Anyone feeling confused?

[HenHouse1]

I really am unsure about the national championship this year. I think this year we have 4 teams in the semifinals that are very talented and are peaking at the right time. In past years I have been able to see a team coming on and came out on top (JMU, Delaware), but with the losses of New Hampshire, Hampton, GSU, Montana and then Cal Poly, I have really been thrown for a loop. I thought these remaining teams were all talented, but they have really impressed me, yet all seem to have their weaknesses. Because of this, I have no idea who I think is going to come out on top. I am a betting man, but there is no way you could get me to bet on a winner for the NC this year. (Regardless of who comes out on top, good luck to all)

[Cap'n Cat]

I really am unsure about the national championship this year. I think this year we have 4 teams in the semifinals that are very talented and are peaking at the right time. In past years I have been able to see a team coming on and came out on top (JMU, Delaware), but with the losses of New Hampshire, Hampton, GSU, Montana and then Cal Poly, I have really been thrown for a loop. I thought these remaining teams were all talented, but they have really impressed me, yet all seem to have their weaknesses. Because of this, I have no idea who I think is going to come out on top. I am a betting man, but there is no way you could get me to bet on a winner for the NC this year. (Regardless of who comes out on top, good luck to all)


Good points, HH.

Me, I'm just glad to see fresh blood in it. No Montana, no GSU, no Delaware (or any A-10), no Youngstown, etc, etc. Not smackin' on those fine programs, but, give me new teams any day.


:)

[OL FU]

I really am unsure about the national championship this year. I think this year we have 4 teams in the semifinals that are very talented and are peaking at the right time. In past years I have been able to see a team coming on and came out on top (JMU, Delaware), but with the losses of New Hampshire, Hampton, GSU, Montana and then Cal Poly, I have really been thrown for a loop. I thought these remaining teams were all talented, but they have really impressed me, yet all seem to have their weaknesses. Because of this, I have no idea who I think is going to come out on top. I am a betting man, but there is no way you could get me to bet on a winner for the NC this year. (Regardless of who comes out on top, good luck to all)

Thanks, I will be the first to tell my concern with FU. Last year's all SoCon place kicker as a freshman and very consistent kicker this year has miss 4 of his last five within the 40 yard line. I don't know if it is mental or he accidently changed his kicking style. We will need him in a close one. Contrary to most other folks, I feel good about our chances on Saturday. But we are going to need those field goals.

[TypicalTribe]

I really am unsure about the national championship this year. I think this year we have 4 teams in the semifinals that are very talented and are peaking at the right time. In past years I have been able to see a team coming on and came out on top (JMU, Delaware), but with the losses of New Hampshire, Hampton, GSU, Montana and then Cal Poly, I have really been thrown for a loop. I thought these remaining teams were all talented, but they have really impressed me, yet all seem to have their weaknesses. Because of this, I have no idea who I think is going to come out on top. I am a betting man, but there is no way you could get me to bet on a winner for the NC this year. (Regardless of who comes out on top, good luck to all)

I just thought that recent playoff fields, especially last year, were deeper. This year, there were so many teams in the field that either didn't seem like they belonged or were only one loss away from being knocked out in the last 2-3 weeks. Seriously, it's hard to call this a great group of semifinal teams when UNI, TSU and ASU could have all been left out with one more loss.

[blackfordpu]

Good points, HH.

Me, I'm just glad to see fresh blood in it. No Montana, no GSU, no Delaware (or any A-10), no Youngstown, etc, etc. Not smackin' on those fine programs, but, give me new teams any day.


:)

Seems to be that way with a bunch of league championships.

[OL FU]

I just thought that recent playoff fields, especially last year, were deeper. This year, there were so many teams in the field that either didn't seem like they belonged or were only one loss away from being knocked out in the last 2-3 weeks. Seriously, it's hard to call this a great group of semifinal teams when UNI, TSU and ASU could have all been left out with one more loss.

Tough when you are sitting at home isn't it. :p

You may be right, but it was an unusual year. Much more balance within the conferences. So-Con - while the big three came out on top, Wofford. Chattanooga and Western rattled some folks. Gateway, Youngstown at 8-3 sitting out.

Texas state may have been one game from not getting in but they were still 9-2 and ASU had two I-AA losses. Also, the best two record in the division are gone. Not sure you can base in on records alone.

[LacesOut]

I love the fresh blood!!

Makes it much more interesting, for me at least.

[Cap'n Cat]

I just thought that recent playoff fields, especially last year, were deeper. This year, there were so many teams in the field that either didn't seem like they belonged or were only one loss away from being knocked out in the last 2-3 weeks. Seriously, it's hard to call this a great group of semifinal teams when UNI, TSU and ASU could have all been left out with one more loss.


SMFH @ this...................

Look what some of these teams did to get here - go look up UNI's accomplishments, for example, in the last six weeks. They're not a good team in a good semifinal group?



You play hard, win yourself several in a row, beat the fugg outta your conference, get the fugg beat outta you by your conference, somehow survive, then beat the fugg outta teams no one ever thought you'd beat the fugg outta and somehow, you're not part of a "great" semifinal group??

:bang: :bang:

What else you gonna do, Triber? Should we just hand over the playoffs to the elite, "legacy" clods every year? Montana, GSU, Youngstown?


Jesus. It's OK, the I-A bowl season is coming up for you.

:nonono2:

[SCPALADIN]

Tough when you are sitting at home isn't it. :p

You may be right, but it was an unusual year. Much more balance within the conferences. So-Con - while the big three came out on top, Wofford. Chattanooga and Western rattled some folks. Gateway, Youngstown at 8-3 sitting out.

Texas state may have been one game from not getting in but they were still 9-2 and ASU had two I-AA losses. Also, the best two record in the division are gone. Not sure you can base in on records alone.

ASU only has one I-AA loss...unless I missed the memo about LSU or Kansas. :doh:

[OL FU]

ASU only has one I-AA loss...unless I missed the memo about LSU or Kansas. :doh:


My finger got stuck on the AAAAAAAA key :smiley_wi That is what I meant

[DinoDex200]

:eyebrow: :rolleyes: :eyebrow:

Let's note that this thread was started by an A-10'er, and leave it at that. Somehow, James Madison coming out of nowhere to beat Montana, and Delaware getting a gimme game in the Finals two years ago = more deserving in their eyes.

[OL FU]

:eyebrow: :rolleyes: :eyebrow:

Let's note that this thread was started by an A-10'er, and leave it at that. Somehow, James Madison coming out of nowhere to beat Montana, and Delaware getting a gimme game in the Finals two years ago = more deserving in their eyes.

I don't think the starter of the thread said anything with which I disagree.
Typical Tribe on the other hand :rolleyes:

[FU97]

Thanks, I will be the first to tell my concern with FU. Last year's all SoCon place kicker as a freshman and very consistent kicker this year has miss 4 of his last five within the 40 yard line. I don't know if it is mental or he accidently changed his kicking style. We will need him in a close one. Contrary to most other folks, I feel good about our chances on Saturday. But we are going to need those field goals.


He's shortened his approach to a two step approach instead of three step to reduce the time between snap and kick. A bad move IMHO in the middle of the season.

[DinoDex200]

I don't think the starter of the thread said anything with which I disagree.
Typical Tribe on the other hand :rolleyes:

Yes...I would say that his post was a little more derogatory. However, the reason our Blue Hen friend is so confused is that he's watching teams he knows little about...

As for Tribe...it's a little easier to not go 8-3 when your schedule is littered with the Marist's of the world, and you can avoid half of the good teams in your conference because the A-10 can't figure out when to say enough is enough...

[PantherRob82]

I agree with having new teams in there. While I'd obviously like a UNI NC, it'd be great to see App St or Tx St. get one. Go Panthers!

[Mr. Taggart]

I'm okay with a repeat winner. :)

[bandl]

I'm okay with a repeat winner. :)

Then I assume you're talking about the 2006 playoffs already...

[JohnStOnge]

I will say this...according to power ratings the top I-AA teams this year are not as good relative to DI overall as they've been in some past years. Here's what I"m talking about, using the Sagarin ratings because that's easiest and starting with who's top rated in I-AA right now with their overall Sagarin rating among DI schools at this point and indicating the overall rating of each top rated I-AA of past years:

2005 Texas State 77
2004 James Madison 36
2003 Delaware 40
2002 Western Kentucky 61
2001 Montana 57
2000 Georgia southern 55
1999 Georgia Southern 46
1998 Richmond 64 (yes, I know UMass won the championship but in this power rating system the Minutemen finished a hair behind at 65).

Anyway, just kind of interesting. I've been noticing that all year...how the highest rated I-AA has been relatively low overall.

[blukeys]

Yes...I would say that his post was a little more derogatory. However, the reason our Blue Hen friend is so confused is that he's watching teams he knows little about...

As for Tribe...it's a little easier to not go 8-3 when your schedule is littered with the Marist's of the world, and you can avoid half of the good teams in your conference because the A-10 can't figure out when to say enough is enough...


Where is Marist on the William and Mary schedule? William and Mary also beat UNH. So much for avoiding half the good teams from your conference.

As for this year's unpredictablity, the parity has been here since 2000 and will only continue. I correctly predicted that the Furman - Richmond game would be close down to the wire as the 2 teams matched up very well. I expect the same for the semi's and finals.

As for 2003 most folks predicted McNeese to win it all Before the playoffs started. (The exception was Tony Moss of Sports Network)

There are too many good teams and too many good players coming out of high schools for there to be anything but parity in I-AA.

[Cocky]

I will say this...according to power ratings the top I-AA teams this year are not as good relative to DI overall as they've been in some past years. Here's what I"m talking about, using the Sagarin ratings because that's easiest and starting with who's top rated in I-AA right now with their overall Sagarin rating among DI schools at this point and indicating the overall rating of each top rated I-AA of past years:

2005 Texas State 77
2004 James Madison 36
2003 Delaware 40
2002 Western Kentucky 61
2001 Montana 57
2000 Georgia southern 55
1999 Georgia Southern 46
1998 Richmond 64 (yes, I know UMass won the championship but in this power rating system the Minutemen finished a hair behind at 65).

Anyway, just kind of interesting. I've been noticing that all year...how the highest rated I-AA has been relatively low overall.

Computer ratings use human opionions. So legacy programs get points the new guys don't. This is why the playoffs are the only way to produce a real champion instead of a computer generated homecoming queen.

[bandl]

Computer ratings use human opionions. So legacy programs get points the new guys don't. This is why the playoffs are the only way to produce a real champion instead of a computer generated homecoming queen.

JMU could HARDLY have been a legacy program before 2004.

[Chi Panther]

I will say this...according to power ratings the top I-AA teams this year are not as good relative to DI overall as they've been in some past years. Here's what I"m talking about, using the Sagarin ratings because that's easiest and starting with who's top rated in I-AA right now with their overall Sagarin rating among DI schools at this point and indicating the overall rating of each top rated I-AA of past years:

2005 Texas State 77
2004 James Madison 36
2003 Delaware 40
2002 Western Kentucky 61
2001 Montana 57
2000 Georgia southern 55
1999 Georgia Southern 46
1998 Richmond 64 (yes, I know UMass won the championship but in this power rating system the Minutemen finished a hair behind at 65).

Anyway, just kind of interesting. I've been noticing that all year...how the highest rated I-AA has been relatively low overall.

Correct me if I wrong....but lets say that TXST wins it all....they beat UNI and ASU/FU......is it possible for them to have a saragain rating better than 65.....

[blukeys]

I will say this...according to power ratings the top I-AA teams this year are not as good relative to DI overall as they've been in some past years. Here's what I"m talking about, using the Sagarin ratings because that's easiest and starting with who's top rated in I-AA right now with their overall Sagarin rating among DI schools at this point and indicating the overall rating of each top rated I-AA of past years:

2005 Texas State 77
2004 James Madison 36
2003 Delaware 40
2002 Western Kentucky 61
2001 Montana 57
2000 Georgia southern 55
1999 Georgia Southern 46
1998 Richmond 64 (yes, I know UMass won the championship but in this power rating system the Minutemen finished a hair behind at 65).

Anyway, just kind of interesting. I've been noticing that all year...how the highest rated I-AA has been relatively low overall.


Interesting. I always thought that the indexing systems were useful tools but not a be all end all. Having seen both teams I thought the '03 Delaware team was better than the '04 JMU team. I guess JMU's loss to WVU was more helpful than UD's beating Navy in '03. The 1998 Richmond ranking is interesting as well but I must say I was more impressed by the '98 richmond team than the '98 Umass team at the time.

[*****]

... using the Sagarin ratings...Comparing I-AA to I-A (even using a system that doesn't count all the I-AA opponents) again John? Hint, college teams change every year so how a team ranks one year is irrelevant to how they rank the next. :) :eyebrow: :) :read:

[OL FU]

He's shortened his approach to a two step approach instead of three step to reduce the time between snap and kick. A bad move IMHO in the middle of the season.

I agree. I was and still am counting on him giving Danny Marshall a run for the best and that is not an easy task. We need him back.

[OL FU]

I will say this...according to power ratings the top I-AA teams this year are not as good relative to DI overall as they've been in some past years. Here's what I"m talking about, using the Sagarin ratings because that's easiest and starting with who's top rated in I-AA right now with their overall Sagarin rating among DI schools at this point and indicating the overall rating of each top rated I-AA of past years:

2005 Texas State 77
2004 James Madison 36
2003 Delaware 40
2002 Western Kentucky 61
2001 Montana 57
2000 Georgia southern 55
1999 Georgia Southern 46
1998 Richmond 64 (yes, I know UMass won the championship but in this power rating system the Minutemen finished a hair behind at 65).

Anyway, just kind of interesting. I've been noticing that all year...how the highest rated I-AA has been relatively low overall.

John, I know you are a stats kinda guy ( where is B&G Express) but how bad did JMU get beat by West Virginia last year and Sagarin had them 36 in the country?. I am not saying they were not 36, but let's judge the teams on each season especially this time of year. Not sagarin comparison anyway. Thanks.

[89Hen]

Let's note that this thread was started by an A-10'er, and leave it at that. Somehow, James Madison coming out of nowhere to beat Montana, and Delaware getting a gimme game in the Finals two years ago = more deserving in their eyes.
Dino, while I agree that JMU is a terrible example, I don't think there was any attempt to discredit the teams of this year. JMU IMO did pretty much come out of nowhere last year. I'll have to go look through the old board when I get a chance and see if ANYONE picked them to win it all last year (other than a couple JMU fans).

But as far as this year, ASU may be the only team in the semis who had what can be considered a great I-AA year. Furman lost to two I-AA's. UNI lost to two I-AA's that didn't make the playoffs. Texas State lost to a I-AA that didn't make the field, beat NO teams that did, and doesn't have any playoff history of themselves. This is not to say that they aren't great teams, but this has been a parity filled year in I-AA. I think that was the point.

BTW, calling UD's CG a gimme is really poor sportsmanship. I don't think anyone else here would say that UD didn't deserve that NC considering how they beat all four teams or that Colgate was a gimme. You don't make the finals by being lucky.

[bandl]

Dino, while I agree that JMU is a terrible example, I don't think there was any attempt to discredit the teams of this year. JMU IMO did pretty much come out of nowhere last year. I'll have to go look through the old board when I get a chance and see if ANYONE picked them to win it all last year (other than a couple JMU fans).

But as far as this year, ASU may be the only team in the semis who had what can be considered a great I-AA year. Furman lost to two I-AA's. UNI lost to two I-AA's that didn't make the playoffs. Texas State lost to a I-AA that didn't make the field, beat NO teams that did, and doesn't have any playoff history of themselves. This is not to say that they aren't great teams, but this has been a parity filled year in I-AA. I think that was the point.

BTW, calling UD's CG a gimme is really poor sportsmanship. I don't think anyone else here would say that UD didn't deserve that NC considering how they beat all four teams or that Colgate was a gimme. You don't make the finals by being lucky.
I'm in agreement here with 89.

The only JMU prediction you might have seen before the '04 season started was that they MIGHT have finished .500. They really did come out of nowhere last year. Maybe the pieces were all in place before the season started, but that didn't mean that anyone could have foreseen that would equal a NC.

UD/Colgate...the last time I checked, Colgate earned their way to the final game. Unless they pulled a YSU string (HA!), they played, and won, 3 games to get to the final. There is no such thing as a 'gimme' game in the final game.

[UAalum72]

Polls use human opinion, computers use results. But computer rankings may not be the best predictor of future results, especially since the BCS won't allow theirs to use victory margin.

That said, the point that this year's I-AA is rated lower than previous years is supported by Massey's rating that includes all 700+ college teams. This year App is at 84. Previous:
2004 JMU 39
2003 Del 48
2002 WKen 61
2001 Montana 59
2000 GaSoU 46
1999 GaSoU 39 (UMass was 109)

[OL FU]

I think it has been said many times here the key to the playoffs is not how you played during the season(except for getting in the playoffs) but how you play at the end of the season. UNI is a good example. If Sanders doesn't get hurt, maybe they are 9-2 or 10-1. Sorry, I think the power ratings are interesting to look at and I don't totally discount them but I am not going to form an opinion solely on them during a season and even less so when comparing different seasons.

[DinoDex200]

BTW, calling UD's CG a gimme is really poor sportsmanship. I don't think anyone else here would say that UD didn't deserve that NC considering how they beat all four teams or that Colgate was a gimme. You don't make the finals by being lucky.

I guess I wasn't really pointing out that Delaware didn't deserve to win...I thought they had a very good team that year. The point I was trying to make is that you can't really say this playoff field is watered down when Delaware got to throttle a Patriot League team the year they won it. On top of that, they had to beat the smallest D1 football school to get to the finals. That was a watered down playoff field. Wofford even making the playoffs showed that, because Furman, GSU, and ASU all missed out...It was also a year where an upstart, transient, program like Florida Atlantic made the playoffs.

Each year is different anyway, you aren't really comparing apples to apples...it would be folly for any of us to take away from the accomplishments of past National Champs because they were the best team that particular year.

Ultimately, maybe the whole division's watered down...the great coaches like Glenn, Tressel, Russell, Johnson, and Donnan are gone...along with programs like Boise State, the Louisiana schools, and of course Marshall. Maybe it's only a matter of time before young guys like Keeler take their place, but it hasn't happened yet...and it makes for a more exciting Division, IMHO.

[89Hen]

along with programs like Boise State, the Louisiana schools, and of course Marshall.
I really question that. Montana is far better than Boise ever was in I-AA. The Louisiana schools were never that great over time and Marshall was one of the best, but their accomplishments have more than been duplicated by GSU.

LA-Monroe: 1 NC, no other trips to the semis
LA Tech: 1 runner-up, no other trips to the semis (and BTW, their trip to the CG was through two SWAC teams)
Boise: 1 NC in 1980 when most of the teams currently in I-AA weren't I-AA

[ChickenMan]

I guess I wasn't really pointing out that Delaware didn't deserve to win...I thought they had a very good team that year. The point I was trying to make is that you can't really say this playoff field is watered down when Delaware got to throttle a Patriot League team the year they won it. On top of that, they had to beat the smallest D1 football school to get to the finals. That was a watered down playoff field. Wofford even making the playoffs showed that, because Furman, GSU, and ASU all missed out...It was also a year where an upstart, transient, program like Florida Atlantic made the playoffs.



"Watered down" ??? The four teams UD faced in the playoffs were...

SIU... 10-1

UNI... 10-2

Wofford... 12-1

Colgate... 15-0

a combined mark of... 47-4

I really doubt that any I-AA champ has had to face a playoff field with a better combined record.

[Tubby Raymond]

SMFH @ this...................

Look what some of these teams did to get here - go look up UNI's accomplishments, for example, in the last six weeks. They're not a good team in a good semifinal group?



You play hard, win yourself several in a row, beat the fugg outta your conference, get the fugg beat outta you by your conference, somehow survive, then beat the fugg outta teams no one ever thought you'd beat the fugg outta and somehow, you're not part of a "great" semifinal group??

:bang: :bang:

What else you gonna do, Triber? Should we just hand over the playoffs to the elite, "legacy" clods every year? Montana, GSU, Youngstown?


Jesus. It's OK, the I-A bowl season is coming up for you.

:nonono2:

not them for for christ's sake, DELAWARE :hurray:

[Tubby Raymond]

:eyebrow: :rolleyes: :eyebrow:

Let's note that this thread was started by an A-10'er, and leave it at that. Somehow, James Madison coming out of nowhere to beat Montana, and Delaware getting a gimme game in the Finals two years ago = more deserving in their eyes.

Go tell the Colgate fans that was a gimmee, they will be pleased :coach:

[bandl]

Go tell the Colgate fans that was a gimmee, they will be pleased :coach:

And tell Umass, Western Ill & Florida Atlantic that they were Colgate's gimme's before they got to the title game... :rolleyes:

[AZGrizFan]

Good points, HH.

Me, I'm just glad to see fresh blood in it. No Montana, no GSU, no Delaware (or any A-10), no Youngstown, etc, etc. Not smackin' on those fine programs, but, give me new teams any day.


:)

Holy Crap! Stop the presses! I now have agreed with Sir Cat twice in the same day!!! Once Montana was out, I too was glad to see the historically strong programs getting the boot. It's nice to see fresh blood in there to "spread the love" of national championships around a little...again, only AFTER Montana was eliminated (although I don't think there were many Griz fans who harbored illusions of a NC this year even BEFORE the playoffs began! :mad: :mad: )

[HenHouse1]

Yes...I would say that his post was a little more derogatory. However, the reason our Blue Hen friend is so confused is that he's watching teams he knows little about...

As for Tribe...it's a little easier to not go 8-3 when your schedule is littered with the Marist's of the world, and you can avoid half of the good teams in your conference because the A-10 can't figure out when to say enough is enough...


My post was not deragatory at all. What I was trying to is that all the teams left are strong teams, and that I think they are very even, and none stand out much above the rest. Who said I didn't know anything about these programs? because I don't have 3,000 posts doesn't mean I know nothing about I-AA teams or analizing football. I was actually trying to pass complements on two the teams... I think my post even ended with good luck to the teams remaining. I may bleed Blue and Gold, but that does not mean I am someone who cannot appreciate other programs

[HenHouse1]

I guess I wasn't really pointing out that Delaware didn't deserve to win...I thought they had a very good team that year. The point I was trying to make is that you can't really say this playoff field is watered down when Delaware got to throttle a Patriot League team the year they won it. On top of that, they had to beat the smallest D1 football school to get to the finals. That was a watered down playoff field. Wofford even making the playoffs showed that, because Furman, GSU, and ASU all missed out...It was also a year where an upstart, transient, program like Florida Atlantic made the playoffs.

Each year is different anyway, you aren't really comparing apples to apples...it would be folly for any of us to take away from the accomplishments of past National Champs because they were the best team that particular year.

Ultimately, maybe the whole division's watered down...the great coaches like Glenn, Tressel, Russell, Johnson, and Donnan are gone...along with programs like Boise State, the Louisiana schools, and of course Marshall. Maybe it's only a matter of time before young guys like Keeler take their place, but it hasn't happened yet...and it makes for a more exciting Division, IMHO.


Watered down? Where did u ge watered down? Where in my post did I use the word watered down? You were the first to say that this field was watered down. I in no way think it is watered down. This year non-traditional powers have the strongest teams, that doesn't mean its watered down

[TypicalTribe]

:eyebrow: :rolleyes: :eyebrow:

Let's note that this thread was started by an A-10'er, and leave it at that. Somehow, James Madison coming out of nowhere to beat Montana, and Delaware getting a gimme game in the Finals two years ago = more deserving in their eyes.

Noone said anything about any champion being more deserving, and this has nothing to do with A-10 or any other conference agenda in particular. I just think it's hard to argue that I-AA football as a whole was weaker this year than in the past few seasons.

Last year's field was simply much stronger than the 2005 one. It was filled with teams that had strong seasons from beginning to end and clearly deserved to be playing for a championship. This season was much more about perseverance, and while the team that wins will be just as deserving, the relative strength of the teams just isn't as high.

[89Hen]

I just think it's hard to argue that I-AA football as a whole was weaker this year than in the past few seasons.
I'd say 'was more even'. True, there weren't as many wins over I-A's but we'd have to go back through them one by one from the last couple years to see if that wasn't due more toward schedules and opportunities.

[TypicalTribe]

Dino, while I agree that JMU is a terrible example, I don't think there was any attempt to discredit the teams of this year. JMU IMO did pretty much come out of nowhere last year. I'll have to go look through the old board when I get a chance and see if ANYONE picked them to win it all last year (other than a couple JMU fans).

But as far as this year, ASU may be the only team in the semis who had what can be considered a great I-AA year. Furman lost to two I-AA's. UNI lost to two I-AA's that didn't make the playoffs. Texas State lost to a I-AA that didn't make the field, beat NO teams that did, and doesn't have any playoff history of themselves. This is not to say that they aren't great teams, but this has been a parity filled year in I-AA. I think that was the point.

BTW, calling UD's CG a gimme is really poor sportsmanship. I don't think anyone else here would say that UD didn't deserve that NC considering how they beat all four teams or that Colgate was a gimme. You don't make the finals by being lucky.

Exactly what I was trying to say in my original post. There just weren't many teams that had great seasons this year. Great stretches, yes, but not great campaigns from beginning to end.

I also would argue the claim that JMU came "out of nowhere". They went 9-2 overall, 7-1 in the A-10 with there only losses to I-A WVU and to W&M on a last-second field goal. They were a heck of a team all season. They just got screwed with their playoff draw, so people discounted. But that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, when you look at the teams that played on the road in the first round and the season's that they had put together.

[blukeys]

I guess I wasn't really pointing out that Delaware didn't deserve to win...I thought they had a very good team that year. The point I was trying to make is that you can't really say this playoff field is watered down when Delaware got to throttle a Patriot League team the year they won it. On top of that, they had to beat the smallest D1 football school to get to the finals. That was a watered down playoff field. Wofford even making the playoffs showed that, because Furman, GSU, and ASU all missed out...It was also a year where an upstart, transient, program like Florida Atlantic made the playoffs.

Each year is different anyway, you aren't really comparing apples to apples...it would be folly for any of us to take away from the accomplishments of past National Champs because they were the best team that particular year.

Ultimately, maybe the whole division's watered down.


The 2003 Colgate team made it to the finals which is tough enough for any team to do. It was also one of the best teams in the school's history. I think any Colgate expert will acknowledge that this year's team was not near the level of the 2003 team. I know of one team in the playoffs this year that had a difficult time throttling a Patriot league team.

I don't know why You are dissing the 2003 Wofford team. The size of the school has nothing to do with the quality of athletes that a school recruits. The University of Miami only has an undergraduate population about the size of the University of Delaware. Does that mean Delaware should be playing at Miami's level?

Wofford won the So. Con. in 2003. Last I heard that was a good conference.

That transient Florida Atlantic team is still playing football at the I-A level.

My view is that the quality of play at the I-AA level has improved overall in the last 10-15 years. If you actually become familiar with all of I-AA and see how all the programs are working hard to upgrade their programs you will see that this improvement will continue and Parity will continue to be the word of the day.

[DinoDex200]

"Watered down" ??? The four teams UD faced in the playoffs were...

SIU... 10-1

UNI... 10-2

Wofford... 12-1

Colgate... 15-0

a combined mark of... 47-4

I really doubt that any I-AA champ has had to face a playoff field with a better combined record.

You are talking records for that particular year...not actual quality. I am sure San Diego, or some other Pioneer team went undefeated that year as well...does that mean they are better than Tx. St or Furman? ASU is 8-3, but they also played 2 Bowl teams, with their only other loss being to a team still in the playoffs...does that mean they are any less of a team than Wofford '03? ASU almost beat that Wofford team on their homefield, without Richie for half the game, and that team couldn't hold a candle to this version of ASU. Again...the SoCon had no other playoff participants that year...that means no GSU, Furman, or ASU in the playoffs.

I will say it again, though, it's folly to compare 1 year to the next, etc. But I still question any playoff year where a Patriot team makes the finals, a one-year wonder like Wofford wins the SoCon, and a start-up program makes the semis...only to become one of the worst teams in I-A in under 2 years.

And yes, Colgate was a gimme for a quality team like Delaware...40-0 made that pretty clear. 15-0 is not impressive coming from the Patriot.

My point in throwing all this out there, is that it's really easy to poke holes in almost any playoff year...even the sacred cow that is '03 for Delaware. How've those teams in the '03 Final Four done since then, BTW? I think Delaware's the only one who has gotten out of the first round since then.

[TypicalTribe]

You are talking records for that particular year...not actual quality. I am sure San Diego, or some other Pioneer team went undefeated that year as well...does that mean they are better than Tx. St or Furman? ASU is 8-3, but they also played 2 Bowl teams, with their only other loss being to a team still in the playoffs...does that mean they are any less of a team than Wofford '03? ASU almost beat that Wofford team on their homefield, without Richie for half the game, and that team couldn't hold a candle to this version of ASU.

I will say it again, though, it's folly to compare 1 year to the next, etc. But I still question any playoff year where a Patriot team makes the finals, a one-year wonder like Wofford wins the SoCon, and a start-up program makes the semis...only to become one of the worst teams in I-A in under 2 years.

And yes, Colgate was a gimme for a quality team like Delaware...40-0 made that pretty clear. 15-0 is not impressive coming from the Patriot.

My point in throwing all this out there, is that it's really easy to poke holes in almost any playoff year...even the sacred cow that is '03 for Delaware. How've those teams in the '03 Final Four done since then, BTW?

Don't put too much credence into the 40-0 score of the '03 NC game, considering Delaware blew everyone out that year, to the tune of 149-23. They were just a great team, pure and simple.

By the way, if it's so easy to get to the finals, then how come ASU has never done it? Don't sell that Colgate team short. Sure, they got a favorable draw in some ways and the snow helped, but that was an awfully good football team. Light years better than this year's squad that made the field.

[ChickenMan]

You are talking records for that particular year...not actual quality. I am sure San Diego, or some other Pioneer team went undefeated that year as well...does that mean they are better than Tx. St or Furman? And yes, Colgate was a gimme for a quality team like Delaware...40-0 made that pretty clear. 15-0 is not impressive coming from the Patriot.



Are you really trying to compare the likes of San Diego and the Pioneer champ to the best of the Gateway and SoCon??? :eek:

Colgate also won three playoff games prior to Chattanooga... one vs a dam good UMass team that took UD into triple OT in the regular season. As for Wofford... they only went 10 -1 beating ASU... GSU and Furman... their only loss being to Air Force. And tell the Gateway people that all four of their schools sucked that year... I think you might get an arqument... :rolleyes:

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Are you really trying to compare the likes of San Diego and the Pioneer champ to the best of the Gateway and SoCon??? :eek:

Colgate also won three playoff games prior to Chattanooga... one vs a dam good UMass team that took UD into triple OT in the regular season. As for Wofford... they only went 10 -1 beating ASU... GSU and Furman... their only loss being to Air Force. And tell the Gateway people that all four of their schools sucked that year... I think you might get an arqument... :rolleyes:

Let's also add that they throttled a I-A school, Buffalo, 38-15. I also distinctly remember that this game was 31-0 early before Colgate "called off the dogs".

They also beat Lehigh (nationally-ranked at the time), Fordham (ranked during the season), UMass (nationally-ranked), Western Illinois (nationally-ranked), and FAU (nationally-ranked). 5 ranked teams and a I-A, with 0 losses.

Please don't whine to me that Colgate had a crappy team, or somehow didn't deserve to be in the NC game. They clearly did.

[DinoDex200]

Don't put too much credence into the 40-0 score of the '03 NC game, considering Delaware blew everyone out that year, to the tune of 149-23. They were just a great team, pure and simple.

By the way, if it's so easy to get to the finals, then how come ASU has never done it? Don't sell that Colgate team short. Sure, they got a favorable draw in some ways and the snow helped, but that was an awfully good football team. Light years better than this year's squad that made the field.

I knew someone would go there...

Look, I am not trying to diminish what Colgate accomplished. They made it to the finals on incredibly long odds. They were undoubtedly better if ,for nothing else, having Jamaal Branch. However, there were posts early on in this thread that seemed to indicate that the reason these teams have made it as far as they did was due to a watered down division...and I am making the point that it would be easy to take any year and find reasons why that team that won had an easy road to the title. Just because the A-10 is a non factor this year, and the teams in this thing just happen to have 2 or 3 losses does not make them unimpressive. Furman played a decent out of conference schedule (minus G-W) Tx. St. plays in a tough league, and has to play some tough OOC games due to the low number of SLC games, UNI came from a hotly contested Gateway, and ASU, as mentioned, played LSU and Kansas OOC...and had only 1 loss in the classification to a team that is clearly quality. Outside of that, ASU had only 1 single-digit victory this year, and that was in the first game against EKU.

These are all quality teams, and comparing them to teams of the past based solely on W-L is foolishness. You can ridicule my school if you'd like...I never said it was easy to make the finals...but many of the posters in this thread seem to think 2003 Delaware or 2004 James Madison (Neither of whom's modern versions made the playoffs this year) would have smoked this current crop of semi-finalists. It just isn't proveable...and all it does is attempt to diminish what these 4 teams have accomplished.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

My point in throwing all this out there, is that it's really easy to poke holes in almost any playoff year...even the sacred cow that is '03 for Delaware. How've those teams in the '03 Final Four done since then, BTW? I think Delaware's the only one who has gotten out of the first round since then.

Guess what Dino? People graduate. In the I-AA playoffs, Fordham beat Northeastern and lost to a Villanova team with RB Brian Westbrook in 2002. All are now cellar-dwellers in the A-10 and Patriot. But they had great teams in 2002. Was Villanova able to get another Brian Westbrook since? No, but who is expecting that?

It's utterly pointless comparing what happened the year after a good year. All you really have is the quality of those teams during that year, with those players that suited up that season. Fortunately, we have several great indicators for quality of teams during the 2003 season. They are called: won/loss record and GPI. And any fool would be able to see that Wofford, FAU, Delaware and Colgate were great teams in 2003.

[bandl]

but many of the posters in this thread seem to think 2003 Delaware or 2004 James Madison (Neither of whom's modern versions made the playoffs this year) would have smoked this current crop of semi-finalists. It just isn't proveable...and all it does is attempt to diminish what these 4 teams have accomplished.

I haven't seen anyone that has said '03 UD or '04 JMU would smoke any of the teams still in the playoffs this year....your hearsay isn't 'proveable'. You've succumbed to twisting people's statement to fit into your argument as you see fit. All you're doing now is digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole here.... :nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2:

And as far as I know...2003 and 2004 are still considered 'modern'. We're not talking about teams from a different decade, you know... xidiotx

[DinoDex200]

Let's also add that they throttled a I-A school, Buffalo, 38-15. I also distinctly remember that this game was 31-0 early before Colgate "called off the dogs".

They also beat Lehigh (nationally-ranked at the time), Fordham (ranked during the season), UMass (nationally-ranked), Western Illinois (nationally-ranked), and FAU (nationally-ranked). 5 ranked teams and a I-A, with 0 losses.

Please don't whine to me that Colgate had a crappy team, or somehow didn't deserve to be in the NC game. They clearly did.

Do you really expect me to take Buffalo seriously? You know that is one of the worst teams in I-A, year in, and year out. They beat 2 ranked Patriot teams...woop-dee-doo, and got hot in the playoffs. I am sure that was the best modern Colgate team ever...but beating a team that was formed for the express purpose of getting out of I-AA as quickly as possible (and made the playoffs almost by sheer accident) in the semi-finals does not prove to me that the '03 field was any less "watered down" than this one.

Furthermore...the fact that a team that doesn't give athletic scholarships can make it that far says alot about that particular playoff field. Them getting blanked in the national title game showed just how easy of a road they had to the finals. I would submit to you that there may have only been one team of real quality in those playoffs...and they won the national title.

[HenHouse1]

Ahh I understand what Dino is trying to say now... in the original post I didn't give ASU the proper respect that they deserved (they are your school right?). You wanted me to say that they were the best of the final four teams and all I would say was that they are pretty much even. I think ASU has a very good team. But Lafayette (a patriot league school who's league who have been trashing) played with them for half. By your reasoning, that is not up to par. I think ASU has a good chance at the championship this year, but no more than anyone else left.
By the way... stop trying to discredit Delaware's '03 run, they were named one of the best I-AA teams of all time by 1-aa.org. They had a dominating playoff run. No one is trying to discredit ASU's run this year, so give us respect (plus this isn't even about Delaware so stop trying to make it about us)

[89Hen]

Don't worry HH, we'll find out if this year's field is watered down or not. If AppSt makes it to the finals, the answer would have to be yes as it would be the first time in how many tries Dino? Sorry, just getting tired of reading drivel.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Do you really expect me to take Buffalo seriously? You know that is one of the worst teams in I-A, year in, and year out. They beat 2 ranked Patriot teams...woop-dee-doo, and got hot in the playoffs. I am sure that was the best modern Colgate team ever...but beating a team that was formed for the express purpose of getting out of I-AA as quickly as possible (and made the playoffs almost by sheer accident) in the semi-finals does not prove to me that the '03 field was any less "watered down" than this one.

Furthermore...the fact that a team that doesn't give athletic scholarships can make it that far says alot about that particular playoff field. Them getting blanked in the national title game showed just how easy of a road they had to the finals. I would submit to you that there may have only been one team of real quality in those playoffs...and they won the national title.

Have you looked at the I-A vs. I-AA record the last 3 years? Are there, what, 20 wins and probably 80 losses? Any I-A win is an accomplishment.

So you're basically basing your whole argument on the fact that a "non-scholarship school" made the NC means it was watered-down that year? What a bunch of baloney. I repeat -- look at the fuggin' GPI for 2003, and please realize what a moron you are.

[DinoDex200]

Ahh I understand what Dino is trying to say now... in the original post I didn't give ASU the proper respect that they deserved (they are your school right?). You wanted me to say that they were the best of the final four teams and all I would say was that they are pretty much even. I think ASU has a very good team. But Lafayette (a patriot league school who's league who have been trashing) played with them for half. By your reasoning, that is not up to par. I think ASU has a good chance at the championship this year, but no more than anyone else left.
By the way... stop trying to discredit Delaware's '03 run, they were named one of the best I-AA teams of all time by 1-aa.org. They had a dominating playoff run. No one is trying to discredit ASU's run this year, so give us respect (plus this isn't even about Delaware so stop trying to make it about us)

Actually...I think I was pretty fair in trashing all of '03 Semi-Finalists. :)

It's highly possible that Delaware could have won regardless of the field that year...considering that they won so convincingly. My point was that the other 3 semi-finalists were not nearly the quality of the 4 this year...I remember even thinking I didn't want any of the other 3 to make the finals because they were either a)Upstarts - FAU, and Wofford, to a lesser extent (less than a decade removed from D2) or b) Non-scholarship. I just didn't think it looked good for the division. A traditional power, like Delaware or GSU, or a team that is always on the verge...like UNI or ASU...or last year with JMU...would sit much better with me.
No...I don't expect anyone to say that ASU is King...I am very nervous about Saturday's game.

The thing that set me off is that these semi-finalists were called "not great" because we lost a few games...but we all also played exceedingly tough schedules, and each team has some nice playoff victories on its resume. It's an evenly matched group of 4, I think...but to me that makes it a truly great quartet because there should be 3 very exciting games ahead of us.

I don't mean to poo-poo what the Blue Hens accomplished...it was just the easiest example to go for because I watched quite a few of the games that year, being that it was one of the first years ESPN actually did any decent coverage of the playoffs.

[DinoDex200]

Don't worry HH, we'll find out if this year's field is watered down or not. If AppSt makes it to the finals, the answer would have to be yes as it would be the first time in how many tries Dino? Sorry, just getting tired of reading drivel.

Well, there you go...Delaware making it once since the playoff field was expanded to 16 adds to my argument of '03 being an abberation, doesn't it?

I can play this game all day...

[89Hen]

Well, there you go...Delaware making it once since the playoff field was expanded to 16 adds to my argument of '03 being an abberation, doesn't it?

I can play this game all day...
You already have been. :rolleyes:

[DinoDex200]

You already have been. :rolleyes:

If it weren't so much fun...

[ChickenMan]

I can play this game all day...


But it would be nice IF you could back it up with some facts...



So the current playoff field is much stronger than the '03 bunch???

the Sagarin rankings say otherwise...

'05

77... Texas St... 67.45
80... ASU... 67.66
91... UNI... 64.94
98... Furman... 62.82
100... Cal Poly... 62.69
103... SIU... 62.13
106... UNH... 61.54
110... EWU... 60.55
111... Nicholls... 60.24
112... GSU... 60.11
114... Montana... 59.05
119... Richmond... 58.45
148... EIU... 51.10
152... Hampton... 50.63
166... Lafayette... 48.01
169... Colgate... 47.01



'03

40... Delaware... 76.15
77... WIU... 66.20
78... SIU... 66.19
79... UNI... 66.6
84... Montana... 65.23
85... UMass... 65.21
87... Colgate... 65.04
89... WKU... 64.89
97... Wofford... 63.74
99... NAU... 62.40
107... FAU... 60.69
110... McNeese... 60.09
112... Montana St... 59.57
135... Jacksonville St... 53.25
166... NC A&T... 45.42
169... B-C... 44.61

'05 has only five of their playoff field rated in the Top 100 of DI football...

'03... had TEN!!!

over and out...

;)

[DinoDex200]

If the final Sagarin ratings had been posted, maybe your "facts" would have some merit. There are 2 rounds left in the playoffs, plus the bowls left to be played, last I checked.

And we are still comparing 1 season to another, which is the problem I had with this in the first place...not so much the first post...but subsequent ones where the quality of this semi-final class was questioned.

Delaware fans, however, have taken this as a personal affront to their school's accomplishments...and to prove your point, you are using a questionable computer formula to back up their argument. :rolleyes:

A computer formula, mind you, which is based on 1 particular year...not previous or subsequent seasons...which inherently makes it obsolete after that year is over.

Thanks for pointing out the shaky validity of the Sagarin Rankings by showing that the 5 teams right behind Delaware that year all lost before the semi-finals to supposedly weaker teams...real solid system.

[ChickenMan]

Forgot to add this little fact... '03 Colgate... 65.04 was rated higher than '05 Furman... 62.82 is currently rated... :p

[ChickenMan]

If the final Sagarin ratings had been posted, maybe your "facts" would have some merit. There are 2 rounds left in the playoffs, plus the bowls left to be played, last I checked.

And we are still comparing 1 season to another, which is the problem I had with this in the first place...not so much the first post...but subsequent ones where the quality of this semi-final class was questioned.

Delaware fans, however, have taken this as a personal affront to their school's accomplishments...and to prove your point, you are using a questionable computer formula to back up their argument. :rolleyes:

A computer formula, mind you, which is based on 1 particular year...not previous or subsequent seasons...which inherently makes it obsolete after that year is over.

No affront to UD... I just don't care for baseless OPINION being portrayed as fact..

[DinoDex200]

No affront to UD... I just don't care for baseless OPINION being portrayed as fact..

Don't think I ever said anything I think is a fact...there really is no way of knowing, is there? I am just defending my position that you can point out flaws and favorable draws in every playoff field.

Each year is different...and in this age of parity, you can't really decry these 4 teams for what they've done just because they didn't go 11-0 or 10-1 in the regular season. That's the beauty of I-AA to me, that you don't have to duck tough competition for fear of missing your chance at a Bowl Game. If you do, it can bite you in the arse come playoff time. Koom-ba-yah, and all that...

Man, this thread has really helped my post count!!

[ChickenMan]

Agreed... my point is that ANY team that makes it to the semi's in ANY year... Colgate included... is a dam good team and deserves some respect for that accomplishment.

[DinoDex200]

Agreed... my point is that ANY team that makes it to the semi's in ANY year... Colgate included... is a dam good team and deserves some respect for that accomplishment.

Yep!

[JohnStOnge]

Interesting. I always thought that the indexing systems were useful tools but not a be all end all. Having seen both teams I thought the '03 Delaware team was better than the '04 JMU team. I guess JMU's loss to WVU was more helpful than UD's beating Navy in '03. The 1998 Richmond ranking is interesting as well but I must say I was more impressed by the '98 richmond team than the '98 Umass team at the time.

I also think Delaware's 03 team was better than JMU's 04 team. One thing rating systems ar "fuzzy." The other thing is that I just put the rankings relative to all of DI. How strong and weak various I-A teams are influence that. Maybe I-A was a little weaker in 2004 than 2005.

It's just something I've been noticing all year. Most of the year the top I-AA in power rankings hasn't been as high as it usually is. While I haven't looked I think it's also been kind of a rough year for I-AA in the series against I-As. I don't think any playoff team, for example, had a I-A victory this year (I haven't checked...that's just what I'm thinking without looking). There was that Cal Davis win over Stanford, but stuff like Eastern Washington losing to a really bad I-A like San Jose State doesn't make I-AA look real good relative to I-AA. Maybe Ralph can comment on that.

[OL FU]

I also think Delaware's 03 team was better than JMU's 04 team. One thing rating systems ar "fuzzy." The other thing is that I just put the rankings relative to all of DI. How strong and weak various I-A teams are influence that. Maybe I-A was a little weaker in 2004 than 2005.

It's just something I've been noticing all year. Most of the year the top I-AA in power rankings hasn't been as high as it usually is. While I haven't looked I think it's also been kind of a rough year for I-AA in the series against I-As. I don't think any playoff team, for example, had a I-A victory this year (I haven't checked...that's just what I'm thinking without looking). There was that Cal Davis win over Stanford, but stuff like Eastern Washington losing to a really bad I-A like San Jose State doesn't make I-AA look real good relative to I-AA. Maybe Ralph can comment on that.

And one semi-finalist did not play a I-A which from everything I understand about the rating systems (which is not much) would hurt their SOS and therefore hurt their rating. correct?

[JohnStOnge]

Correct me if I wrong....but lets say that TXST wins it all....they beat UNI and ASU/FU......is it possible for them to have a saragain rating better than 65.....

I would think so, especially since Sagarin's system does consider margin of victory. If the one of the remaining teams that wins it all wins both of its games big I'd think it could move up quite a bit. It doesn't take a big jump in the rating to move up in the ranking. Five rating points one way or another is 20 spots in the rankings.

[JohnStOnge]

You don't make the finals by being lucky.

Sometimes luck is a factor, sometimes it isn't. If you have a dominant run like Delaware did in 2003 luck was not a factor. But JMU had some luck last year against Furman. Yes, I know people say turnovers are forced but you have to have a little luck to have things work out so that you get the ball on a turnover when the other team is about to put the game away. Even if the turnover was entirely caused by you absolutely perfectly planning and executing a perfect hit on the football (which is never the case), which way it bounces, where various players on each team happen to be at the time, etc., makes the difference between whether the defense recovers it or not. Chance is a factor.

And to show I'm not biased I'll refer to McNeese in 1997 again. McNeese didn't do anything to plan to be called for illegal motion on a fourth down play and thereby rescue itself. The Cowboys were lucky.

Then the next week Youngstown State got lucky when McNeese's wide open tight end dropped the ball. Him catching it doesn't necessarily mean McNeese would've won. But, in a game where the final score was 10-9 and both offenses managed right about 200 total yards, it sure would've helped their chances. And it had nothing to do with anything Youngstown State did to prevent a touchdown. The guy...who had great hands and was an all conference tight end...just dropped a very easy to catch pass while he was wide open in the end zone.

I don't know why people are so reluctant to admit that luck is a factor. And the closer to teams are in caliber, the more of a factor it becomes.

[TypicalTribe]

If
Thanks for pointing out the shaky validity of the Sagarin Rankings by showing that the 5 teams right behind Delaware that year all lost before the semi-finals to supposedly weaker teams...real solid system.

The 5 teams ranked right behind UD lost to either UD or Colgate. System seems fine. The biggest problem with the playoffs that year was not the teams in it, but the bracket.

First round GPI Matchups:

#1 SIU vs. #3 UD
#2 UNI vs. #15 Montana St.

The top 3 GPI in the same bracket!

#11 Wofford vs. #49 NC A&T
#6 WKU vs. #23 JSU

#4 McNeese St. vs. #9 NAU
#16 FAU vs. #48 BCC

#5 Montana vs. #7 WIU
#8 UMass vs. #10 Colgate

This was possibly the most poorly constructed bracket of all time and pretty much guaranteed that several of the best teams would be gone well before the semifinals. It was like an inverted playoff, where UD and Colgate played their best opponents in the first couple of rounds and then the rest of the playoffs was a dud.

[JohnStOnge]

And one semi-finalist did not play a I-A which from everything I understand about the rating systems (which is not much) would hurt their SOS and therefore hurt their rating. correct?

Not so much in Sagarin's system because it considers margin of victory. I think it does have some damper in it to keep blowing out a weak opponent from counting too much...but the main thing is to perform "as expected." I think there's a limit to how weak the schedule could be but the highest ranked I-AA ever, Marshall's 1996 team, didn't play a I-A. I think they finished ranked 21st. Maybe it was 22nd. Somewhere around there.

Anyway they were ranked high because they won by such big scores. Sagarin's base system does not even consider whether you won or lost, as I understand it. It just looks at the point spread in the context of how strong the opponent was.

[JohnStOnge]

Comparing I-AA to I-A (even using a system that doesn't count all the I-AA opponents) again John? Hint, college teams change every year so how a team ranks one year is irrelevant to how they rank the next. :) :eyebrow: :) :read:

It's too bad Todd Beck doesn't include the Massey system's performance for I-AA. But Ralph, the thing clearly works. If not considering all the games matters at all it doesn't matter much.

Though I'll admit that the one that REALLY did well for I-AA this year was the Dunkel Index...which does consider all the game. Too bad it's so hard to find the Dunkel ratings for I-AA teams.

[JohnStOnge]

Ralph, I want you to ask Dr. Massey if he thinks that the predictions of a model that uses all of the games necessarily have to be better than the predictions of a model that doesn't. I'll be shocked if he doesn't say "no," because it's pretty obvious that that's the answer when one really thinks about it. As long as you have a reasonably good sized dataset the structure of the model matters more than whether or not you consider all of the games I-AAs play. In this case the overwhelming majority of games in which I-AAs participate are used.

I'm saying this in a friendly way but I don't know why I can't disabuse you of that notion that not counting a few games against D-IIs, etc., matters so much. It really doesn't.

I'll give you a simple example of what I'm talking about. Suppose I want to make a model to predict fish weight from fish length. I could get a good sample of 1,000 fish and do a linear model...one that says that for each inch longer a fish is it is a certain fixed weight heavier. I'd get a "significant" relationship.

But it wouldn't be a good model because fish length vs. fish weight is not a linear relationship. It doesn't go in a line. It's a curve. A fish that is twice as long is much more than twice as heavy. So if I got just 100 fish and used the length and weight measurements to make a curveliniear model more accurately describing the shape of the relationship, I'd get much better predictions even though I have only 1/10th the data.

Within reasonable limits, the structure of the model itself is much more important than how much data go into it.

[TypicalTribe]

I'm saying this in a friendly way but I don't know why I can't disabuse you of that notion that not counting a few games against D-IIs, etc., matters so much. It really doesn't.

Couldn't agree more. Considering that the committee pretty much disregards those games, why is it so bad for a computer ranking to do the same?

[Grizo406]

...although I don't think there were many Griz fans who harbored illusions of a NC this year even BEFORE the playoffs began! :mad: :mad:

I didn't think we'd make it to Chattanooga this year either, but I sure harbored feelings we'd beat the Bobcats, and go a wee bit further in the playoffs than we did. :bawling: :bawling: :bawling:

[Chi Panther]

I would guess that the 03 UD would win it all this year.....they were EXTREMELY good.

I have said this before.....the only team in the 03 playoffs that might have kept up with UD was WIU and they lost in the second round in the snow storm at Colgate. WIU was really good on Offense....ask Montana fans. IF there wasn't snow in Colgate....not even close....but you have to give credit to Colgate for the wins......and UD played some REALLY good teams with a combined 4 losses and smoked each of them.....AMAZING!!! :hurray:

[blukeys]

I would guess that the 03 UD would win it all this year.....they were EXTREMELY good.

I have said this before.....the only team in the 03 playoffs that might have kept up with UD was WIU and they lost in the second round in the snow storm at Colgate. WIU was really good on Offense....ask Montana fans. IF there wasn't snow in Colgate....not even close....but you have to give credit to Colgate for the wins......and UD played some REALLY good teams with a combined 4 losses and smoked each of them.....AMAZING!!! :hurray:

D@mn You Panther you said the magic words. :mad: Look out here comes Umassfan. beetlejuice, beetlejuice, beetlejuice :rolleyes:

[OL FU]

Not so much in Sagarin's system because it considers margin of victory. I think it does have some damper in it to keep blowing out a weak opponent from counting too much...but the main thing is to perform "as expected." I think there's a limit to how weak the schedule could be but the highest ranked I-AA ever, Marshall's 1996 team, didn't play a I-A. I think they finished ranked 21st. Maybe it was 22nd. Somewhere around there.

Anyway they were ranked high because they won by such big scores. Sagarin's base system does not even consider whether you won or lost, as I understand it. It just looks at the point spread in the context of how strong the opponent was.

I think I am beginning to understand. Let me give you another and help me out if you can. The numbers are made up. LSU is rated 30 points higher than ASU. ASU loses by 24 points. Because of that ASU power rating increases? FU is rated 15 above Wofford. FU wins by 10 therefore FU's rating goes down. And it doesn't matter that the game was 35 -7 with five minutes left? (Once again fictional numbers) Is this a fair statement?

[JohnStOnge]

I think I am beginning to understand. Let me give you another and help me out if you can. The numbers are made up. LSU is rated 30 points higher than ASU. ASU loses by 24 points. Because of that ASU power rating increases? FU is rated 15 above Wofford. FU wins by 10 therefore FU's rating goes down. And it doesn't matter that the game was 35 -7 with five minutes left? (Once again fictional numbers) Is this a fair statement?

I don't know the details of Sagarin's model but I THINK the way it works is that ASU losing by 24 when the predicted spread was 30 would not have to result in a higer rating because the rating also depends on the result of all the other games Sagarin considers. However, doing 6 better than predicted would help. All other things equal, doing better than expected is better than doing worse than expected.