Historical Most Successful - Playoffs 2005 [Archive]

OL FU

December 20th, 2005, 03:52 PM

Since I did this last year it was easy to update. Sorry for the sloppy formatting. Generally,measures in a simple manner a schools success in the playoffs by awarding points for playing in the games. 5 for first round, 10 for qtrs, 15 for semi, 20 for NC and 20 for winning. We debated the methodology the last time and it is up for debate again. Mainly for entertainment and discussion purposes. Also,the accuracy is questionable so if you see an error point it out.

I believe we decided that byes received points as if they played the game since they were good enough to have received the bye. Take a look and comment if you want. Number to the immediate right of the school is last year's historic ranking. Yes there are lots of ties and I did not list as such.

04 Rank Round 1 Qtr Semi Final Champ 5 10 15 20 20 Total

1 GSU 1 16 14 10 8 6 80 140 150 160 120 650
2 Youngstown St 2 10 7 6 6 4 50 70 90 120 80 410
3 Montana 3 15 8 7 5 2 75 80 105 100 40 400
4 Marshall 4 8 8 7 6 2 40 80 105 120 40 385
5 EKU 5 14 7 7 4 2 70 70 105 80 40 365
6 Furman 7 14 9 5 3 1 70 90 75 60 20 315
7 Delaware 6 12 10 5 2 1 60 100 75 40 20 295
8 Northern Iowa 9 12 9 5 1 60 90 75 20 0 245
9 ASU 11 13 7 3 1 1 65 70 45 20 20 220
10 McNeese St 8 11 6 3 2 55 60 45 40 0 200
11 Nevada - Reno 10 5 5 6 1 25 50 90 20 0 185
12 Boise ST 12 3 3 3 2 1 15 30 45 40 20 150
13 WKU 13 8 5 1 1 1 40 50 15 20 20 145
14 Mass 14 5 2 2 2 1 25 20 30 40 20 135
15 Florida A&M 15 6 2 2 1 1 30 20 30 20 20 120
16 Idaho 16 10 4 2 50 40 30 0 0 120
17 James Madison 17 6 3 1 1 1 30 30 15 20 20 115
18 Middle Tenn 18 7 6 1 35 60 15 0 0 110
19 Lehigh 19 5 3 2 1 25 30 30 20 0 105
20 Stephen F Austin 20 4 3 2 1 20 30 30 20 0 100
21 Arkansas ST 21 4 4 1 1 20 40 15 20 0 95
22 LA Monroe 22 4 2 1 1 1 20 20 15 20 20 95
23 Troy St 23 7 3 2 35 30 30 0 0 95
24 S. Illinois 26 4 2 1 1 1 20 20 15 20 20 95
25 Colgate 24 7 2 1 1 35 20 15 20 0 90
26 Montana St 25 3 1 1 1 1 15 10 15 20 20 80
27 William & Mary 27 7 3 1 35 30 15 0 0 80
28 E. Illinois 28 10 3 50 30 0 0 0 80
29 Jackson St 29 10 1 1 50 10 15 0 0 75
30 Idaho St 30 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 15 20 20 70
31 EWU 31 5 3 1 25 30 15 0 0 70
32 La Tech 32 2 2 1 1 10 20 15 20 0 65
33 Northwestern 33 6 2 1 30 20 15 0 0 65
34 Sam Houston 34 4 3 1 20 30 15 0 0 65
35 Villanova 35 6 2 1 30 20 15 0 0 65
36 W. Illinois 36 4 3 1 20 30 15 0 0 65
37 Rhode Island 37 2 3 1 10 30 15 0 0 55
38 Richmond 44 5 3 25 30 0 0 0 55
39 Tenn St 38 3 2 1 15 20 15 0 0 50
40 Western Carolina 39 1 1 1 1 5 10 15 20 0 50
41 New Hampshire 47 4 3 20 30 0 0 0 50
42 Boston U 40 5 2 25 20 0 0 0 45
43 Hofstra 41 5 2 25 20 0 0 0 45
44 Murray ST 42 4 1 1 20 10 15 0 0 45
45 Maine 43 4 2 20 20 0 0 0 40
46 SC State 45 1 2 1 5 20 15 0 0 40
47 Central Florida 46 2 1 1 10 10 15 0 0 35
48 Samford 48 2 1 1 10 10 15 0 0 35
49 Florida Atlantic 49 1 1 1 5 10 15 0 0 30
50 Illinois St 50 1 1 1 5 10 15 0 0 30
51 NC A&T 51 4 1 20 10 0 0 0 30
52 North Texas 52 4 1 20 10 0 0 0 30
53 Northern Arizona 53 4 1 20 10 0 0 0 30
54 Wofford 54 1 1 1 5 10 15 0 0 30
55 Texas St NR 1 1 1 5 10 15 0 0 30
56 Alcorn ST 55 3 1 15 10 0 0 0 25
57 Citadel 56 3 1 15 10 0 0 0 25
58 Grambling 57 2 0 1 10 0 15 0 0 25
59 Indiana St 58 1 2 5 20 0 0 0 25
60 Nichols St 59 3 1 15 10 0 0 0 25
61 SW Mo 60 2 1 10 10 0 0 0 20
62 Weber ST 61 2 1 10 10 0 0 0 20
63 Hampton 65 4 20 0 0 0 0 20
64 Connecticutt 62 1 1 5 10 0 0 0 15
65 ETSU 63 1 1 5 10 0 0 0 15
66 Fordham 64 1 1 5 10 0 0 0 15
67 Holy Cross 66 1 1 5 10 0 0 0 15
68 Cal Poly NR 1 1 5 10 0 0 0 15
69 Bethune Cookman 67 2 10 0 0 0 0 10
70 Jacksonville St 68 2 10 0 0 0 0 10
71 Lafayette 72 2 10 0 0 0 0 10
72 Akron 69 1 5 0 0 0 0 5
73 Chattanooga 70 1 5 0 0 0 0 5
74 Howard 71 1 5 0 0 0 0 5
75 Miss Valley 73 1 5 0 0 0 0 5
76 Northeastern 74 1 5 0 0 0 0 5
77 Portland St 75 1 5 0 0 0 0 5

*****

December 20th, 2005, 04:00 PM

very nice :hurray:

89Hen

December 20th, 2005, 04:00 PM

OL FU

December 20th, 2005, 04:04 PM

Nice work. I'm sure it must have been discussed last time about when the field was only 4 and 8 teams. Jackson State and Grambling get credited with 15 point semis without ever winning a playoff game.

Did I do that again? I know I did two versions and unfortunately I saved them both. Guess I picked up the earlier version.

TypicalTribe

December 20th, 2005, 04:34 PM

Where would things stand if it started from the time the field expanded to 16 teams?

OL FU

December 20th, 2005, 04:37 PM

Where would things stand if it started from the time the field expanded to 16 teams?

That is for another day :D

Unless you want me to email you the spread sheet?

TypicalTribe

December 20th, 2005, 04:40 PM

That is for another day :D

Unless you want me to email you the spread sheet?

That would be great. Just thought it would be interesting, considering that this year was the 20th playoff involving 16 teams.

OL FU

December 20th, 2005, 04:48 PM

That would be great. Just thought it would be interesting, considering that this year was the 20th playoff involving 16 teams.

It is on the way. let me know if you don't get it.

Go...gate

December 20th, 2005, 09:19 PM

Really nice job and very useful info - many thanks.

igo4uni

December 20th, 2005, 10:50 PM

What's the deal with Eastern Kentucky??

They were good for a long time, now we hardly even know they exist.

89Hen

December 20th, 2005, 11:05 PM

Where would things stand if it started from the time the field expanded to 16 teams?
That's actually not a bad starting point. Going back to the very early days, teams are getting credit for playoff trips before a lot of the 'modern day' powerhouses were even IN I-AA. EKU has to be the best example of a team living on past glory in your stats.

ngineer

December 20th, 2005, 11:09 PM

What's the deal with Eastern Kentucky??

They were good for a long time, now we hardly even know they exist.

So right. We had our butts kicked in 1979 in the finals and then had one hell of a first round rematch in 1980 that went down to the wire. Not much noise of late...

Hansel

December 20th, 2005, 11:10 PM

That's actually not a bad starting point. Going back to the very early days, teams are getting credit for playoff trips before a lot of the 'modern day' powerhouses were even IN I-AA. EKU has to be the best example of a team living on past glory in your stats.
Teams like Nevada, Marshall, Boise etc have also left

It all equals out, however after 07 we should wipe the slate clean ;)

OL FU

December 21st, 2005, 08:26 AM

There are several ways to look at the numbers. If you are interested in the entire history then you go from day one. I do think I should redo for the early days. But if you take out the first 7(?) years you take out the participation by some teams that are still in the hunt. Furman, Delaware, Lehigh, UMASS, Colgate, SC State. On the other hand looking at the total history, then different periods ( last 20,15 ,10 years) would provide an interesting foottnote as to how things have changed.

I guess it does not matter what period you use, it is just an interesting list anyway :)

TypicalTribe

December 21st, 2005, 12:07 PM

Here are the standings for the last 20 years. I have removed the teams that no longer play I-AA football for the sake of comparison going forward.

Apps Qtrs Semis Finals NCs Total
1 GSU 15 13 9 7 5 580
2 YSU 10 7 6 6 4 410
3 Montana 15 8 7 5 2 400
4 Furman 11 7 4 2 1 245
5 Delaware 11 8 4 1 1 235
6 UNI 11 8 5 1 230
7 ASU 13 7 3 1 1 220
8 McNeese 11 6 3 2 200
9 EKU 11 5 3 150
10 WKU 8 5 1 1 1 145
11 JMU 6 3 1 1 1 115
12 SFA 4 3 2 1 100
12 UMass 5 2 1 1 1 100
14 WIU 8 4 1 95
15 W&M 7 3 1 80
16 Colgate 5 1 1 1 70
17 FAMU 6 2 1 65
17 Villanova 6 2 1 65
17 NW St. 6 2 1 65
20 E. Illinois 8 2 60
21 Lehigh 5 3 55
21 EWU 4 2 1 55
21 SHSU 4 2 1 55
24 Hofstra 5 2 45
25 Jackson St 8 40
25 Maine 4 2 40
25 Richmond 4 2 40
25 UNH 4 2 40
29 Samford 2 1 1 35
29 Illinois St 2 1 1 35
31 Murray 4 1 30
31 NC A&T 4 1 30
31 NAU 4 1 30
31 Wofford 1 1 1 30
31 Texas St 1 1 1 30
36 Citadel 3 1 25
36 Tenn St 3 1 25
36 Nichols 3 1 25
36 S. Illinois 3 1 25
40 SW Mo 2 1 20
40 Weber 2 1 20
40 Hampton 4 20
43 Fordham 1 1 15
43 Cal Poly 1 1 15
45 Alcorn 2 10
45 Mont St 2 10
45 BCC 2 10
45 JSU 2 10
45 Lafayette2 10
50 Grambling 1 5
50 Howard 1 5
50 PSU 1 5
50 N'eastern 1 5

OL FU

December 21st, 2005, 12:31 PM

Tribe,

the speadsheet and future responsibility have now been officially transferred to you. When do we see the last 15, 10 and five years.

PS, it would also be good if you could list the number of years in I-AA.

I think you should also put in the conference teams are now participating in, which conference they were in in which year, who their coaches were, I will think of some more in a little.

:D :D :D :D :D

I do think it is a better comparison but I hate to lose 83 and 85 for Furman, it doesn't seem fair :p

TypicalTribe

December 21st, 2005, 12:56 PM

Okay, here's the last 10 years. You'll notice some distinct changes, most notably the free-fall of EKU.

1 GSU 8 6 5 3 2 275
2 Montana 10 5 4 4 1 260
3 Delaware 5 4 3 1 1 150
4 ASU 6 4 2 1 1 140
5 YSU 3 2 2 2 125
5 UNI 4 4 3 1 125
5 Furman 7 4 2 1 125
5 WKU 6 4 1 1 1 125
9 McNeese 6 2 2 2 120
10 Umass 3 2 1 1 1 90
11 W. Illinois 5 4 1 80
12 JMU 2 1 1 1 75
13 Colgate 5 1 1 1 70
14 FAMU 6 2 1 65
15 Villanova 4 2 1 55
15 Lehigh 5 3 55
17 W&M 3 2 1 50
17 EWU 3 2 1 50
17 NW St. 5 1 1 50
20 SHSU 2 2 1 45
21 Hofstra 4 2 40
22 Richmond 3 2 35
22 Illinois St 2 1 1 35
24 UNH 2 2 30
24 Maine 2 2 30
24 NAU 4 1 30
24 Wofford 1 1 1 30
24 Texas St 1 1 1 30
29 E. Illinois 5 25
29 S. Illinois 3 1 25
31 Murray 2 1 20
31 NC A&T 2 1 20
31 Hampton 4 20
34 Fordham 1 1 15
34 Cal Poly 1 1 15
36 Jackson 2 10
36 Tenn St 2 10
36 Nichols 2 10
36 Mont St 2 10
36 BCC 2 10
36 Jax St 2 10
36 Lafayette2 10
43 EKU 1 5
43 PSU 1 5
43 N'eastern 1 5

ngineer

December 21st, 2005, 01:00 PM

Interesting, I thought we'd drop. We were #19 under original list, now #15, since cutting off at 19 years eliminated our Finals appearance in 1979, as well as first round appearance in 1980. HOwever, fact we move up says how many more teams have made playoff appearances over the years...

SunCoastBlueHen

December 21st, 2005, 01:02 PM

TypicalTribe

December 21st, 2005, 01:27 PM

It is certainly impressive how far ahead Georgia Southern and Montana are of everyone else.

Not for long...

Here's the last five years

1 Montana 5 3 2 2 1 145
2 Furman 4 3 2 1 100
3 WKU 4 2 1 1 1 95
3 UNI 3 3 2 1 95
5 ASU 3 2 1 1 1 90
6 Delaware 2 2 1 1 1 85
7 GSU 4 2 2 70
7 JMU 1 1 1 1 1 70
9 McNeese 3 1 1 1 60
10 Colgate 2 1 1 1 55
11 SHSU 2 2 1 45
12 W&M 2 1 1 35
13 Villanova 1 1 1 30
13 UNH 2 2 30
13 Maine 2 2 30
13 Wofford 1 1 1 30
13 Texas St 1 1 1 30
13 W. Illinois 2 2 30
19 S. Illinois 3 1 25
20 Lehigh 2 1 20
20 NAU 2 1 20
20 EWU 2 1 20
23 Richmond 1 1 15
23 E. Illinois 3 15
23 NW St. 3 15
23 Fordham 1 1 15
23 Cal Poly 1 1 15
28 Hampton 2 10
28 Mont St. 2 10
28 BCC 2 10
28 Jax St. 2 10
28 Lafayette2 10
33 Hofstra 1 5
33 FAMU 1 5
33 UMass 1 5
33 NC A&T 1 5
33 Murray 1 5
33 Nichols 1 5
33 N'eastern 1 5

OL FU

December 21st, 2005, 02:30 PM

The ten year and five year are about as I suspected for FU. I am a little surprised at being number 2 for the last five years. I realize that we had a good runin 2001 and a good run this year. But I had assumed that since we had not won the entire thing we would be lower.

My guess is that if you ran a fifteen year, FU would drop further than they did than with the 10 years. 1991 thru 1995 probably would have been our roughest stretch.

OL FU

December 21st, 2005, 02:32 PM

TypicalTribe

December 21st, 2005, 02:56 PM

Realizing that the 16 team field did not start until 1986, other than trending sake, what is the argument to drop the previous years as long as you change the scoring for the years that 8 and then 12 teams participated.

1986 was an easy place to start simply because it's when the tourney went to 16 teams and it means we have 20 years of playoffs to work with.

You could easily make a case to include some of the previous seasons, but when 7 of the 12 teams involved in the 1985 playoffs are either gone from I-AA or no longer playoff-eligible, it's historical relevance is marginalized.

Frankly, I think the last 10 years is the most relevant duration because there has been little change in terms of teams moving up to I-A.

colonel84

December 21st, 2005, 03:52 PM

EKU is still here and continuing its streak of winning seasons to 30+ years!!!!

After enduring a period during the late 80's-early 90's where the admin (president) wanted to downgrade the program to non-scholarship/budget cuts it is getting back on track thanks to hard work of long time coach - Roy Kidd (39 yrs - 315 wins - retired now), new president(s)/AD(s), new/improved facilities, and new coach (Danny Hope - former EKU player).

Last playoff appearance was in '97 - unfortuately have finished 2nd in OVC most years (including this year) and did not get an at-large bid a few times despite going 8-2/8-3.

In my opinion it remains one of the top 25 programs in IAA and will return to the playoff picture next year.

GO COLONELS

89Hen

December 21st, 2005, 10:00 PM

Frankly, I think the last 10 years is the most relevant duration because there has been little change in terms of teams moving up to I-A.
Agreed! 3. Delaware :p

blukeys

December 21st, 2005, 10:21 PM

Realizing that the 16 team field did not start until 1986, other than trending sake, what is the argument to drop the previous years as long as you change the scoring for the years that 8 and then 12 teams participated.

I think I said this before although I can't remember if I did or did not, that making the semis and finals in a 16 team field is much tougher than doing the same in a 4, or 8 team format. (Yes this totally denigrates an awesome 17-0 drubbing of Lousiana Tech in 1982 by Delaware but I still think it is true.)

I believe that winning 4 straight games against playoff level competition is an unbelieveably huge test and is much more of a test than winning 2 games as Florida A&M did in 1978 or winning 3 games as EKU did in 1982 (barely winning 17-14 after running back a blocked field goal attempt for a touchdown).

Why not give the earlier teams credit for winning a first and second round game. This is basically what they did.

I-AA was much smaller in the late 70's and early 80's than it is today.

Tod

December 22nd, 2005, 12:41 AM

Frankly, I think the last 10 years is the most relevant duration because there has been little change in terms of teams moving up to I-A.

Can we make it the last 11 years, so the Griz's '95 championship can count? That would put us at #1. :D :D :D

*****

December 22nd, 2005, 04:15 AM

... You could easily make a case to include some of the previous seasons, but when 7 of the 12 teams involved in the 1985 playoffs are either gone from I-AA or no longer playoff-eligible, it's historical relevance...Yes, historically relevant for sure. Start from day one or else overglorify more recent accomplishments.

ngineer

December 22nd, 2005, 07:30 AM

Yes, historically relevant for sure. Start from day one or else overglorify more recent accomplishments.

Agreed, there Ralph. If it's "HISTORICAL" then include everything. I think we have a few guys on AGS always accusing the other of "rewriting history" in the Lounge political discussions. :D

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 09:14 AM

I think looking at different time frames are interesting and important for trending, but I agree the real point was over the history of I-AA who are them most successful. I also think that the main schedule should include schools that no longer participate. We can take them out for current comparison purposes.

I guess the question becomes how do we score the early years. The 4 and 8 team years - I understand that winning four straight is more impressive than winning two straight. However, I think counting the semi's as a 5 point round one game seems to discount the acheivement a little too much. I don't know how many teams were in I-AA at that time, but if it was the same numbers as today, then it was pretty darn tough to get in the playoffs period. I would suggest and someone else suggested before that the values assigned to the quarters should be the same and semis should be the same 10 and 15 points. The problem was that I (on this spread sheet I think) gave credit for games not played. In other words when FAMU won they got 5 and 10 points for the first rounds and qtrs that did not exist at the time.

12 Team years - I suggest as above except that I think bye teams do get credit for a game they did not play. Other wise it would be unfair to penalize a bye team solely because everyone thought they were good enough to get the bye.

I guess we should see what the consensus is among the three or four of us that care, and look at it that way in the future.

Tribe, after we decide what to do, do you want to maintain going forward?. OR I can change the sheet and send it back to you and you can maintain. Or I can maintain. any way is fine with me, I just think it is an interesting way to look at the history.

blukeys

December 22nd, 2005, 09:22 AM

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 09:24 AM

I know there were far fewer I-AA teams in the lats 70's and early 80's. Delaware held off joining I-AA for 2 years (a mistake in my opinion) due to concerns about the viability of I-AA. How many teams there were I'm not sure.

So how do you think we should score it?

ex. FAMU in 78 gets 5 =qtr 10 = finals and 20 for winning? 35

Me I think 15 qtr 20 finals and 20 =winning 55

89Hen

December 22nd, 2005, 09:32 AM

Start from day one or else overglorify more recent accomplishments.
Most of the powerhouses of the last 10-20 years weren't even in I-AA in the early days and there were many fewer teams. I think if you go back to the beginning, you have to knock down the points for them.

How about something like the NC is worth the number of teams in the field and it is cut in half for each lower round with the first round only being 1 always?...

16 team field: 16 for NC, 8 for semi, 4 for Q's and 1 for 1st round.
12 team field: 12 for NC, 6 for semi, 3 for Q's and 1 for 1st round.
8 team field: 8 for NC, 4 for semi, 1 for 1st round
4 team field: 4 for NC, 1 for first round

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 09:48 AM

Most of the powerhouses of the last 10-20 years weren't even in I-AA in the early days and there were many fewer teams. I think if you go back to the beginning, you have to knock down the points for them.

How about something like the NC is worth the number of teams in the field and it is cut in half for each lower round with the first round only being 1 always?...

16 team field: 16 for NC, 8 for semi, 4 for Q's and 1 for 1st round.
12 team field: 12 for NC, 6 for semi, 3 for Q's and 1 for 1st round.
8 team field: 8 for NC, 4 for semi, 1 for 1st round
4 team field: 4 for NC, 1 for first round

I think blending or weight the numbers downward for the 4,8 and 12 team years is appropriate. But Ithink th first round needs to be worth more than 1 point. While I can understand it being less than one half of the qtrs, mainly because a list rating success in the playoffs should provide more credit for "success" in the playoffs, I think a 1 and 4 ratio may be little low.

What do you do with byes?

TypicalTribe

December 22nd, 2005, 10:40 AM

I think blending or weight the numbers downward for the 4,8 and 12 team years is appropriate. But Ithink th first round needs to be worth more than 1 point. While I can understand it being less than one half of the qtrs, mainly because a list rating success in the playoffs should provide more credit for "success" in the playoffs, I think a 1 and 4 ratio may be little low.

What do you do with byes?

In terms of the byes in the 12 team field, I think those teams should get credit for a 1st round appearance if they lose, not a quarterfinal appearance, because they didn't win a game and I have no idea what the rationale was behind the awarding of byes. We're trying to account for playoff success, which mean appearances and winning games. Frankly, if you got a bye and got to rest up a week and still lost, then why should you deserve the quarterfinal appearance bonus?

TypicalTribe

December 22nd, 2005, 10:48 AM

Yes, historically relevant for sure. Start from day one or else overglorify more recent accomplishments.

I don't think anyone's trying to overglorify anything, Ralph. However, as others have said, there is clearly a difference between winning a 16-team playoff versus a 4, 8 or even 12-team one when the I-AA world was a lot sparser. The achievement is still just as meaningful, but it has to be weighted a little differently.

TypicalTribe

December 22nd, 2005, 10:51 AM

Tribe, after we decide what to do, do you want to maintain going forward?. OR I can change the sheet and send it back to you and you can maintain. Or I can maintain. any way is fine with me, I just think it is an interesting way to look at the history.

I have no problem maintaining this going forward. It's an interesting exercise, especially trying to figure out how to weight the early years.

Last question: Would it be useful at all to adjust the weighting for wins/losses based on where the games were played, i.e. at home or on the road? In other words, should JMU get a few more points for their run last year than a team who wins all three games at home on the way to the final?

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 11:11 AM

I have no problem maintaining this going forward. It's an interesting exercise, especially trying to figure out how to weight the early years.

Last question: Would it be useful at all to adjust the weighting for wins/losses based on where the games were played, i.e. at home or on the road? In other words, should JMU get a few more points for their run last year than a team who wins all three games at home on the way to the final?

I don't think so. There is no doubt that was an accomplishment but once you start getting into that many different criteria you can add forever. At the risk of peeing someone off, you could then start looking at strength of opponents. For example you could say, 2004 Furman should get less credit because they played the OCV champ and maybe more credit because they lost to the eventual champion.

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 11:15 AM

In terms of the byes in the 12 team field, I think those teams should get credit for a 1st round appearance if they lose, not a quarterfinal appearance, because they didn't win a game and I have no idea what the rationale was behind the awarding of byes. We're trying to account for playoff success, which mean appearances and winning games. Frankly, if you got a bye and got to rest up a week and still lost, then why should you deserve the quarterfinal appearance bonus?

But the way the schedule is set up you get credit for being in a game, you get credit for winning by getting credit for the next game. A team with a bye may have won the first round game if they had not received the bye so you are penalizing them for receiving the bye. Ain't this fun.

Let's start with the 16 team. I like 89's idea just don't like the number.

How about the following for rounds.

Round one 2
quarters 5
semis 10
finals 15
winning 20

TypicalTribe

December 22nd, 2005, 11:20 AM

I don't think so. There is no doubt that was an accomplishment but once you start getting into that many different criteria you can add forever. At the risk of peeing someone off, you could then start looking at strength of opponents. For example you could say, 2004 Furman should get less credit because they played the OCV champ and maybe more credit because they lost to the eventual champion.

I agree that it could lead to adding other metrics, but I thought it would be an interesting idea just to give a few bonus points for winning on the road. I think I might play around with some things along those lines just to see. I don't think it would impact the rankings much, but I'd like to know.

GSUBass

December 22nd, 2005, 11:21 AM

Not for long...

Here's the last five years

Let's not remind the GSU people of the last 5 years... :nonono2:

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 11:42 AM

I agree that it could lead to adding other metrics, but I thought it would be an interesting idea just to give a few bonus points for winning on the road. I think I might play around with some things along those lines just to see. I don't think it would impact the rankings much, but I'd like to know.

Well go with what ever works best for OL FU :D

TypicalTribe

December 22nd, 2005, 12:25 PM

But the way the schedule is set up you get credit for being in a game, you get credit for winning by getting credit for the next game. A team with a bye may have won the first round game if they had not received the bye so you are penalizing them for receiving the bye. Ain't this fun.

Let's start with the 16 team. I like 89's idea just don't like the number.

How about the following for rounds.

Round one 2
quarters 5
semis 10
finals 15
winning 20

How about this?

12 team field
Teams that get byes, don't get 5 points for playoff appearance, but do get the 10 point credit for the quarters, win or lose.
70 total points if team wins 4 games for NC; 65 points if they get a 1st round bye

8 team field
5 point for first round
10 points for semis
15 points for finals
20 points for winning title
50 total points for winning the NC

4 team field
10 points for semis
15 points for finals
15 points for winning title
40 total points for winning the NC

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 12:34 PM

How about this?

12 team field
Teams that get byes, don't get 5 points for playoff appearance, but do get the 10 point credit for the quarters, win or lose.
70 total points if team wins 4 games for NC; 65 points if they get a 1st round bye

8 team field
5 point for first round
10 points for semis
15 points for finals
20 points for winning title
50 total points for winning the NC

4 team field
10 points for semis
15 points for finals
15 points for winning title
40 total points for winning the NC

That works for me. Seems as fair as any. To some degree what ever is selected is going to be somewhat arbitrary. But once we (you and me) decide we should stick with it.

If you come up with a way that lowers Georgia Southern or Appalachian State's points that would work too :D

TypicalTribe

December 22nd, 2005, 12:37 PM

That works for me. Seems as fair as any. To some degree what ever is selected is going to be somewhat arbitrary. But once we (you and me) decide we should stick with it.

If you come up with a way that lowers Georgia Southern or Appalachian State's points that would work too :D

Your boys still have a pretty decent lead on ASU, but there's not much you can do about the team from Statesboro, except win 7 titles in a row while they miss the playoffs every year.

OL FU

December 22nd, 2005, 02:30 PM

Your boys still have a pretty decent lead on ASU, but there's not much you can do about the team from Statesboro, except win 7 titles in a row while they miss the playoffs every year.

My Christmas wish :D

GannonFan

December 22nd, 2005, 02:45 PM

Looks pretty good - and adjusting the numbers based on size of the playoff pool is probably useful as well - it still includes all the years in IAA but it does reflect the reality that in the very early years of IAA the landscape was very different (and much smaller) than it is today.

skinny_uncle

December 25th, 2005, 08:27 PM

igo4uni

December 25th, 2005, 08:59 PM

TypicalTribe

December 26th, 2005, 10:10 AM

Now I understand. Statistics don't lie, statisticians do. By introducing variables that make one's team look better, one can probably "prove" just about anything.

http://davidmlane.com/ben/mathclub.gif

What exactly do you have a problem with? How can you give equal weight to playoffs that have less than 16 teams? Take the 4 team playoff, for example. How far removed from the current BCS formula was that. They basically just picked four teams, without schedule strength rankings and such and let them play for a title. There's no way to treat that the same as having to navigate four rounds of a national playoff, asteams have had to do for the last 20 years.

Frankly, OL FU and I have tried to do this with as little variability as possible.

*****

December 26th, 2005, 02:38 PM

... How can you give equal weight to playoffs that have less than 16 teams?...How about you give one point for a win and two points for a title win? Byes=0

This year:
ASU: 5
UNI: 3
TxST: 2
FU: 2
UNH: 1
CP: 1
UR: 1
SIU: 1

1978:
FAMU: 3
UMass: 1

1981:
EKU: 4
ISU: 2
Boise St.: 1
SCSU: 1

Purple Knight

December 26th, 2005, 04:06 PM

I think just being in the playoffs is the 1st level of success and is not being rewarded. Does the statement '... have been to the playoffs 14 of the last 15 years...' have any meaning?

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 08:14 AM

How about you give one point for a win and two points for a title win? Byes=0

This year:
ASU: 5
UNI: 3
TxST: 2
FU: 2
UNH: 1
CP: 1
UR: 1
SIU: 1

1978:
FAMU: 3
UMass: 1

1981:
EKU: 4
ISU: 2
Boise St.: 1
SCSU: 1

I think getting to the playoffs has to get some credit.

PS I like the avatar

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 08:16 AM

Now I understand. Statistics don't lie, statisticians do. By introducing variables that make one's team look better, one can probably "prove" just about anything.

http://davidmlane.com/ben/mathclub.gif\

Were you joking around? (then give me a smiley face) :D

If not give us a suggestion :rolleyes: :D As TTribe said, we are trying to do this correctly not with a bias.

TypicalTribe

December 27th, 2005, 11:07 AM

How about you give one point for a win and two points for a title win? Byes=0

This year:
ASU: 5
UNI: 3
TxST: 2
FU: 2
UNH: 1
CP: 1
UR: 1
SIU: 1

1978:
FAMU: 3
UMass: 1

1981:
EKU: 4
ISU: 2
Boise St.: 1
SCSU: 1

Then you're giving equal weight to a 1st round win and a semifinal win, which I think most of the people here would disagree with.

Purple Knight

December 27th, 2005, 12:23 PM

But the way the schedule is set up you get credit for being in a game, you get credit for winning by getting credit for the next game. A team with a bye may have won the first round game if they had not received the bye so you are penalizing them for receiving the bye. Ain't this fun.

Let's start with the 16 team. I like 89's idea just don't like the number.

How about the following for rounds.

Round one 2
quarters 5
semis 10
finals 15
winning 20

If a team wins the NC one year, they get a total of 52 points. Lets say this is the first time to playoffs.

Is their success greater than:

Getting in playoffs 3 yrs and making it to the semis = 17 X 3 = 51 points?

Getting in playoffs 7 yrs and making it to quarters = 7 x 7 = 49 points?

Getting in playoffs 26 yrs and one & done = 2 X 26 = 52 points?

You've got to see what the numbers produce and add subjective interpretation to get reasonable results.

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 12:41 PM

If a team wins the NC one year, they get a total of 52 points. Lets say this is the first time to playoffs.

Is their success greater than:

Getting in playoffs 3 yrs and making it to the semis = 17 X 3 = 51 points?

Getting in playoffs 7 yrs and making it to quarters = 7 x 7 = 49 points?

Getting in playoffs 26 yrs and one & done = 2 X 26 = 52 points?

You've got to see what the numbers produce and add subjective interpretation to get reasonable results.

In one year and winning it all compared to three years in the semi's - my answer would be yes. I think winning the entire thing is that important. My original scoring was 5 10 15 20 and 20 which means that the NC winner gets 70 points and making it to the semis get's 50 points. However, If I had to chose I would stick with my original point system.

*****

December 27th, 2005, 03:37 PM

Then you're giving equal weight to a 1st round win and a semifinal win, which I think most of the people here would disagree with.Yes equal weight for the first three games.

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 03:42 PM

Yes equal weight for the first three games.

So you don't think a qtr final game has more value than a first roung and a semi more value that a quarter?

*****

December 27th, 2005, 03:53 PM

So you don't think a qtr final game has more value than a first roung and a semi more value that a quarter?Nope. You have to win the game period.

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 03:54 PM

Nope. You have to win the game period.

We may have to put this on up to a vote.

how many votes do you get? :D

Not your posts # :p

*****

December 27th, 2005, 04:01 PM

So you don't think a qtr final game has more value than a first roung and a semi more value that a quarter?Why should it have more value? Was App beating Lafayette any less value then beating SIU and Furman?

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 04:16 PM

Why should it have more value? Was App beating Lafayette any less value then beating SIU and Furman?

I think getting two or three wins in the playoff is more valuable than winning one, yes. I think it has exponential (sp) value. 8 teams win one, only four win two, ony two win three. So yes I would say that ASU beating SIU was more valuable than beating Lafayette. The idea is to measure programs by their playoff histories.

Also, I would suggest that getting in the playoffs, whether you win or not, has value. Lafayette has been in the playoffs two years in a row. They have not won a game but certainly that deserves some points over Georgetown that has not been in.

*****

December 27th, 2005, 04:55 PM

I think getting two or three wins in the playoff is more valuable than winning one, yes. I think it has exponential (sp) value. 8 teams win one, only four win two, ony two win three. So yes I would say that ASU beating SIU was more valuable than beating Lafayette. The idea is to measure programs by their playoff histories.

Also, I would suggest that getting in the playoffs, whether you win or not, has value. Lafayette has been in the playoffs two years in a row. They have not won a game but certainly that deserves some points over Georgetown that has not been in.Never said anything about getting in the playoffs but you have to measure playoff success by wins. The only win that has more value than the others is the champ game IMO. :twocents:

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Never said anything about getting in the playoffs but you have to measure playoff success by wins. The only win that has more value than the others is the champ game IMO. :twocents:

I need to come up with a set of logical poll questions to get to the appropriate values of the AGS members. That will be my self assign duty of the next week or so :D

*****

December 27th, 2005, 05:11 PM

So Jackson State gets more value by being in the playoffs twelve times but not ever winning than a team that has only been once but won a game? :confused:

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 05:19 PM

So Jackson State gets more value by being in the playoffs twelve times but not ever winning than a team that has only been once but won a game? :confused:

Nothings perfect, I will ask the question the other way. So Lafayette gets no credit for being in the playoffs for the last two years, but next year or the next year, Georgetown gets in and wins a game they do? I understand the point about not winning, but if you get there you should get something.

That's why I think a good measure might be to give less points for the first game. Instead of 5, 10 , 15 , 20 Maybe it is 1. 5, 10, 15. ?

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 05:43 PM

Ralph, you don't like my idea of getting a consensus of all of our experts.

oh Yeah, You and I are talking about this aren't we? :smiley_wi

*****

December 27th, 2005, 05:45 PM

The spreadsheet I have has a list of teams that made the playoffs then 1-2-3-4 points for opening-quarters-semis-finals wins. If you don't win you get on the list at least.

OL FU

December 27th, 2005, 05:49 PM

The spreadsheet I have has a list of teams that made the playoffs then 1-2-3-4 points for opening-quarters-semis-finals wins. If you don't win you get on the list at least.

Can we see the results?

TypicalTribe

December 27th, 2005, 10:27 PM

Never said anything about getting in the playoffs but you have to measure playoff success by wins. The only win that has more value than the others is the champ game IMO. :twocents:

How can you say this and believe it? So, the first three wins are all the same, but then the championship game means more? I'm sorry, but that's illogical. Each game that gets you closer to a title means more. The reason a semifinal win should count more than a first round win is that there are often relatively easy first round wins, especially for seeded teams. However, I don't think there's anything close to an easy semifinal win.

TypicalTribe

December 27th, 2005, 10:31 PM

So Jackson State gets more value by being in the playoffs twelve times but not ever winning than a team that has only been once but won a game? :confused:

Yes, absolutely. All of us who are fans of I-AA preach the importance of the playoffs and how anyone can win the title once the get in. Well, isn't getting in the first requirement? Just making the playoffs in a year is a significant accomplishment for many schools. Jackson State making it 12 times is a tremendous achievement for that school. It certainly deserves more credit than a school making it once and happening to win a game.

skinny_uncle

December 27th, 2005, 10:44 PM

How can you say this and believe it? So, the first three wins are all the same, but then the championship game means more? I'm sorry, but that's illogical. Each game that gets you closer to a title means more. The reason a semifinal win should count more than a first round win is that there are often relatively easy first round wins, especially for seeded teams. However, I don't think there's anything close to an easy semifinal win.
There's no such thing as an easy playoff win normally. Getting to the playoff is hard enough to do to deserve credit. Any playoff win deserves credit. How you manipulate the credit for each achievement is probably done is the way that gives your school the most credit. That was the point of mye earlier post.

Now I understand. Statistics don't lie, statisticians do. By introducing variables that make one's team look better, one can probably "prove" just about anything.

http://davidmlane.com/ben/mathclub.gif

*****

December 28th, 2005, 12:28 AM

There's no such thing as an easy playoff win...Exactly. With the top 16 teams how can you say a playoff win is "often relatively easy" at all? The reason the Champ game matters is because it is the last game and for the title!

*****

December 28th, 2005, 12:31 AM

... The reason a semifinal win should count more than a first round win is that there are often relatively easy first round wins, especially for seeded teams. However, I don't think there's anything close to an easy semifinal win.Tell Hampton about opening round games against unseeded teams. Tell UNH about quarterfinal games against unseeded teams. Tell Texas State about semifinal games against unseeded teams. Tell ASU about games against unseeded teams. Were any of those "relatively easy" wins?

blukeys

December 28th, 2005, 01:47 AM

Tell Hampton about opening round games against unseeded teams. Tell UNH about quarterfinal games against unseeded teams. Tell Texas State about semifinal games against unseeded teams. Tell ASU about games against unseeded teams. Were any of those "relatively easy" wins?

Not fair Ralph. As you know since 2001 only 4 teams get seeded each year. UNI was a Conference Champ and unseeded!!!!. Given the choice I would have given a seed to UNI over Hampton in a NEW YORK MINUTE. :hyped:
The Gateway is a much better conference than the MEAC. Hampton did not deserve a top 4 seed. In my poll voting I NEVER had Hampton in the top 4 and I only had them as high as they were due to other teams losing.

There have been easy wins in the I-AA playoffs (Delaware over Portland State in 2000 comes to mind and I won't bother to mention '03) although I will concede that in 2004 and 2005 there have been no gimme's in the playoffs.

For the point of this thread I believe that a semifinal win should be worth more than a first round win. The teams making it to the final rounds have demonstrated that they are better. Maybe, they are not better by a whole lot but they are better. These teams should be rewarded.

For the Record I think this whole thread initiated by Ol FU is nothing but an attempt to sneak Furman past Delaware in these rankings. Ol FU will manipulate the statistics in any way to move Furman up to number 6 or 7 or whatever. He will play with the numbers till Furman passes Delaware (IS there a bonus for winning an NC in a year ending in 8? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )

By the way I have no problem with this. Furman needs to live on their past glories. :D This is the last year any of us can order an Ingle Martini at Crapsville!!!! ;) ;) :xmas: :xmas: :xmas: :xmas:

OL FU

December 28th, 2005, 08:24 AM

bluekeys :p

Go drink your Slow Hen Fizz and save the the Jack for me.

TypicalTribe

December 28th, 2005, 10:52 AM

Exactly. With the top 16 teams how can you say a playoff win is "often relatively easy" at all?

I can say that because the 16 playoff teams are not the "Top 16" teams and this year was a perfect case in point. The automatic bid system basically guarantees this to be the case year in and year out. Colgate did not belong on the field with UNH, EIU got beaten up by an unspectacular SIU team and Hampton was clearly outclassed by Richmond. Also, Nicholls State and Lafayette were eliminated by less than stellar efforts by Furman and ASU.

So, yes, I do believe that there are often first round games that are relatively easy. And I also believe the road gets harder every round, as UNH and Richmond clearly found out in the quarters and Texas State learned in the semis.

TypicalTribe

December 28th, 2005, 10:56 AM

There's no such thing as an easy playoff win normally. Getting to the playoff is hard enough to do to deserve credit. Any playoff win deserves credit. How you manipulate the credit for each achievement is probably done is the way that gives your school the most credit. That was the point of mye earlier post.

I went to W&M. The Tribe has been to the playoffs 7 times, advanced to the quarters three times and the semis once. Frankly, there's no way I can manipulate the numbers to make them magically jump up the charts. I'm in this to try to come up with the fairest, most logical way to assess the playoff success of I-AA football schools. Pure and simple.

As for OL FU, I don't really get the sense he's in this just to improve Furman's historical standing.

OL FU

December 28th, 2005, 11:03 AM

I went to W&M. The Tribe has been to the playoffs 7 times, advanced to the quarters three times and the semis once. Frankly, there's no way I can manipulate the numbers to make them magically jump up the charts. I'm in this to try to come up with the fairest, most logical way to assess the playoff success of I-AA football schools. Pure and simple.

As for OL FU, I don't really get the sense he's in this just to improve Furman's historical standing.

bluekeys was just messing w/me because he knows Furman's program over the last 25 years has been far superior to Delaware :smiley_wi
He is also jealous of Furman's very handsome helmets. :nod:

I think we count first round games and give higher values to later rounds.

Ralph, can you show us the results of your spreadsheet?