/8)

11/10/2008 GPI Top 25
1. James Madison (1.00)
2. Appalachian St (2.63)
3. Montana (3.88)
4. Villanova (4.63)
5. Richmond (5.25)
6. Cal Poly (5.75)
7. Weber St (6.50)
8. Northern Iowa (8.13)
9. Wofford (9.88)
10. William & Mary (10.00)
11. New Hampshire (11.13)
12. Elon (11.88)
13. S Illinois (13.38)
14. Furman (14.75)
15. Massachusetts (15.63)
16. Maine (16.00)
17. Cent Arkansas (16.38)
18. McNeese St (18.75)
19. Harvard (19.75)
20. Montana St (22.63)
21. N Arizona (23.25)
22. S Dakota St (24.25)
23. Samford (24.88)
24. Ga Southern (25.00)
25. W Illinois (25.38)

Conference Ranking:
Rank, League, Total Average
1. Colonial Athletic Association (22.29)
2. Southern Conference (27.75)
3. Big Sky Conference (29.79)
4. Southland Conference (33.21)
5. Great West Football Conference (34.05)
6. Missouri Valley Football Conference (38.86)
7. Ivy League (47.61)
8. Patriot League (47.86)
9. Big South Conference (48.91)
10. Ohio Valley Conference (52.09)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (60.79)
12. Northeast Conference (66.69)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (70.14)
14. Pioneer Football League (75.13)
15. Independents (79.13)

Read More ... http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/index.php?blog=5&title=11-10-08-gridiron-power-index-gpi-james--1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[Syntax Error]

Two weeks left!!!!!!!!

The GPI is indicating up to this past week:
(* - AQ or highest ranking conf team)

*1. James Madison (1.00)
*2. Appalachian St (2.63)
3. Montana (3.88)
4. Villanova (4.63)
5. Richmond (5.25)
6. Cal Poly (5.75)
*7. Weber St (6.50)
*8. Northern Iowa (8.13)
9. Wofford (9.88)
10. William & Mary (10.00)
11. New Hampshire (11.13)
12. Elon (11.88)
*18. McNeese St (18.75)
*28. Lafayette (27.50)
*30. S Carolina St (28.00)
*36T. TN Martin (32.00)

5 CAA
3 SOCON
2 BSC
1 GWFC
1 MEAC
1 MVFC
1 OVC
1 PL
1 SLC

[WrenFGun]

It's really weird to consider that one of those top 10 teams (William & Mary, Richmond) are likely to miss out on the playoffs. Richmond's going to be a very interesting case at 8-4, if they lose to William and Mary, because they would be very likely to remain in the top 10 of the GPI.

Meanwhile, New Hampshire is also interesting. Even with a loss to Massachusetts and a win over Maine, they're pretty likely to remain in the same position, which would bode well for them getting in at 8-3, and would seemingly have them in front of teams like Elon and Southern Illinois.

[Applete]

Two weeks left!!!!!!!!

The GPI is indicating up to this past week:
(* - AQ or highest ranking conf team)

*1. James Madison (1.00)
*2. Appalachian St (2.63)
3. Montana (3.88)
4. Villanova (4.63)
5. Richmond (5.25)
6. Cal Poly (5.75)
*7. Weber St (6.50)
*8. Northern Iowa (8.13)
9. Wofford (9.88)
10. William & Mary (10.00)
11. New Hampshire (11.13)
12. Elon (11.88)
*18. McNeese St (18.75)
*28. Lafayette (27.50)
*30. S Carolina St (28.00)
*36T. TN Martin (32.00)

5 CAA
3 SOCON
2 BSC
1 GWFC
1 MEAC
1 MVFC
1 OVC
1 PL
1 SLC




There are 6 SOCON

[mcveyrl]

There are 6 SOCON

He's right! xeyebrowx

[Syntax Error]

Two weeks left!!!!!!!!

The GPI is indicating up to this past week:
(* - AQ or highest ranking conf team)

*1. James Madison (1.00)
*2. Appalachian St (2.63)
3. Montana (3.88)
4. Villanova (4.63)
5. Richmond (5.25)
6. Cal Poly (5.75)
*7. Weber St (6.50)
*8. Northern Iowa (8.13)
9. Wofford (9.88)
10. William & Mary (10.00)
11. New Hampshire (11.13)
12. Elon (11.88)
*18. McNeese St (18.75)
*28. Lafayette (27.50)
*30. S Carolina St (28.00)
*36T. TN Martin (32.00)

5 CAA
3 SOCON
2 BSC
1 GWFC
1 MEAC
1 MVFC
1 OVC
1 PL
1 SLC
There are 6 SOCONI only count three in the playoff indicator I posted. "in the top 25; the Southern Conference has six"

[mcveyrl]

I only count three in the playoff indicator I posted. "in the top 25; the Southern Conference has six"

I'm glad you could decipher what he meant...

[Applete]

I only count three in the playoff indicator I posted. "in the top 25; the Southern Conference has six"


gotcha xthumbsupx

[Anovafan]

Top 14 looks pretty good, and pretty similar to my AGS ballot.

[jlcharles]

Do the seeds typically follow the GPI, with the top 4 getting seeded?

[purplepeopleeaterv2]

Do the seeds typically follow the GPI, with the top 4 getting seeded?

I think I remember reading a post not to long ago that historically the GPI was a pretty good indicator of the top 4 seeds.

[DetroitFlyer]

The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the index ranking for the NCAA Division I FCS and a top indicator of at-large playoff selection continues with James Madison in the top spot again this week. No other team has been ranked No. 1 this year in the GPI.

The Colonial Athletic Association, the largest league in the FCS has seven teams in the top 25; the Southern Conference has six; the Missouri Valley Football and the Big Sky Conferences have four each; the Southland Conference has two; and the Great West Football Conference and the Ivy League have one each. (Games through 11/8)

11/10/2008 GPI Top 25
1. James Madison (1.00)
2. Appalachian St (2.63)
3. Montana (3.88)
4. Villanova (4.63)
5. Richmond (5.25)
6. Cal Poly (5.75)
7. Weber St (6.50)
8. Northern Iowa (8.13)
9. Wofford (9.88)
10. William & Mary (10.00)
11. New Hampshire (11.13)
12. Elon (11.88)
13. S Illinois (13.38)
14. Furman (14.75)
15. Massachusetts (15.63)
16. Maine (16.00)
17. Cent Arkansas (16.38)
18. McNeese St (18.75)
19. Harvard (19.75)
20. Montana St (22.63)
21. N Arizona (23.25)
22. S Dakota St (24.25)
23. Samford (24.88)
24. Ga Southern (25.00)
25. W Illinois (25.38)

Conference Ranking:
Rank, League, Total Average
1. Colonial Athletic Association (22.29)
2. Southern Conference (27.75)
3. Big Sky Conference (29.79)
4. Southland Conference (33.21)
5. Great West Football Conference (34.05)
6. Missouri Valley Football Conference (38.86)
7. Patriot League (47.86)
8. Ivy League (47.89)
9. Big South Conference (48.91)
10. Ohio Valley Conference (52.09)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (60.79)
12. Northeast Conference (66.69)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (69.92)
14. Pioneer Football League (75.13)
15. Independents (79.13)

Read More ... http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/index.php?blog=5&title=11-10-08-gridiron-power-index-gpi-james--1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


Absolute, 100% drivel. Dayton at #75.... Let me say it again, absolute, 100% drivel. We are in the 30's in the Coaches and TSN polls.... AGS? No votes. GPI, #75. Let me say it again, absolute, 100% drivel. Did I mention that this is absolute, 100% drivel?

I simply do not understand how the fans here can put any credibility in the AGS poll or this absolute, 100% drivel.

Frankly, is it sad and an embarassment to this community.

[TexasTerror]

Polls aren't the only ones saying that Dayton is not worth much. It's the ratings! Pioneer is rated worse than the SWAC, which had just one OOC win on the whole season against Div I competition. What's that say about the teams in your league?

[uofmman1122]

Absolute, 100% drivel. Dayton at #75.... Let me say it again, absolute, 100% drivel. We are in the 30's in the Coaches and TSN polls.... AGS? No votes. GPI, #75. Let me say it again, absolute, 100% drivel. Did I mention that this is absolute, 100% drivel?

I simply do not understand how the fans here can put any credibility in the AGS poll or this absolute, 100% drivel.

Frankly, is it sad and an embarassment to this community.Your schedule and the GPI of teams you've played:

Central State (Who?) Win
Fordham (77th) Win
Robert Morris (100th) Win
Duquesne (102th) LOSS
Campbell (125th) Win
Drake (109th) Win
Davidson (116th) Win
Valparaiso (124th) Win
San Diego (88th) Win
Butler (103th) Win

And future teams:

Morehead State (113th)
Jacksonville (88th)

I think that speaks for itself rather clearly. 9-1 against a bunch of nobodies. xcoffeex

Just for reference, here or the GPI of lower teams in bigger conferences that aren't even going to sniff the playoffs:

38. Northeastern
23. Samford
20. Montana St
31. Sacramento St
45. Southern Utah
35. N Dakota St

All of these teams could handle Dayton, and if you don't think so, then E-Mail your AD and tell him to schedule some of them. xpeacex

[DetroitFlyer]

Your schedule and the GPI of teams you've played:

Central State (Who?) Win
Fordham (77th) Win
Robert Morris (100th) Win
Duquesne (102th) LOSS
Campbell (125th) Win
Drake (109th) Win
Davidson (116th) Win
Valparaiso (124th) Win
San Diego (88th) Win
Butler (103th) Win

And future teams:

Morehead State (113th)
Jacksonville (88th)

I think that speaks for itself rather clearly. 9-1 against a bunch of nobodies. xcoffeex

Just for reference, here or the GPI of lower teams in bigger conferences that aren't even going to sniff the playoffs:

38. Northeastern
23. Samford
20. Montana St
31. Sacramento St
45. Southern Utah
35. N Dakota St

All of these teams could handle Dayton, and if you don't think so, then E-Mail your AD and tell him to schedule some of them. xpeacex

And how exactly do you have a clue that any of these teams could "handle" Dayton, other than your AGS bias? Have you ever seen Dayton play a game? Maybe you should talk to some fans that have seen the Flyers play in person. Talk to TSN, Coaches and SME to find out why the Flyers are in the 30's in their polls.... There are at least 3 polls, (TSN, SME, Coaches), that have the Flyers currently in the 30's. (Still too low IMHO). GPI at #75 is drivel. You base your entire argument on a "ranking" system that is obviously biased against the PFL. As I said, this is an embarassment to the world of FCS and absolute ignorance by fans such as you is one of the reasons why it occurs.

[uofmman1122]

And how exactly do you have a clue that any of these teams could "handle" Dayton, other than your AGS bias? Have you ever seen Dayton play a game? Maybe you should talk to some fans that have seen the Flyers play in person. Talk to TSN, Coaches and SME to find out why the Flyers are in the 30's in their polls.... There are at least 3 polls, (TSN, SME, Coaches), that have the Flyers currently in the 30's. (Still too low IMHO). GPI at #75 is drivel. You base your entire argument on a "ranking" system that is obviously biased against the PFL. As I said, this is an embarassment to the world of FCS and absolute ignorance by fans such as you is one of the reasons why it occurs.Even if I saw them play against one the teams this year, what exactly would I base it on?

None of the teams on your schedule is good indicator of how you would do against top conference teams. You can call a bias all you want, but Dayton can't prove they belong in the top without proving it on the field.

If you play a bunch of nobodies, you're not proving anything, even if I had watched every single Dayton game in person.

[purplepeopleeaterv2]

And how exactly do you have a clue that any of these teams could "handle" Dayton, other than your AGS bias? Have you ever seen Dayton play a game? Maybe you should talk to some fans that have seen the Flyers play in person. Talk to TSN, Coaches and SME to find out why the Flyers are in the 30's in their polls.... There are at least 3 polls, (TSN, SME, Coaches), that have the Flyers currently in the 30's. (Still too low IMHO). GPI at #75 is drivel. You base your entire argument on a "ranking" system that is obviously biased against the PFL. As I said, this is an embarassment to the world of FCS and absolute ignorance by fans such as you is one of the reasons why it occurs.

If you want respect you have to earn it. Do what Albany did and step up to the plate and schedule some tough OOC teams (maybe not as many CAA teams as they did but you get the idea.) When you win some of those OOC games the respect and recognition will come. Otherwise your just falling on deaf ears like San Diego a year or two back.

[Anovafan]

Wow, somebody got their panties in a bunch, but seriously, put Dayton against the CAA South this year and I say they go winless.

[danefan]

You guys keep pointing out facts to DetroitFlyer and he has a hard time getting it, and I'll tell you why:

How can Harvard be ranked so high but Dayton so low? What has Harvard done? Its hard to reconcile the two.

I think both should be in the mid to high 30's range.

[purplepeopleeaterv2]

You guys keep pointing out facts to DetroitFlyer and he has a hard time getting it, and I'll tell you why:

How can Harvard be ranked so high but Dayton so low? What has Harvard done? Its hard to reconcile the two.

I think both should be in the mid to high 30's range.


Same reason why Villanova and Weber are ranked so low.

[wideright82]

And how exactly do you have a clue that any of these teams could "handle" Dayton, other than your AGS bias? Have you ever seen Dayton play a game? Maybe you should talk to some fans that have seen the Flyers play in person. Talk to TSN, Coaches and SME to find out why the Flyers are in the 30's in their polls.... There are at least 3 polls, (TSN, SME, Coaches), that have the Flyers currently in the 30's. (Still too low IMHO). GPI at #75 is drivel. You base your entire argument on a "ranking" system that is obviously biased against the PFL. As I said, this is an embarassment to the world of FCS and absolute ignorance by fans such as you is one of the reasons why it occurs.

xviolinx xviolinx

[appstfan]

Even if I saw them play against one the teams this year, what exactly would I base it on?

None of the teams on your schedule is good indicator of how you would do against top conference teams. You can call a bias all you want, but Dayton can't prove they belong in the top without proving it on the field.

If you play a bunch of nobodies, you're not proving anything, even if I had watched every single Dayton game in person.

Agreed. It is all about strength of schedule and the only way Dayton has a right to say they are a top 25-30 team is if they beat someone.

To be honest I think he is just trying to start an argument here. He is not that insane to believe they could hang with these ranked teams, let alone beat them. Best thing to do is just ignore it because it is probably a ploy to get a debate going that is just not worth the time right now.

[89Hen]

27. Delaware CAA 4-6 26.00

Looks like I won't be able to vote for the Hens at 25 this week. Go figure, they finally win another CAA game and drop two spots. :p

[89Hen]

Massey
2. Montana
4. Weber State
16. Montana State
21. Northern Arizona
22. Eastern Washington
25. Sacramento State

Yeah, there's no self-implosion in these rankings. xrolleyesx Where are those a-hole computer guys who defend their methods until their faces are blue and talk down to anyone who doesn't believe them?

[Anovafan]

You guys keep pointing out facts to DetroitFlyer and he has a hard time getting it, and I'll tell you why:

How can Harvard be ranked so high but Dayton so low? What has Harvard done? Its hard to reconcile the two.

I think both should be in the mid to high 30's range.

The Ivies play the Patriot league and a few CAA teams sprinkled in. The Patriot league plays the Ivies and a few more CAA teams sprinkled in. We have a lot more games to compare and evaluate how good an Ivy team really is. If the PFL wants some respect like the Patriot league did a fews years back, start scheduling some CAA teams like the Patriot league did.

[KAUMASS]

Two weeks left!!!!!!!!

The GPI is indicating up to this past week:
(* - AQ or highest ranking conf team)

*1. James Madison (1.00)
*2. Appalachian St (2.63)
3. Montana (3.88)
4. Villanova (4.63)
5. Richmond (5.25)
6. Cal Poly (5.75)
*7. Weber St (6.50)
*8. Northern Iowa (8.13)
9. Wofford (9.88)
10. William & Mary (10.00)
11. New Hampshire (11.13)
12. Elon (11.88)
*18. McNeese St (18.75)
*28. Lafayette (27.50)
*30. S Carolina St (28.00)
*36T. TN Martin (32.00)

5 CAA
3 SOCON
2 BSC
1 GWFC
1 MEAC
1 MVFC
1 OVC
1 PL
1 SLC


Nice post Syntax. Still waiting for 89 Hen's rebuttle.....

The next four out on the the bubble are interesting:

13. Southern Illinois
14. Furman
15. UMass
16. Maine

Some big games going on the next two weeks. Still too early for me with predictions. Anything can and will happen....Sunday's back nine at Augusta has started...xthumbsupx xscanx xeekx xhurrayx

[uofmman1122]

Massey
2. Montana
4. Weber State
16. Montana State
21. Northern Arizona
22. Eastern Washington
25. Sacramento State

Yeah, there's no self-implosion in these rankings. xrolleyesx Where are those a-hole computer guys who defend their methods until their faces are blue and talk down to anyone who doesn't believe them?It's about time we got a western-bias ranking. xlolx:p

[Dukie95]

You're only as good as your best win.

Take App St. or JMU and give them that exact same schedule, they'd probably win the same number of games (and would probably beat Duquesne as well)

But, their ranking would be no higher than 77, because Fordham would have been their best win. I don't think anyone knows for sure that Dayton doesn't have the talent to compete with teams in higher leagues, BUT, you can't honestly claim they deserve to be ranked higher when they just haven't played anyone to PROOVE IT TO ANYBODY.

Now, you can only play the schedule you're given. If you want to prove you belong, schedule someone that ranks in the 20-30 range.

As one UR poster put it so well the other day, have your AD call the ADs of your fellow A-10 members URI, UR and UMass - work something out.

[OL FU]

27. Delaware CAA 4-6 26.00

Looks like I won't be able to vote for the Hens at 25 this week. Go figure, they finally win another CAA game and drop two spots. :p

xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xlolx

[danefan]

The Ivies play the Patriot league and a few CAA teams sprinkled in. The Patriot league plays the Ivies and a few more CAA teams sprinkled in. We have a lot more games to compare and evaluate how good an Ivy team really is. If the PFL wants some respect like the Patriot league did a fews years back, start scheduling some CAA teams like the Patriot league did.

Ivy OOC schedule (other than PL)

Brown over SBU 17-7
Brown lost to Rhode Island 37-17
Columbia lost to Towson 31-24
Dartmouth blown out by UNH 42-6
Penn lost to 'Nova 20-14 in OT (I consider that a good loss)
Princeton lost to the Citadel 37-24

So in non-PL games, the Ivy league is 1-5.

I also don't think the PL is that great either this year, so the Ivy's playing PL teams doesn't do much for me. Plus the Ivy's are 9-9 against the PL this year.

I think (and have thought this for some years now) that the Ivy League gets artificially inflated in polls and rankings.

[89Hen]

It's about time we got a western-bias ranking. xlolx:p
Actually, you've had it several times over the years from different computer models. I've actually followed this for a long time... my first memory was a year when UD-Davis was still in DII and had a higher final Sagarin than any I-AA even though they didn't have a single DI win. This was probably around 1997ish?

One of my theories on why this happens is lack of available OOC games from the rest of the country. I'm in no way blaming the Big Sky. I think it sucks that there aren't more I-AA's in the western half (really 2/3rds) of the country. Montana has played a couple of eastern teams in the regular season, but that's pretty much it. Most of the Big Sky OOC consists of I-A's, DII's, CP, UC-D and SUU. That means there is very little data for the computers to use. The D-I's bring your SOS up, the DII's provide a win as does SUU (yes, they've improved). There really is no fix for it, but it really bugs the crap out of me (as if you couldn't tell) that the computer supporters think they are better simply because they are "objective". So is throwing darts blindfolded, but that's neither here nor there. xsmiley_wix

[89Hen]

27. Delaware CAA 4-6 26.00

Looks like I won't be able to vote for the Hens at 25 this week. Go figure, they finally win another CAA game and drop two spots. :p

xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xlolx
I might be willing to wager that the Hens are back in the computer Top 25 after they lose to Richmond this week. xeyebrowx

[uofmman1122]

Actually, you've had it several times over the years from different computer models. I've actually followed this for a long time... my first memory was a year when UD-Davis was still in DII and had a higher final Sagarin than any I-AA even though they didn't have a single DI win. This was probably around 1997ish?

One of my theories on why this happens is lack of available OOC games from the rest of the country. I'm in no way blaming the Big Sky. I think it sucks that there aren't more I-AA's in the western half (really 2/3rds) of the country. Montana has played a couple of eastern teams in the regular season, but that's pretty much it. Most of the Big Sky OOC consists of I-A's, DII's, CP, UC-D and SUU. That means there is very little data for the computers to use. The D-I's bring your SOS up, the DII's provide a win as does SUU (yes, they've improved). There really is no fix for it, but it really bugs the crap out of me (as if you couldn't tell) that the computer supporters think they are better simply because they are "objective". So is throwing darts blindfolded, but that's neither here nor there. xsmiley_wixI actually agree. The Massey rankings seem quite screwy when you get outside the top 10 or so (and sometimes even in the top 10). Outside of Montana and Weber State, none of the Big Sky teams deserve to be anywhere near their respective spots on that list. (And if they really are where they're supposed to be, Montana and Weber must be more like #1 and #2, considering how much they've beat up on them.)

[Native]

Absolute, 100% drivel. Dayton at #75.... Let me say it again, absolute, 100% drivel. We are in the 30's in the Coaches and TSN polls.... AGS? No votes. GPI, #75. Let me say it again, absolute, 100% drivel. Did I mention that this is absolute, 100% drivel?

I simply do not understand how the fans here can put any credibility in the AGS poll or this absolute, 100% drivel.

Frankly, is it sad and an embarassment to this community.

Schedule a game with a top 25 team. xnodx

[OL FU]

I might be willing to wager that the Hens are back in the computer Top 25 after they lose to Richmond this week. xeyebrowx

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx Well that would be another "good" lossxnodx

[GannonFan]

I might be willing to wager that the Hens are back in the computer Top 25 after they lose to Richmond this week. xeyebrowx

Might even be top 20 with a loss at Richmond and a loss the following week to nova. If we only had a few more weeks left against the right teams I've sure we could lose our way into the top 16!!!!! xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Native]

Massey
2. Montana
4. Weber State
16. Montana State
21. Northern Arizona
22. Eastern Washington
25. Sacramento State

Yeah, there's no self-implosion in these rankings. xrolleyesx Where are those a-hole computer guys who defend their methods until their faces are blue and talk down to anyone who doesn't believe them?

Here I am!

A lot of folks on these pages make reasoned arguments and try not to cherry-pick their data. I do not mean to talk down to anyone who espouses reasoned analysis based on comprehensive data. xbowx

But many are lazy in their approach. xnonox

I apologize to any non-trash-talker who has been offended. xpeacex

I don't know which computer ratings are the best, but it is better to consider a complete pool of relevant data without emotion or bias than it is to consider only a small amount of data which supports preconceived desired results, the methodology preferred by a few poll voters and many trash talkers. xnodx

The GPI takes 7 computer ratings into account, including both Massey and Sagarin. The GPI version used by the NCAA does not include Sagarin.

The Big Sky conference is 6-3 against non-conference FCS teams this year. Only Portland State and Northern Colorado lost to another non-conference FCS team, and neither was blown out. Too bad it is not logistically feasible for Big Sky teams to play more FCS teams instead of FBS teams, but the FBS payday is critical for everyone in the BSC except Montana. xnodx

However, the FBS games are not without logical and statistical merit. Sac State led Colorado State until the final seconds of the game. Eastern Washington gave #2 Texas Tech a fight. The Weber offense put 240 yards on #8 Utah's first team defense in the first three quarters of that game, before the Utes' subs went into the game. These are not meaningless events, and occasionally they yield a victory, as in New Hampshire's win over Army this season. xthumbsupx

P.S. If you want to say that the lower division games are meaningless, I agree unless the lower team wins. Sagarin does not take them into account one way or the other for strength of schedule. I don't know about Massey.

[Cleets]

You guys keep pointing out facts to DetroitFlyer and he has a hard time getting it, and I'll tell you why:

How can Harvard be ranked so high but Dayton so low? What has Harvard done? Its hard to reconcile the two.

I think both should be in the mid to high 30's range.

Um... excuse me..!!!! xlolx
Harvard is right where it should be (Leave us out of this pissing match)

or I'll sing 10,000 men of Harvard at the top of my lungs

Illegitimi non carborundum..!!!

[Native]

Actually, you've had it several times over the years from different computer models. I've actually followed this for a long time... my first memory was a year when UD-Davis was still in DII and had a higher final Sagarin than any I-AA even though they didn't have a single DI win. This was probably around 1997ish?

One of my theories on why this happens is lack of available OOC games from the rest of the country. I'm in no way blaming the Big Sky. I think it sucks that there aren't more I-AA's in the western half (really 2/3rds) of the country. Montana has played a couple of eastern teams in the regular season, but that's pretty much it. Most of the Big Sky OOC consists of I-A's, DII's, CP, UC-D and SUU. That means there is very little data for the computers to use. The D-I's bring your SOS up, the DII's provide a win as does SUU (yes, they've improved). There really is no fix for it, but it really bugs the crap out of me (as if you couldn't tell) that the computer supporters think they are better simply because they are "objective". So is throwing darts blindfolded, but that's neither here nor there. xsmiley_wix

I agree that the D-II and NAIA wins are meaningless and should not count, but there is still plenty of useful data in the 21 non-conference FBS and FCS games played by the Big Sky this year (nearly half FCS). In fact, that is a lot more relevant data than is considered in a few of the "analyses" on these pages.

I agree with you that objectivity alone is not enough, but when combined with transparent collection of data from a comprehensive relevant data set, it becomes very important both in accurately reflecting accomplishments and predicting future results - not to replace humans, but to augment and inform humans.

If the computers didn't work, Vegas would not use them. Vegas ALWAYS wins.

[OL FU]

If the computers didn't work, Vegas would not use them. Vegas ALWAYS wins.


xeyebrowx I thought Vegas only had to win more than 50% of the time. xsmiley_wix IF they always won, no one would bet. :)

It seems to me that using computer models for guidance is completely acceptable. However, admitting that they are also fallible since the programs are also based on assumptions that might not be correct( if they were 100% correct wouldn't all computer models provide the same answers) assist us in realizing why occassionally the results look ridiculousxsmiley_wix

And it would be helpful if occasionally those who defend so strongly would simply admit that the possibility for an erroneous result exists. xnodx

[Native]

Massey
2. Montana
4. Weber State
16. Montana State
21. Northern Arizona
22. Eastern Washington
25. Sacramento State

Yeah, there's no self-implosion in these rankings. xrolleyesx Where are those a-hole computer guys who defend their methods until their faces are blue and talk down to anyone who doesn't believe them?

What exactly do you consider "self implosion?" xconfusedx

[mainejeff]

The next four out on the the bubble are interesting:

13. Southern Illinois
14. Furman
15. UMass
16. Maine



Will Maine's GPI rise if they beat UNH?

[jackmd]

I actually agree. The Massey rankings seem quite screwy when you get outside the top 10 or so (and sometimes even in the top 10). Outside of Montana and Weber State, none of the Big Sky teams deserve to be anywhere near their respective spots on that list. (And if they really are where they're supposed to be, Montana and Weber must be more like #1 and #2, considering how much they've beat up on them.)

I don't undestand or should I say I was surprised to see both Northern Arizona and Montana State ranked ahead of South Dakota State. Perhaps I'm naive.

[Cleets]

xeyebrowx I thought Vegas only had to win more than 50% of the time. xsmiley_wix IF they always won, no one would bet. :)


I thought Vegas did always win... on every bet (right..?) Don't they collect the vig


xpeacex

[OL FU]

I thought Vegas did always win... on every bet (right..?) Don't they collect the vig


xpeacex

I suppose I was thinking about black jack where they win enought to keep me off the tablesxlolx

[Khan4Cats]

Conference Ranking:
Rank, League, Total Average
1. Colonial Athletic Association (22.29)
2. Southern Conference (27.75)
3. Big Sky Conference (29.79)
4. Southland Conference (33.21)
5. Great West Football Conference (34.05)
6. Missouri Valley Football Conference (38.86)
7. Patriot League (47.86)
8. Ivy League (47.89)
9. Big South Conference (48.91)
10. Ohio Valley Conference (52.09)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (60.79)
12. Northeast Conference (66.69)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (69.92)
14. Pioneer Football League (75.13)
15. Independents (79.13)


WTF? Southland may not have any teams that would even qualify for consideration as an at-large this year and the Valley will have 3 for sure and possibly 4. Head to Head MVFC is 3-1 against SLC teams this year with the only loss being in 3 OT's. NO WAY THE SOUTHLAND IS BETTER.

I could see how the Great West is slightly ahead given Cal-Poly's and SUU's wins over SDSU and YSU, the MVFC's wins over USD and UND probably aren't counted. And the Big Sky? 2 very good teams must really pull up the other 7. Our Indiana State can't pull us down more than BSC's Idaho State can it? Though Idaho State has got to be better, there might even be Pioneer League teams better than the Sycamores.

MVFC will get as many at-larges as the Big Sky and Great West, 1. the rest will be divided between the CAA and SOCON.

[89Hen]

However, the FBS games are not without logical and statistical merit. Sac State led Colorado State until the final seconds of the game. Eastern Washington gave #2 Texas Tech a fight. The Weber offense put 240 yards on #8 Utah's first team defense in the first three quarters of that game, before the Utes' subs went into the game. These are not meaningless events, and occasionally they yield a victory, as in New Hampshire's win over Army this season. xthumbsupx

P.S. If you want to say that the lower division games are meaningless, I agree unless the lower team wins. Sagarin does not take them into account one way or the other for strength of schedule. I don't know about Massey.
So you are saying that higher division losses can be used, but not lower division wins. That seems to be quite a double standard. DI losses are pretty close to meaningless Native. Delaware had the ball at the 40 yard line with three minutes to go at Maryland trailing 14-7. What does that mean? Not a darn thing other than they lost. xpeacex

[89Hen]

Massey
2. Montana
4. Weber State
16. Montana State
21. Northern Arizona
22. Eastern Washington
25. Sacramento State

Yeah, there's no self-implosion in these rankings. xrolleyesx Where are those a-hole computer guys who defend their methods until their faces are blue and talk down to anyone who doesn't believe them?
I actually agree. The Massey rankings seem quite screwy when you get outside the top 10 or so (and sometimes even in the top 10). Outside of Montana and Weber State, none of the Big Sky teams deserve to be anywhere near their respective spots on that list. (And if they really are where they're supposed to be, Montana and Weber must be more like #1 and #2, considering how much they've beat up on them.)

What exactly do you consider "self implosion?" xconfusedx
When somebody with any kind of I-AA knowledge can look at a computer ranking and realize that a set of teams are overranked becuase of a faulty SOS for their own set of teams. This has happened many times before.

The problem with computer rankings is that they rely solely on a certain set of data. This set of data is VERY limited. Any good computer or stat person (or scientist for that matter) can tell you that without enough data, a system like this cannot be trusted as accurate. There is not a single person that wouldn't agree that the computers are more accurate at the end of the year than the beginning. The fault lies in that the "more" is only a comparison, meaning they could possibly never actually be accurate, just more accurate than they were.

[Retro]

WTF? Southland may not have any teams that would even qualify for consideration as an at-large this year and the Valley will have 3 for sure and possibly 4. Head to Head MVFC is 3-1 against SLC teams this year with the only loss being in 3 OT's. NO WAY THE SOUTHLAND IS BETTER.

I could see how the Great West is slightly ahead given Cal-Poly's and SUU's wins over SDSU and YSU, the MVFC's wins over USD and UND probably aren't counted. And the Big Sky? 2 very good teams must really pull up the other 7. Our Indiana State can't pull us down more than BSC's Idaho State can it? Though Idaho State has got to be better, there might even be Pioneer League teams better than the Sycamores.

MVFC will get as many at-larges as the Big Sky and Great West, 1. the rest will be divided between the CAA and SOCON.

Two Words: Indiana State! They are bringing you down.. It's all about overall conference performance and the SLC is more balanced with no doormats as with the MVC..

[WrenFGun]

Will Maine's GPI rise if they beat UNH?

They'd pass UNH, I'd have to imagine. That may be all that matters. :)

[wideright82]

When somebody with any kind of I-AA knowledge can look at a computer ranking and realize that a set of teams are overranked becuase of a faulty SOS for their own set of teams. This has happened many times before.

The problem with computer rankings is that they rely solely on a certain set of data. This set of data is VERY limited. Any good computer or stat person (or scientist for that matter) can tell you that without enough data, a system like this cannot be trusted as accurate. There is not a single person that wouldn't agree that the computers are more accurate at the end of the year than the beginning. The fault lies in that the "more" is only a comparison, meaning they could possibly never actually be accurate, just more accurate than they were.

Woah woah woah now 89, remember these have been proven statistically relevent by people with DOCTORATES in statistics. xeekx


89 I am 100% on your side on this one, unfortunately the likes of people with no statistical background feel that just because someone like Jeff Sagarin has a Degree in Mathematics from MIT, he is accurate. He bases his entire model off of the ELOChess model, and even that has trouble being accurate. The ELOChess doesn't use varying teams either, it uses chess players with god knows how many matches under their belt, but regardless a statistical model can not accuratly predict human reaction, thus making them impossible to be entirely accurate. I know this will stir up something from some GPI fans, and trust me I will buckle down one of these days and prove it wrong, but until then, argue away.


Oh and the GPI is an utter disgrace to statistics everywhere, it uses an elementary formula to compute its rankings, and any 4th grader can do the calculations. (sorry to who ever came up with it, but it sucks)

[89Hen]

Woah woah woah now 89, remember these have been proven statistically relevent by people with DOCTORATES in statistics. xeekx


89 I am 100% on your side on this one, unfortunately the likes of people with no statistical background feel that just because someone like Jeff Sagarin has a Degree in Mathematics from MIT, he is accurate.
And you should see the e-mail replies I've gotten over the years from these computer guys who belittle anyone who dares question them. :(

[Native]

So you are saying that higher division losses can be used, but not lower division wins. That seems to be quite a double standard. DI losses are pretty close to meaningless Native. Delaware had the ball at the 40 yard line with three minutes to go at Maryland trailing 14-7. What does that mean? Not a darn thing other than they lost. xpeacex

What do you propose to add more fairness and meaning? Would you discount FCS wins over FBS teams? Hopefully not. Would you count FCS wins over non-D1 teams? Again, hopefully not. I think the most fair and accurate thing to do is to count FBS games and not count and non-D1 games. What do you think?

[Native]

Woah woah woah now 89, remember these have been proven statistically relevent by people with DOCTORATES in statistics. xeekx

89 I am 100% on your side on this one, unfortunately the likes of people with no statistical background feel that just because someone like Jeff Sagarin has a Degree in Mathematics from MIT, he is accurate. He bases his entire model off of the ELOChess model, and even that has trouble being accurate. The ELOChess doesn't use varying teams either, it uses chess players with god knows how many matches under their belt, but regardless a statistical model can not accuratly predict human reaction, thus making them impossible to be entirely accurate. I know this will stir up something from some GPI fans, and trust me I will buckle down one of these days and prove it wrong, but until then, argue away.

Oh and the GPI is an utter disgrace to statistics everywhere, it uses an elementary formula to compute its rankings, and any 4th grader can do the calculations. (sorry to who ever came up with it, but it sucks)

xrolleyesx I don't care about whether Sagarin has a doctorate or not. xlolx xlolx xlolx

I don't expect those without an understanding of statistics to argue his methodology, but I do expect us all to judge the models based on RESULTS every week. His results ain't bad.

There are no perfect models. But the top 25 AGS ballot from flamesfan, which completely left out left out two of the top 12 teams in the GPI, shows that we need more than human polls. Computer ratings serve an important purpose to augment and inform our human analyses. xnodx

The essential elements of computer ratings that we can all understand are these:

1. They use all defined data not just cherry picked data.
2. They do the same kind of comparisons on a much more comprehensive scale than we do when we compare conference records
3. No homerism

The fire, the wheel, the forward pass, statistics... these are all good things of which we need not be afraid. xsmiley_wix

[Native]

xeyebrowx I thought Vegas only had to win more than 50% of the time. xsmiley_wix IF they always won, no one would bet. :)

It seems to me that using computer models for guidance is completely acceptable. However, admitting that they are also fallible since the programs are also based on assumptions that might not be correct( if they were 100% correct wouldn't all computer models provide the same answers) assist us in realizing why occassionally the results look ridiculousxsmiley_wix

And it would be helpful if occasionally those who defend so strongly would simply admit that the possibility for an erroneous result exists. xnodx

Of course the computer models are fallible. xlolx

AND they should never be used alone - only to inform and augment human analysis. xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

1. They use all defined data not just cherry picked data.
AH-HA! You are correct there. They also don't see a blown call by a ref. A key player missing one game that may have had a huge impact on the outcome. The conditions under which a game was played..... A computer, for better or worse cannot see these things. xpeacex

[wideright82]

And you should see the e-mail replies I've gotten over the years from these computer guys who belittle anyone who dares question them. :(

Well you have the backing of some pretty serious FBS coaches and conferences so I wouldn't feel too belittled. I think it should say something about the system when the Big 10 and Big 12 are at the lead for support. Sure they are historically very strong, and contribute a ton to SOS, but clearly this isn't the old days and other conferences are proving to be stronger than they were in the past. I just don't see how it is fair to assume strength when all teams don't play each other. xbowx

[89Hen]

What do you propose to add more fairness and meaning? Would you discount FCS wins over FBS teams? Hopefully not. Would you count FCS wins over non-D1 teams? Again, hopefully not. I think the most fair and accurate thing to do is to count FBS games and not count and non-D1 games. What do you think?
In computers, humans or both? I can't write a computer model. I can only tell you when they are wrong. xpeacex

[UNIFanSince1983]

I did something for fun today. Take it as you will I tried to see what would happen with a sort of BCS rankings for FCS. What I used was the same formulas that BCS uses. So 1/3 is the AGS poll. 1/3 is the Sports Network poll. And 1/3 takes into consideration 6 computer polls the same way the BCS does for FBS. The 6 computer polls used were Massey, Sagarin, Sauceda, Laz Index, Ashburn, and Keeper. I had to leave one out and I just randomly left the Self computer poll out. So with each of those a team would get 25 for a 1st place and 1 for 25th place then you leave out the highest and the lowest. Take the remaining four add them together and divide by 100 to get the percentage. The I averaged the percentages from AGS, Sports Network, and Computers to get each teams ranking. Enjoy! And be as harsh as you want and maybe give me ways I could improve upon it. Thanks!

1. James Madison 0.996
2. Appalachian St. 0.954
3. Montana 0.839
4. Cal Poly 0.830
5. Villanova 0.825
6. Richmond 0.790
7. Northern Iowa 0.756
8. Weber St. 0.752
9. Wofford 0.649
10. Elon 0.600
11. William & Mary 0.572
12. Southern Illinois 0.558
13. New Hampshire 0.530
14. Furman 0.457
15. Central Arkansas 0.385
16. Maine 0.332
17. S Carolina St. 0.315
18. Umass 0.315
19. McNeese St. 0.291
20. Harvard 0.237
21. Tenn St. 0.187
22. Tenn Martin 0.182
23. Colgate 0.141
24. Liberty 0.101
25. Samford 0.101

For any more clarification check here: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html

It will explain what the BCS does and that is what I followed only with different polls.

[Native]

When somebody with any kind of I-AA knowledge can look at a computer ranking and realize that a set of teams are overranked becuase of a faulty SOS for their own set of teams. This has happened many times before.


OK, fair enough. But that is not what usually happens. What happens more often than not is that somebody with pretty good FCS knowledge of their own conference and one of two neighboring conferences weighs in based on their personal experience, discounting those conferences about which he is uninformed.


The problem with computer rankings is that they rely solely on a certain set of data. This set of data is VERY limited. Any good computer or stat person (or scientist for that matter) can tell you that without enough data, a system like this cannot be trusted as accurate. There is not a single person that wouldn't agree that the computers are more accurate at the end of the year than the beginning. The fault lies in that the "more" is only a comparison, meaning they could possibly never actually be accurate, just more accurate than they were.

The data sets defined by the computer models are imperfect, agreed! But the data are not "limited," either by scientific definition or compared to the data presented by the trash talkers, extreme homers, and even a few of the well informed poll takers.

The amount of data is important, but not as important as the quality and consistency of the data. The computer models use more and better data than the majority - not all - human analysts.

Both the polls and the computers get more accurate as the season progresses. This is not remarkable. Neither the polls nor the computer ratings are perfect. This is not remarkable, either.

[appstate1998]

Hawaii vs Georgia 2007...nuff said

[Syntax Error]

... I will buckle down one of these days and prove it wrong, but until then, argue away. Oh and the GPI is an utter disgrace to statistics everywhere, it uses an elementary formula to compute its rankings...You pop any veins while your head was exploding there? xlolx You need to relax. 1, you can't prove the GPI wrong, the numbers are the numbers. 2, the GPI is an acronym for GRIDIRON POWER INDEX. Get it? INDEX. How complex should an INDEX FORMULA be? How is it a "disgrace to statistics" when it was refined by Massey? Methinks you know not of which you speak. xcoffeex xnodx

[wideright82]

xrolleyesx I don't care about whether Sagarin has a doctorate or not. xlolx xlolx xlolx
I don't expect those without an understanding of statistics to argue his methodology, but I do expect us all to judge the models based on RESULTS every week. His results ain't bad.

There are no perfect models. But the top 25 AGS ballot from flamesfan, which completely left out left out two of the top 12 teams in the GPI, shows that we need more than human polls. Computer ratings serve an important purpose to augment and inform our human analyses. xnodx

The essential elements of computer ratings that we can all understand are these:

1. They use all defined data not just cherry picked data.
2. They do the same kind of comparisons on a much more comprehensive scale than we do when we compare conference records
3. No homerism

The fire, the wheel, the forward pass, statistics... these are all good things of which we need not be afraid. xsmiley_wix

1. the doctorate thing was a joking crack at SyntaxError, we have gotten into it before about this stuff, and that was his response to me, but he is fun to argue with so that was all in fun.
2. I don't think people withOUT any knowledge of statistics are qualified to say whether it is or isn't statistically relevent.
3. 7 out of 30 polls IS cherry picking, and to say that the GPI covers a large enough pool of polls (say that 3 times fast xrotatehx) is absurd.
4. I am not scared of statistics, it is my job xthumbsupx

[Native]

... I just don't see how it is fair to assume strength when all teams don't play each other. xbowx

That is a very legitimate question. Thanks for bringing it up! xthumbsupx

The reason I like to at least consider the computer models - however faulty they are - for strength of schedule is that they make more than a thousand game comparisons across all conferences instead of just a half dozen of my favorite teams. So the computer takes into account that X beat Y and Y beat Z for all the inter-conference FCS games and so on. One or two game comparisons or conference comparisons do not explain strength of schedule but several hundred comparisons begin to tell us something fair and meaningful - not gospel truth, just useful information. xsmiley_wix

[wideright82]

You pop any veins while your head was exploding there? xlolx You need to relax. 1, you can't prove the GPI wrong, the numbers are the numbers. 2, the GPI is an acronym for GRIDIRON POWER INDEX. Get it? INDEX. How complex should an INDEX FORMULA be? How is it a "disgrace to statistics" when it was refined by Massey? Methinks you know not of which you speak. xcoffeex xnodx

i hate you xmadx




J/K you make my day SE, you make my day xpeacex

[wideright82]

That is a very legitimate question. Thanks for bringing it up! xthumbsupx

The reason I like to at least consider the computer models - however faulty they are - for strength of schedule is that they make more than a thousand game comparisons across all conferences instead of just a half dozen of my favorite teams. So the computer takes into account that X beat Y and Y beat Z for all the inter-conference FCS games and so on. One or two game comparisons or conference comparisons do not explain strength of schedule but several hundred comparisons begin to tell us something fair and meaningful - not gospel truth, just useful information. xsmiley_wix

Don't get me wrong, i like to consider computer models, i just don't like the high horse they are on. Eventually when i get up in posts, someone will realize I don't actually get worked up, unless it's about politics, this is all just fun for me.

[89Hen]

The data sets defined by the computer models are imperfect, agreed! But the data are not "limited," either by scientific definition...
I disagree right there. A computer model is trying to compare 115 +/- teams that most of which won't have direct data or even common opponent data. You can't even do the A > B > C therefore A > C because B doesn't exist. Even if you could, we all know that system doesn't work. So where does that leave us? The Big Sky and CAA have zero games against one another. The only common opponent I can even think of off the top of my head is UC-Davis.

UC-D > PSU and UNC
Montana, SacSt and Northeastern > UC-D

Does that really tell us much? How can a computer, which is relying SOLELY on wins and losses, be considered anywhere near accurate? That's actually quite laughable when you really think about it. Yet there are people who prop up the computers as THE most accurate method for determining rankings.

How is it that on the GoHens Top 25 pool, I'm predicting games at a 80% clip and I'm not even near the top of the standings. I've challenged JohnStOnge, one of the big computer supporters here, to a contest where the computers pick the games and I pick the games. Unfortunately he's dodged me for three years now on this challenge. I am confident beyond confident that I would absolutely clobber the computers at picking the games over the course of the year.

[GannonFan]

The amount of data is important, but not as important as the quality and consistency of the data. The computer models use more and better data than the majority - not all - human analysts.

Both the polls and the computers get more accurate as the season progresses. This is not remarkable. neither the polls nor the computer ratings are perfect. This is not remarkable, either.

The single biggest problem with the GPI (and the computer rankings that make it imperfect) is right there. No statistician worth his salt would ever say that there is enough data and enough connected data in an 11 or 12 game football system, to say that using that data will give reliable results. It gives numbers, nothing more. How many games connect the CAA to the Big Sky to allow a rating comparison between the two? Without looking, I'm guessing there are no head to head games at all, and probably no head to head games of opponents of either conference. Yet we are to believe that a computer can take some various numbers and give us a reliable model? xrotatehx

[GannonFan]

I disagree right there. A computer model is trying to compare 115 +/- teams that most of which won't have direct data or even common opponent data. You can't even do the A > B > C therefore A > C because B doesn't exist. Even if you could, we all know that system doesn't work. So where does that leave us? The Big Sky and CAA have zero games against one another. The only common opponent I can even think of off the top of my head is UC-Davis.

UC-D > PSU and UNC
Montana, SacSt and Northeastern > UC-D

Does that really tell us much? How can a computer, which is relying SOLELY on wins and losses, be considered anywhere near accurate? That's actually quite laughable when you really think about it. Yet there are people who prop up the computers as THE most accurate method for determining rankings.

How is it that on the GoHens Top 25 pool, I'm predicting games at a 80% clip and I'm not even near the top of the standings. I've challenged JohnStOnge, one of the big computer supporters here, to a contest where the computers pick the games and I pick the games. Unfortunately he's dodged me for three years now on this challenge. I am confident beyond confident that I would absolutely clobber the computers at picking the games over the course of the year.

Wow, again further proof that 89Hen and I think alike - I did not see this post when I started writing mine. Scary indeed. xnodx

[89Hen]

Wow, again further proof that 89Hen and I think alike - I did not see this post when I started writing mine. Scary indeed. xnodx
xlolx My brother from another mother. I forgot how much we agree on some things. :D

[GannonFan]

xlolx My brother from another mother. I forgot how much we agree on some things. :D

We even used the same freaking example with the Big Sky versus the CAA, that's what's scary (and it's a good example to boot!). xnodx

[Syntax Error]

...
...
...http://blog.thefanyard.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/broken_record.jpg

Ever wonder why the suggestion "if you don't like it, don't open the thread" exists? xrolleyesx

[89Hen]

We even used the same freaking example with the Big Sky versus the CAA, that's what's scary (and it's a good example to boot!). xnodx
AND it was probably the first one that jumped into our heads (was for me).

[Native]

1. the doctorate thing was a joking crack at SyntaxError, we have gotten into it before about this stuff, and that was his response to me, but he is fun to argue with so that was all in fun.
2. I don't think people withOUT any knowledge of statistics are qualified to say whether it is or isn't statistically relevent.
3. 7 out of 30 polls IS cherry picking, and to say that the GPI covers a large enough pool of polls (say that 3 times fast xrotatehx) is absurd.
4. I am not scared of statistics, it is my job xthumbsupx

Sounds like we are in agreement, Wideright82! xbowx

1. Syntax is often right, but rarely qualifies his bloviation with facts or analysis, so is sometimes an easy target. However, I have learned the hard way to do my research before questioning his royal pronouncements. xlolx
2. Agreed, except that we can all view and judge the weekly results and see how the computer models fared, even without an understanding of statistics. P.S. - I am qualifed. xcoolx
3. Interesting point about the GPI. My comment was in a different context, i.e., the computer models utilize more relevant data than humans usually present or discuss in their analyses. I am not sure GPI is the best model or that more polls and ratings would produce a better quality result. This bears more discussion. xcoffeex
4. Cool! This topic may be worthy of a separate thread? xreadx

xpeacex

[Native]

AH-HA! You are correct there. They also don't see a blown call by a ref. A key player missing one game that may have had a huge impact on the outcome. The conditions under which a game was played..... A computer, for better or worse cannot see these things. xpeacex

On these points we are in COMPLETE agreement, 89Hen! xthumbsupx xnodx xpeacex

[Native]

I thought Vegas did always win... on every bet (right..?) Don't they collect the vig


xpeacex

xnodx xnodx xnodx

[Native]

I disagree right there. A computer model is trying to compare 115 +/- teams that most of which won't have direct data or even common opponent data. You can't even do the A > B > C therefore A > C because B doesn't exist. Even if you could, we all know that system doesn't work. So where does that leave us? The Big Sky and CAA have zero games against one another. The only common opponent I can even think of off the top of my head is UC-Davis.

UC-D > PSU and UNC
Montana, SacSt and Northeastern > UC-D

Does that really tell us much? How can a computer, which is relying SOLELY on wins and losses, be considered anywhere near accurate? That's actually quite laughable when you really think about it. Yet there are people who prop up the computers as THE most accurate method for determining rankings.

How is it that on the GoHens Top 25 pool, I'm predicting games at a 80% clip and I'm not even near the top of the standings. I've challenged JohnStOnge, one of the big computer supporters here, to a contest where the computers pick the games and I pick the games. Unfortunately he's dodged me for three years now on this challenge. I am confident beyond confident that I would absolutely clobber the computers at picking the games over the course of the year.

It must be nice to be in the top 1%! xlolx xpeacex

[Syntax Error]

... I am not sure GPI is the best model or that more polls and ratings would produce a better quality result... I asked Massey this in an interview a couple years back and he said to double the amount of computer rankings.

[Appstate29]

http://blog.thefanyard.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/broken_record.jpg

Ever wonder why the suggestion "if you don't like it, don't open the thread" exists? xrolleyesx

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/buttonbaggins2/funny_monkey.jpg

[Native]

I asked Massey this in an interview a couple years back and he said to double the amount of computer rankings.

Interesting! Thanks for the insight. xthumbsupx

I like the football ranking comparison page Massey posts. You can judge each poll or ratring for yourself. xreadx It includes 34 different ratings and polls, with link to each one:

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

[Green26]

I think it's likely that the top 4 GPI teams will be the top 4 seeds.

[DetroitFlyer]

You know, picking the top four teams is a far easier task than picking say teams 11-16. In fact, going out a bit further, say from 11-25, it really gets interesting. As I pointed out earlier, Dayton is currently in the 30's in the Coaches, SME, and TNS polls. In the GPI we are 75.... I do not have to be a six sigma black belt to know that something is seriously wrong here.

Focusing on a single poll for a moment, SME still has San Diego rated above Dayton, even though Dayton defeated USD in head to head competition. So, it is also not hard to understand how some polls can in fact be VERY biased.

Frankly, the entire concept of "autobids" to the playoffs is an acknowledgement that polls, no matter how many you choose to review, cannot be relied upon to determine a championship bracket. Why? Because EVERY single poll or computer model is biased in some manner.

The only criteria for a team like Dayton or Albany to make the FCS playoff should be to meet the minimum requirements and win the conference. This BS of "earned access", which developed rules that effectively ban an Albany from the playoffs because of the bias that exists are proof positive that the BCS corruption that so many of you claim to loathe, is alive and well in the ranks of FCS.

[wideright82]

Sounds like we are in agreement, Wideright82! xbowx

1. Syntax is often right, but rarely qualifies his bloviation with facts or analysis, so is sometimes an easy target. However, I have learned the hard way to do my research before questioning his royal pronouncements. xlolx
2. Agreed, except that we can all view and judge the weekly results and see how the computer models fared, even without an understanding of statistics. P.S. - I am qualifed. xcoolx
3. Interesting point about the GPI. My comment was in a different context, i.e., the computer models utilize more relevant data than humans usually present or discuss in their analyses. I am not sure GPI is the best model or that more polls and ratings would produce a better quality result. This bears more discussion. xcoffeex
4. Cool! This topic may be worthy of a separate thread? xreadx

xpeacex

1. hahahaha

2. I personally don't feel that there is enough data given the potential population of data to determine the "success" of these models. How many different combinations of games are there in the top 25 alone? To say that just becasue the games that are played are some what accurate (wouldn't mind looking up some bowl spreads and results over the years).
3. Fair enough, I know what you are saying about the cherry picking, but as someone who DOES know statistics you know it is very easy to dismiss independent variables (ie playing at night, grass vs. turf, hot vs. cold, humiditiy, wind) that will infact alter the outcome. Some teams have results varying because of this, therefore even the sunny day computer models have been skewed by these factors. Wins and losses have variables that are no where near normally distributed, so i can't see the rankings having a normal probability of happening.
4. I am down

[WrenFGun]

You know, picking the top four teams is a far easier task than picking say teams 11-16. In fact, going out a bit further, say from 11-25, it really gets interesting. As I pointed out earlier, Dayton is currently in the 30's in the Coaches, SME, and TNS polls. In the GPI we are 75.... I do not have to be a six sigma black belt to know that something is seriously wrong here.

Focusing on a single poll for a moment, SME still has San Diego rated above Dayton, even though Dayton defeated USD in head to head competition. So, it is also not hard to understand how some polls can in fact be VERY biased.

Frankly, the entire concept of "autobids" to the playoffs is an acknowledgement that polls, no matter how many you choose to review, cannot be relied upon to determine a championship bracket. Why? Because EVERY single poll or computer model is biased in some manner.

The only criteria for a team like Dayton or Albany to make the FCS playoff should be to meet the minimum requirements and win the conference. This BS of "earned access", which developed rules that effectively ban an Albany from the playoffs because of the bias that exists are proof positive that the BCS corruption that so many of you claim to loathe, is alive and well in the ranks of FCS.

Here's the problem. You're overlooking the poor schedule that Dayton plays, and it seems to me that you're doing it because of the fact that the MEAC, Patriot League and OVC are also, generally, playing poor schedules but getting into the tournament. It's further compounded by the fact that the OVC has routinely gotten At-Large Bids when there were better options available (see EIU). With that said, 95% of the basis for the inclusion of these three teams is entirely the autobid, and they too would be sitting at home if it meant getting an at-large to get in. It's just not good enough to win a bad conference, because the bottom-dwellers in the CAA, MVFC and SoCon might be able to run the gauntlet in the Pioneer.

[89Hen]

Because EVERY single poll or computer model is biased in some manner.
Any poll that doesn't have Dayton in the top 25 is obviously biased. xrolleyesx

[appstate1998]

You know, picking the top four teams is a far easier task than picking say teams 11-16. In fact, going out a bit further, say from 11-25, it really gets interesting. As I pointed out earlier, Dayton is currently in the 30's in the Coaches, SME, and TNS polls. In the GPI we are 75.... I do not have to be a six sigma black belt to know that something is seriously wrong here.

Focusing on a single poll for a moment, SME still has San Diego rated above Dayton, even though Dayton defeated USD in head to head competition. So, it is also not hard to understand how some polls can in fact be VERY biased.

Frankly, the entire concept of "autobids" to the playoffs is an acknowledgement that polls, no matter how many you choose to review, cannot be relied upon to determine a championship bracket. Why? Because EVERY single poll or computer model is biased in some manner.

The only criteria for a team like Dayton or Albany to make the FCS playoff should be to meet the minimum requirements and win the conference. This BS of "earned access", which developed rules that effectively ban an Albany from the playoffs because of the bias that exists are proof positive that the BCS corruption that so many of you claim to loathe, is alive and well in the ranks of FCS.

You know in theory...since the Big Sky, CAA, Southern Conference etc all get autobids, shouldn't the normal top tier teams in each respective conference schedule cupcake out of conference oppenents and just fight for the autobid? No. Why you ask?

Because these conference are so competetive, you have to schedule tough out of conference to fight for an at large.

Let's look at some examples.

Appalachian State-3 time defending national champion....at the beginning of the year they could have played teams like Central Valley Community college, but instead they played LSU, Presb, JMU and Jacksonville. 2 of those 4. Maybe do what Jacksonville from your own conference did and play a top FCS team? See what App did. In two games...they probably thought there chances were either to be 1-1 or 0-2. Not a good place to be in OOC.

Let's now look at the Big Sky. Weber State could have shot themselves in the foot by playing Hawaii and Utah. Why would you play 2 FBS schools. There is a good chance you are going to lose to Montana and a good chance Montana State or you know a team like E. Washington. Had they played all cupcakes except conference and lost to all three of those teams. They may still make it in. But playing two FBS schools is almost a guaranteed 0-2. So why did they do it. SOS.

Lets dig into a team from the CAA. Richmond. Part of the big powerhouse conference. Winning an autobid is no easy task. Going undefeated or even just 2 losses in conference is tough. So what did they do. They went out and for their first two games had Elon, a southern conference powerhouse, and Virginia, an FBS school. They could have started the season 0-2 and then really been struggling with their brutal in conference schedule. But they came out with a 1-1 record instead. And their chances of making the playoffs increased. Think about it. What if the last two teams fighting for a playoff spot with the same record were Elon and Richmond. Who do you think would get in.

Why is Wofford playing South Carolina, Furman playing Va Tech and Delaware...why would Delaware wanna play Furman. Citadel playing Clemson and Florida. Why did Colgate play Furman, and most importantly...from your own conference..proving teams will play you...Jacksonville at App....

xnonox

[DetroitFlyer]

Here's the problem. You're overlooking the poor schedule that Dayton plays, and it seems to me that you're doing it because of the fact that the MEAC, Patriot League and OVC are also, generally, playing poor schedules but getting into the tournament. It's further compounded by the fact that the OVC has routinely gotten At-Large Bids when there were better options available (see EIU). With that said, 95% of the basis for the inclusion of these three teams is entirely the autobid, and they too would be sitting at home if it meant getting an at-large to get in. It's just not good enough to win a bad conference, because the bottom-dwellers in the CAA, MVFC and SoCon might be able to run the gauntlet in the Pioneer.


You have hit the nail on the head. NOT A SINGLE NCAA PLAYOFF IS DESIGNED TO GET THE "BEST" TEAMS INTO THE TOURNAMENT. For some reason, fans here at AGS choose to overlook that FACT time and time again. Many have somehow convinced themselves that the FCS playoffs are somehow different and are really an effort to get the best 16 teams into a playoff in order to determine a champion. It is almost comical to see folks espouse this type of mindless drivel.

As we has discussed extensively, just trying to determine the "best" 16 teams in the division is virtually an impossible task.

If you cannot see the injustice of let's say an 11-1, (10-1 FCS), Dayton team sitting at home while the PL, OVC and MEAC Champions go to the playoffs, then you are just not trying very hard.... Yet, virtually no one complains that an MVC or CAA or SoCon team is sitting at home because Colgate is going to the playoffs with an autobid....

[DetroitFlyer]

Any poll that doesn't have Dayton in the top 25 is obviously biased. xrolleyesx


Right on brother!xthumbsupx

[james_lawfirm]

You know in theory...since the Big Sky, CAA, Southern Conference etc all get autobids, shouldn't the normal top tier teams in each respective conference schedule cupcake out of conference oppenents and just fight for the autobid? No. Why you ask?

Because these conference are so competetive, you have to schedule tough out of conference to fight for an at large.



You beat me to it. The only thing I would add is that there is more to playing these good teams than SOS, which gives a boost on some poles & indexes. By playing tougher teams, a team actually improves. Sometimes you play to your opponents level. Other times, there are lessons to be learned from playing LSU or Wofford or App or any good team.

So, I completely disagree that merely winning a conference should qualify a team for the playoffs. It depends on the strength of that conference and the OOC strength. If DaytonFlyer still disagrees with me, then he will need to consider and explain the early exits from the playoffs made by various teams with weak SOS year after year. Anyone remember Hampton in '05? And with all due apologies to the Southland, McNeese in '07?

[89Hen]

Great posts Wren and 1998.

Some CAA OOC...

Northeastern - Ball State, Syracuse, UC Davis, Georgia Southern
Delaware - Maryland, Furman, Albany
JMU - Duke, App State
Richmond - Virginia, Elon
Villanova - WVU, Lehigh
Towson - Navy, Coastal
UMass - Texas Tech, Holy Cross, Albany
URI - BC, Fordham
Hofstra - UConn, Albany
UNH - Army, Albany
W&M - NCState
Maine - Iowa

Some are pay games, but still increase the SOS from a high starting point. There are also some dogs that I didn't list, but that's because these teams need home games and a break too.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

FCS is better simply because of the playoff system. Look at Basketball or Baseball - they also do tournaments. Are deserving teams left out of those fields? Probably, but the truth is SOS does indeed count for putting the best of the best against each other.

We are not like the BCS, we have a playoff. Does Ball State have a chance in hell of playing for the NC? Do Albany and Liberty? YES. And that's the difference. Proof? Look at Coastal Carolina, they made the playoffs in 2006. If Liberty had gone undefeated, or maybe even 1-loss (same with Albany), they too would be talking playoffs this year in all likelihood.

[89Hen]

If you cannot see the injustice of let's say an 11-1, (10-1 FCS), Dayton team sitting at home while the PL, OVC and MEAC Champions go to the playoffs, then you are just not trying very hard....
If you cannot see that all you have to do is schedule a few playoff teams as a part of that 11-1 to make the playoffs, then you are just kidding yourself. But that's been the case for 3-4 years now. How many times have I asked you to address how teams that weren't in autobid conferences were able to make the playoffs? Shoot, teams from non-auto conferences have even been able to get seeds. xnodx

[StonewallSpider]

For Dayton to recieve serious consideration with their schedule they would have to go undefeated. Without the loss to Duquesne, Dayton would be top 20 by the end of the seaon.

[danefan]

For Dayton to recieve serious consideration with their schedule they would have to go undefeated. Without the loss to Duquesne, Dayton would be top 20 by the end of the seaon.

I agree. I had Dayton as a top 25 team until the loss to Duquesne. And at the time it didn't look like too horrible of a loss. Well Duquesne has 3 wins this year (Dayton (the top PFL team), St. Francis and Wagner (the bottom of the NEC). That absolutely kills Dayton.

[DetroitFlyer]

For Dayton to recieve serious consideration with their schedule they would have to go undefeated. Without the loss to Duquesne, Dayton would be top 20 by the end of the seaon.

Given the current bias in the world of FCS, I agree.

[DetroitFlyer]

If you cannot see that all you have to do is schedule a few playoff teams as a part of that 11-1 to make the playoffs, then you are just kidding yourself. But that's been the case for 3-4 years now. How many times have I asked you to address how teams that weren't in autobid conferences were able to make the playoffs? Shoot, teams from non-auto conferences have even been able to get seeds. xnodx

Oh, you mean just like the OVC, MEAC and PL do every season.... Now I get it!xrolleyesx

[89Hen]

Oh, you mean just like the OVC, MEAC and PL do every season.... Now I get it!xrolleyesx
"We can't be worse" is not much of a case for a bid.

Which one of the following conferences does not apply for an autobid?

- OVC
- MEAC
- Patriot
- Pioneer

[89Hen]

I agree. I had Dayton as a top 25 team until the loss to Duquesne.
89Hen's Ballot History

Week 3
Approved
25. Dayton

Week 4
Approved
25. Dayton

[89Hen]

2006 San Diego runs rampant through the Pioneer...

USD 56 - Dayton 14
USD 56 - Butler 3
USD 50 - Davidson 21
USD 68 - Valpo 7
UDS 37 - Drake 0

and so on. Everyone here says wait until they play UC Davis before we crown USD a top team. And UC Davis was a mediocre team that year (finished 6-5)

UC Davis 37 - USD 27

How is it that everyone here, outside of the USD fans and DetroitFlyer were able to see what was coming? Bias? xeyebrowx

[uofmman1122]

2006 San Diego runs rampant through the Pioneer...

USD 56 - Dayton 14
USD 56 - Butler 3
USD 50 - Davidson 21
USD 68 - Valpo 7
UDS 37 - Drake 0

and so on. Everyone here says wait until they play UC Davis before we crown USD a top team. And UC Davis was a mediocre team that year (finished 6-5)

UC Davis 37 - USD 27

How is it that everyone here, outside of the USD fans and DetroitFlyer were able to see what was coming? Bias? xeyebrowxWell, it seems as long as they don't actually have to prove it, they'll still say the same thing.

Their mantra is "Let us into the playoffs so we can prove ourselves," instead of what every other team has to do, which is, "let us prove ourselves so we can go to the playoffs."

[appstate1998]

Well, it seems as long as they don't actually have to prove it, they'll still say the same thing.

Their mantra is "Let us into the playoffs so we can prove ourselves," instead of what every other team has to do, which is, "let us prove ourselves so we can go to the playoffs."

JUST LET US IN

[89Hen]

Their mantra is "Let us into the playoffs so we can prove ourselves," instead of what every other team has to do, which is, "let us prove ourselves so we can go to the playoffs."
xnodx and there is a second one that goes something like "we can't do any worse than the MEAC, so therefore we deserve a bid". xcoolx

[UNIFanSince1983]

So does the NCAA stop the PFL from getting an autobid or is it the conference? To me there is not bias if it is the conference choosing not to apply for the chance at an autobid. Those other conferences may not deserve a bid, but they chose to apply for an autobid and got one.

Don't come on here and say the NCAA is corrupted if it is your own conference that is not willing to apply for an autobid. And you schedule is horrible that is why you guys wouldn't be considered. I mean it is very impressive to beat a powerhouse team like Butler in OT. I mean last year Hawaii went undefeated got a chance to play in a BCS game and what happened? Georgia walked all over them because they hadn't played anyone all season. Why would the committee waste an at-large bid on a team that is going to go 1 and done? When the power conference team they let in is a legitimate contender for the National Championship because of the teams they have played?

Just think about it Flyer your team is competing for an at-large playoff bid with William&Mary, New Hampshire, Elon, Wofford, Montana, Villanova, Richmond, UNI, and the list goes on. Who out of these teams do you think you deserve it more than with your weak weak schedule? Any one of them could make the National Championship I mean no offense, but Dayton is not gonna win it. I am not biased I just know.

Bottom line is schedule good teams and beat good teams and you will get your due.

[DetroitFlyer]

Wow, you guys are so ingrained in the AGS bias, you cannot even step back and see how silly you look.... Prove it? Are you kidding me? What did ANY current FCS conference with an autobid do to "prove" they "deserve" a bid to the playoffs? Please provide a detailed history, from 1978 to today to clearly demonstrate how EVERY current autobid conference "proved" they deserved an autobid to the FCS playoffs BEFORE the conference was awarded the autobid? PLEASE!xrolleyesx

The only "proof" required by the NCAA is that you provide athletic scholarships, PERIOD! Let's see, what has the NEC done to "prove" they deserve an autobid. Earn an at large bid first by walking on water? Nope, never happened. Applied for a bid and obtained one? Nope, they were turned down MANY times. Agreed to add a significant number of ATHLETIC scholarships? BINGO!

The outright bias here is so obvoius to anyone who bothers to look....

Prove it.... GIVE ME A BREAK!

[danefan]

OK, there seems to be two different conversations going on here:

1. Does Dayton deserve an at-large? (I don't think DetroitFlyer is arguing that (maybe but not that hard).

2. Does the PFL deserve an AQ? (totally different argument and until the PFL asks they have no argument against). However if the PFL does ask and get denied, then they have a legit beef, IMO.

[UNIFanSince1983]

Well my first questions at the top were legitimate. I had no idea if the NCAA was stopping them or if it was the conference for them to get an autobid. I personally think that if you have enough teams in your conference you should probably have an autobid, whether or not you give out scholarships. It may be a waste, but there are plenty of other conferences currently getting in that are a waste too.

[DetroitFlyer]

So does the NCAA stop the PFL from getting an autobid or is it the conference? To me there is not bias if it is the conference choosing not to apply for the chance at an autobid. Those other conferences may not deserve a bid, but they chose to apply for an autobid and got one.

Don't come on here and say the NCAA is corrupted if it is your own conference that is not willing to apply for an autobid. And you schedule is horrible that is why you guys wouldn't be considered. I mean it is very impressive to beat a powerhouse team like Butler in OT. I mean last year Hawaii went undefeated got a chance to play in a BCS game and what happened? Georgia walked all over them because they hadn't played anyone all season. Why would the committee waste an at-large bid on a team that is going to go 1 and done? When the power conference team they let in is a legitimate contender for the National Championship because of the teams they have played?

Just think about it Flyer your team is competing for an at-large playoff bid with William&Mary, New Hampshire, Elon, Wofford, Montana, Villanova, Richmond, UNI, and the list goes on. Who out of these teams do you think you deserve it more than with your weak weak schedule? Any one of them could make the National Championship I mean no offense, but Dayton is not gonna win it. I am not biased I just know.

Bottom line is schedule good teams and beat good teams and you will get your due.


Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the PFL does not apply for an autobid? Why is it that Dayton is only competing for a playoff bid against the small number of teams you mentioned and not the OVC, MEAC or PL champion? Heck, last year, we beat the PL champion and still did not get invited.

The NCAA bias is CLEAR! If the PFL decided to really push an autobid, I'm certain that the OVC rule backers would come out of the woodwork and push for some minimum ATHLETIC scholarship level to be established in order to have access to a playoff autobid or worse, to even be in the division. This is not some perceived threat, the OVC has tried to push this on multiple occasions....

The right thing to do is for the NCAA to simply extend an autobid to the PFL. Why has the right thing not been done to date? Well, I'll allow you to do some of the thinking to figure that one out....

[BlueHen86]

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the PFL does not apply for an autobid? Why is it that Dayton is only competing for a playoff bid against the small number of teams you mentioned and not the OVC, MEAC or PL champion? Heck, last year, we beat the PL champion and still did not get invited.

The NCAA bias is CLEAR! If the PFL decided to really push an autobid, I'm certain that the OVC rule backers would come out of the woodwork and push for some minimum ATHLETIC scholarship level to be established in order to have access to a playoff autobid or worse, to even be in the division. This is not some perceived threat, the OVC has tried to push this on multiple occasions....

The right thing to do is for the NCAA to simply extend an autobid to the PFL. Why has the right thing not been done to date? Well, I'll allow you to do some of the thinking to figure that one out....

The PFL should apply for an autobid first and let the chips fall where they may.

[BlueHen86]

OK, there seems to be two different conversations going on here:

1. Does Dayton deserve an at-large? (I don't think DetroitFlyer is arguing that (maybe but not that hard).

2. Does the PFL deserve an AQ? (totally different argument and until the PFL asks they have no argument against). However if the PFL does ask and get denied, then they have a legit beef, IMO.
I agree.

[danefan]

Well my first questions at the top were legitimate. I had no idea if the NCAA was stopping them or if it was the conference for them to get an autobid. I personally think that if you have enough teams in your conference you should probably have an autobid, whether or not you give out scholarships. It may be a waste, but there are plenty of other conferences currently getting in that are a waste too.

Exactly. But the PFL hasn't asked for AQ. Their commish has stated they have no interest in one either.

DetroitFlyer disagrees and so do I, but the fact of the matter is, they haven't asked. The NEC and Big South did and guess what - they will get their in 2010.

[GannonFan]

Outside of DetroitFlyer and some USD guys, who from the PFL is asking for inclusion in the playoffs? The college presidents from the PFL schools aren't. The presidents' mouthpiece, the PFL commissioner, is not seeking playoff participation. The NEC has asked, and the Big South has asked, the Patriot before them asked, and so on and so on. So why does it make any sense that the NCAA should seek out the PFL, convince them that they should be in the playoffs, despite obvious indications from the PFL themselves that they don't want to be in the playoffs? Again, DFL's own anger clouds the obvious reality that he chooses not to see while railing against the NCAA, AGS, the air, etc - the PFL doesn't want to be in the playoffs, and Dayton, by association, does not want to be in the playoffs. Pretty simple, actually. xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

What did ANY current FCS conference with an autobid do to "prove" they "deserve" a bid to the playoffs?
Apply for one. xcoffeex

[mcveyrl]

Apply for one. xcoffeex

In all fairness to the PFL, that would be like me applying to be a brain surgeon, then listing for experience:

"Beat my sister at Operation...it only buzzed once." :D

[wideright82]

In all fairness to the PFL, that would be like me applying to be a brain surgeon, then listing for experience:

"Beat my sister at Operation...it only buzzed once." :D

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx it only buzzed once but it was on the easiest piece of the game.

[DetroitFlyer]

Apply for one. xcoffeex


Come on, are you practicing being wrong...? How many times did the NEC apply and get denied? Go back to my previous post for an explanation as to why the NEC received its autobid....

Why do you think that the PFL has clearly stated that they are open to an at large bid should one ever be extended? Does that sound like a conference that is not interested in the FCS playoffs? The PFL has NEVER taken a stand like the Ivy League and outright refused to participate in the FCS playoffs....

[89Hen]

Come on, are you practicing being wrong...? How many times did the NEC apply and get denied? Go back to my previous post for an explanation as to why the NEC received its autobid....

Why do you think that the PFL has clearly stated that they are open to an at large bid should one ever be extended? Does that sound like a conference that is not interested in the FCS playoffs? The PFL has NEVER taken a stand like the Ivy League and outright refused to participate in the FCS playoffs....
AFAIK the NEC applied once. You do know that they are getting an auto soon, don't you?

I am open to winning the lottery. I don't buy a ticket, but I'd certainly accept the prize. xcoffeex

[89Hen]

In all fairness to the PFL, that would be like me applying to be a brain surgeon, then listing for experience:

"Beat my sister at Operation...it only buzzed once." :D
xlolx But it's the first step, isn't it?

[mountain_man]

In all fairness to the PFL, that would be like me applying to be a brain surgeon, then listing for experience:

"Beat my sister at Operation...it only buzzed once." :D

xoutofrepx

[89Hen]

Let's see, what has the NEC done to "prove" they deserve an autobid. Earn an at large bid first by walking on water? Nope, never happened. Applied for a bid and obtained one? Nope, they were turned down MANY times. Agreed to add a significant number of ATHLETIC scholarships? BINGO!

The outright bias here is so obvoius to anyone who bothers to look....

Prove it.... GIVE ME A BREAK!
You asked me to go back to this post. As I stated, I'm pretty sure the NEC applied one time for an auto. As for what have they done?...

Albany vs. Delaware, Montana, UMass, Hofstra, UNH, Northeastern, Colgate, Lehigh....

Monmouth vs. Delaware, Maine, Coastal, Fordham, Lehigh....

They schedule. Something the PFL refuses to do.

[GannonFan]

Come on, are you practicing being wrong...? How many times did the NEC apply and get denied? Go back to my previous post for an explanation as to why the NEC received its autobid....

Why do you think that the PFL has clearly stated that they are open to an at large bid should one ever be extended? Does that sound like a conference that is not interested in the FCS playoffs? The PFL has NEVER taken a stand like the Ivy League and outright refused to participate in the FCS playoffs....

I was under the impression from the NEC guys on here that the NEC only applied once for an autobid - where do you get that it happened so much more than that?

As for the OVC proposal, please, that wouldn't have had anywhere near enough support throught the rest of the subdivision to matter - the CAA was clearly against it and that's almost 10% of the subdivision right there. Using the OVC proposal is just a red herring because it would've never passed.

And although you say the PFL is open to an at large if it's extended, you don't see the PFL, through it's commissioner who works for and answers to the college presidents, do anything to help the PFL get an at large. And PFL schools, seeing the clear examples of how Coastal Carolina, Hofstra, Georgia Southern, Delaware, Youngstown St, and countless others, all of whom were selected for the playoffs despite not being in autobid conferences when they made the playoffs, continue to put forth fairly isolationist-type schedules that do not give them a chance to even be in the discussion for at large bids, unlike those teams that did merit at large consideration.

Rail away all you want, but nothing's changed in the 4-5 years you've groaned on and on about this - the PFL doesn't play schedules that would merit and at large selection, despite having ample evidence of other schools from non-auto leagues that have made the playoffs, and they haven't nor probably will never even ask the NCAA for an autobid since the member schools do not want the autobid. Again, please direct all your anger to the AD's and the Presidents of the PFL schools since that's the source of your frustrations. xpeacex

[DetroitFlyer]

You asked me to go back to this post. As I stated, I'm pretty sure the NEC applied one time for an auto. As for what have they done?...

Albany vs. Delaware, Montana, UMass, Hofstra, UNH, Northeastern, Colgate, Lehigh....

Monmouth vs. Delaware, Maine, Coastal, Fordham, Lehigh....

They schedule. Something the PFL refuses to do.

Did you miss the JU at App State game this year? How about the Drake/Northern Iowa and Drake/Illinios State games last year? Dayton and Fordham the past two years? USD's series with UC Davis? Morehead State's visit to EKU this year? Please do at least a little bit of research before you post....

[UNIFanSince1983]

Well yes, I saw UNI beat Drake 45-7 last year, 48-7 the year before that, and 52-17 the year before that. So what in that tells me they should be considered a viable opponent for the oh so powerful Dayton Flyers?

[89Hen]

You asked me to go back to this post. As I stated, I'm pretty sure the NEC applied one time for an auto. As for what have they done?...

Albany vs. Delaware, Montana, UMass, Hofstra, UNH, Northeastern, Colgate, Lehigh....

Monmouth vs. Delaware, Maine, Coastal, Fordham, Lehigh....

They schedule. Something the PFL refuses to do.


Did you miss the JU at App State game this year? How about the Drake/Northern Iowa and Drake/Illinios State games last year? Dayton and Fordham the past two years? USD's series with UC Davis? Morehead State's visit to EKU this year? Please do at least a little bit of research before you post....
Let me show it to you another way.

2008
Albany vs. Delaware, UMass, UNH, Hofstra
Monmouth vs. Maine, URI, Coastal

Dayton vs. Fordham
San Diego vs. UC-Davis
Drake vs. Lehigh
JU vs AppSt
Morehead vs. EKU

So that's two teams with 7 good games and five teams with 5 good games. xcoffeex

[DetroitFlyer]

Let me show it to you another way.

2008
Albany vs. Delaware, UMass, UNH, Hofstra
Monmouth vs. Maine, URI, Coastal

Dayton vs. Fordham
San Diego vs. UC-Davis
Drake vs. Lehigh
JU vs AppSt
Morehead vs. EKU

So that's two teams with 7 good games and five teams with 5 good games. xcoffeex


Huh? Are you even trying to make a point? You originally said that the PFL did not play "anyone". I proved you wrong. Move on!

[89Hen]

They schedule. Something the PFL refuses to do.

Huh? Are you even trying to make a point? You originally said that the PFL did not play "anyone". I proved you wrong. Move on!
Try again. Your sour grapes over your team and confernce playing a weak schedule and being passed over is at most consistant. xcoffeex

[appstate1998]

Huh? Are you even trying to make a point? You originally said that the PFL did not play "anyone". I proved you wrong. Move on!

I'm sure there are plenty of top 50 GPI that would love to schedule Dayton for their homecoming game...just ask them xthumbsupx

You know I say we throw away the game most North Carolina football fans have been longing for. App State vs East Carolina. Let's cancel our Series with Mcneese State and add Dayton and for giggles Dusquense.

Wofford drops its game with Wisconsin and aww give em Campbell.