NCAA to Once Again Use CSN's GPI <---- begins next week

[CSN-info]

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=578&d=1265066506

NCAA to Once Again Use CSN's GPI

The NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee has once again extended an invitation to College Sporting News to have our Gridiron Power Index (GPI) used as a tool for the selection of teams for the 2011 NCAA Division I Football Championship. The GPI has been used ever since the NCAA began utilizing outside methods in 2008. ...

Read More (http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?517-NCAA-to-Once-Again-Use-CSN-s-GPI)

[danefan]

Please clarify your statement:

Is the NCAA going to use the CSN GPI?

Or as in years past, is the NCAA requiring complete gut modification of CSN's GPI (i.e., removal of everything except Massey Ratings, Ashburn Rankings,
Self Rankings and the Laz Index and the additional of Wolfe Rankings)?

[CSN-info]

Hello and thank you for your interest in the College Sporting News Gridiron Power Index! Check out the article. (http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?517-NCAA-to-Once-Again-Use-CSN-s-GPI) Indeed the NCAA extended the invitation to use the CSN "GPI" as a tool for the selection of teams for the 2011 NCAA Division I Football Championship. CSN accepted for the fourth straight season and we are looking forward to an exciting race to the playoffs!

[danefan]

Hello and thank you for your interest in the College Sporting News Gridiron Power Index! Check out the article. (http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?517-NCAA-to-Once-Again-Use-CSN-s-GPI) Indeed the NCAA extended the invitation to use the CSN "GPI" as a tool for the selection of teams for the 2011 NCAA Division I Football Championship. CSN accepted for the fourth straight season and we are looking forward to an exciting race to the playoffs!

The article doesn't answer my question.

Is the NCAA using the full GPI that includes, among other components that were previously excluded, the AGS poll?

Or, in the alternative, as was the case in years past, is the NCAA using a version of the GPI that only includes Massey, Ashburn, Self, Laz and Wolfe?

If the latter, I suggest clarifying your article to note that the GPI that CSN releases to the public weekly is not the same GPI used by h NCAA for purposes of the bridge AQ only. If not, one could imply that CSN is intemtionally misleading readers in an attempt to falsely credit the GPI released weekly.

[Twentysix]

Dude don't argue with intelebot.

[eaglesrthe1]

There won't be a response to that specific question, just a blanket response if any.

[Skjellyfetti]

Or as in years past, is the NCAA requiring complete gut modification of CSN's GPI (i.e., removal of everything except Massey Ratings, Ashburn Rankings,
Self Rankings and the Laz Index and the additional of Wolfe Rankings)?

NCAA didn't use ANY external poll last year.


External polls and computer rankings are not factored into our decisions.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/2009-11-18/ncca6

So, statements like this:

The GPI has been used ever since the NCAA began utilizing outside methods in 2008.

Seem like complete bull**** to me. xcoffeex

[danefan]

NCAA didn't use ANY external poll last year.


http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/2009-11-18/ncca6

So, statements like this:


Seem like complete bull**** to me. xcoffeex

External polls are part of the "Bridge AQ" for the PFL

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf

1. 8 DI wins
2. 2 wins over teams from AQ leagues
3. Average ranking of 20 or higher in (a) the TSN poll, (b) the Coaches Poll and (c) a modified GPI using only Massey, Ashburn, Self, Laz and Wolfe.

But since no one met the first two, the third was a non factor.

[Twentysix]

External polls are part of the "Bridge AQ" for the PFL

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf

1. 8 DI wins
2. 2 wins over teams from AQ leagues
3. Average ranking of 20 or higher in (a) the TSN poll, (b) the Coaches Poll and (c) a modified GPI using only Massey, Ashburn, Self, Laz and Wolfe.

But since no one met the first two, the third was a non factor.

Is that for serious? Cannot tell if should laugh or laugh.

[danefan]

Is that for serious? Cannot tell if should laugh or laugh.

That applies to any league that applied for an AQ and was rejected. The PFL is the only league. If a PFL team meets they criteria and they win the PFL, the committee has to give them a bid.

[Twentysix]

That applies to any league that applied for an AQ and was rejected. The PFL is the only league. If a PFL team meets they criteria and they win the PFL, the committee has to give them a bid.

Sounds like they do have an AQ to me then.....so confused. Schedule appropriately and win your games?

[Twentysix]

Didn't jacksonville meet that requirement? ODU and Morehead st are both from AQ conferences.

And they won their conference and had over 8 DI wins to boot.


EDIT: I see that moreheadstate is a pioneer team, I thought they were OVC for some reason.

[danefan]

Didn't jacksonville meet that requirement? ODU and Morehead st are both from AQ conferences.

And they won their conference and had over 8 DI wins to boot.


EDIT: I see that moreheadstate is a pioneer team, I thought they were OVC for some reason.

And ODU was not part of the CAAFootball conference last year.

[danefan]

Sounds like they do have an AQ to me then.....so confused. Schedule appropriately and win your games?

Still reliant on polls though. Have you seen the Coaches poll? It's terrible.

[Twentysix]

And ODU was not part of the CAAFootball conference last year.

Hmm, doesnt sound unreasonable. If your goal is playoffs schedule some NEC teams or OVC teams or even patriot league teams :S.

Jacksonville should play georgetown and someone else. Why would they schedule app???

[danefan]

Hmm, doesnt sound unreasonable. If your goal is playoffs schedule some NEC teams or OVC teams or even patriot league teams :S.

Jacksonville should play georgetown and someone else. Why would they schedule app???

Beating the likes of St Francis and Georgtown and then winning the PFL has in the past shown not to be enough to get you high enough in the human or computer rankings to qualify under th bridge. The PFL league schedule is so weak that the computer rankings kill the teams.

[Dane96]

True, that AQ bridge would have only been good to teams in the Big South, NEC and PFL who played top league teams...beat them...and ran their conference.

For example, in a year when UA had some tough games (Delaware, Hofstra, Brown) on the schedule...if they beat two of those three..run their schedule in conference, their would have been "hope" they would get in based on the formula Danefan presented.

[WileECoyote06]

Hmm, doesnt sound unreasonable. If your goal is playoffs schedule some NEC teams or OVC teams or even patriot league teams :S.

Jacksonville should play georgetown and someone else. Why would they schedule app???

Keep telling yall. . . scheduling is all about the conferences with all the cards. Who is going to possibly sabotage their own possible at-large playoff berth by scheduling a game against a team that may very well beat them?

If a team is nowhere near the playoffs, the secondary criteria is attendance (money). You can make more scheduling a team from within your geographic region, who may have fans that travel. Bethune-Cookman has no reason to play them either, as a loss can affect recruiting. FAMU doesn't have room on its schedule. Jacksonville State has no compelling reason to play them either.

[bluehenbillk]

I'm glad that the GPI (BCS' bastard little brother) Public Relations Department has dropped their tagline of being the most accurate predictor of at-large berths in the FCS tourney since that hasn't been the case for at least a couple of years running.

Using computer data is still ludicrous in my mind when in past years you've had the sabermatricians that run these things: 1) change the way the computer is formulating data mid-way through the season & 2) admit that they're own data isn't coming out the way they want it.

Again, the GPI (the BCS' bastard little brother) is only good for one thing, extra toilet paper.

That is all.

[youwouldno]

I'm glad that the GPI (BCS' bastard little brother) Public Relations Department has dropped their tagline of being the most accurate predictor of at-large berths in the FCS tourney since that hasn't been the case for at least a couple of years running.

Using computer data is still ludicrous in my mind when in past years you've had the sabermatricians that run these things: 1) change the way the computer is formulating data mid-way through the season & 2) admit that they're own data isn't coming out the way they want it.

Again, the GPI (the BCS' bastard little brother) is only good for one thing, extra toilet paper.

That is all.

There is nothing sabermetic about the GPI or the people behind it. Throwing random crap together doesn't make someone a statistician. There are some good computer rankings though; by the end of the season Sagarin is pretty solid.

[danefan]

The article doesn't answer my question.

Is the NCAA using the full GPI that includes, among other components that were previously excluded, the AGS poll?

Or, in the alternative, as was the case in years past, is the NCAA using a version of the GPI that only includes Massey, Ashburn, Self, Laz and Wolfe?

If the latter, I suggest clarifying your article to note that the GPI that CSN releases to the public weekly is not the same GPI used by h NCAA for purposes of the bridge AQ only. If not, one could imply that CSN is intemtionally misleading readers in an attempt to falsely credit the GPI released weekly.

Bump for CSN so my question doesn't get lost......

[URMite]

Danefan,

So the NCAA removes AGS, Keeper (who I think posts here), Sagarin (that some here refer to), ARC, & BRN.

Adds Wolfe.

Increases the weight of the Media & Coaches polls by >150% (from 1/8 to 1/3), while reducing each computer rating weight by about half (from 1/8 to 1/15)?

Am I getting that right?xeyebrowx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Danefan,

So the NCAA removes AGS, Keeper (who I think posts here), Sagarin (that some here refer to), ARC, & BRN.

Adds Wolfe.

Increases the weight of the Media & Coaches polls by >150% (from 1/8 to 1/3), while reducing each computer rating weight by about half (from 1/8 to 1/15)?

Am I getting that right?xeyebrowx

I do not believe CSN uses the AGS Poll anymore anyway but I could be wrong on that. I think Ralph ditched even publishing it at this point but I haven't checked it out.

[danefan]

Danefan,

So the NCAA removes AGS, Keeper (who I think posts here), Sagarin (that some here refer to), ARC, & BRN.

Adds Wolfe.

Increases the weight of the Media & Coaches polls by >150% (from 1/8 to 1/3), while reducing each computer rating weight by about half (from 1/8 to 1/15)?

Am I getting that right?xeyebrowx

That's how it worked in past years. So in other words CSN uses its spreadsheet, guts its, inputs what the NCAA wants and emails the results to the Committee, which then only uses it if the winner of the PFL (or NEC or Big South prior to 2010), has 8 DI wins, including 2 over AQ conference teams.

My above posts are aimed at trying to get some clarity from CSN as to how its working this year, but as you can tell in the above thread, they do not want to answer.

[danefan]

The article doesn't answer my question.

Is the NCAA using the full GPI that includes, among other components that were previously excluded, the AGS poll?

Or, in the alternative, as was the case in years past, is the NCAA using a version of the GPI that only includes Massey, Ashburn, Self, Laz and Wolfe?

If the latter, I suggest clarifying your article to note that the GPI that CSN releases to the public weekly is not the same GPI used by h NCAA for purposes of the bridge AQ only. If not, one could imply that CSN is intemtionally misleading readers in an attempt to falsely credit the GPI released weekly.

Bump again.

Sorry everyone else, but until CSN answers the questions I'm going to continue to bump this thread every day, with Ursus' permission of course.

If you are going to proclaim to be part of the "official" NCAA selection criteria, I think you should be able to easily answer the question.

[Dane96]

xnodx

xasswhipx

xpopcornx

[GannonFan]

Bump again.

Sorry everyone else, but until CSN answers the questions I'm going to continue to bump this thread every day, with Ursus' permission of course.

If you are going to proclaim to be part of the "official" NCAA selection criteria, I think you should be able to easily answer the question.

Hey, more power to you. If they only use it in the way you describe, i.e. a greatly modified version and then only when determining if the PFL gets a team in, then yes, the initial posting from CSN was clearly way over the top and bordering on intentionally misleading and incorrect (well, not really bordering, but they took great liberties with the wording). Bump away!

[Twentysix]

Keep telling yall. . . scheduling is all about the conferences with all the cards. Who is going to possibly sabotage their own possible at-large playoff berth by scheduling a game against a team that may very well beat them?

If a team is nowhere near the playoffs, the secondary criteria is attendance (money). You can make more scheduling a team from within your geographic region, who may have fans that travel. Bethune-Cookman has no reason to play them either, as a loss can affect recruiting. FAMU doesn't have room on its schedule. Jacksonville State has no compelling reason to play them either.

I would play a PFL team as our cupcake... even their conference favorite....

Jacksonville lost to WIU, WIU is terrrrrrrrrrible this year. Wait, no maybe I wouldn't. Decisions.

Schedule jacksonville for a 10 for 1 imo, save us about 2.5 million.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Hey, more power to you. If they only use it in the way you describe, i.e. a greatly modified version and then only when determining if the PFL gets a team in, then yes, the initial posting from CSN was clearly way over the top and bordering on intentionally misleading and incorrect (well, not really bordering, but they took great liberties with the wording). Bump away!

I think there is truth in what Dane is saying but there is truth in what CSN says as well. With both of them, or with DF asking the questions we could have a clearer understanding of how it really works.

Maybe CSN Info. just hasn't seen this but I'm not sold on that one really.

We have the news feeds area for things like this. If CSN Info. wants to start a discussion thread then he should be willing to discuss the material to clarify it for all of us that read.

Otherwise we'll have to make sure that the only area that CSN Info. can post threads is in the news feeds forum if that is all we are gonna get here.

I certainly don't mind CSN promoting things on here but either discuss it or put it where it belongs if it just for one way information.

[CSN-info]

Hello everyone. The article says it all, nearly a direct quote from the NCAA announcement. Nothing to hide, clarify, or define. Have a great time this weekend and the GPI will be here on Monday!

PS. CSN doesn't post on the news feeds forums. Those are articles that AGS selects to have there from CSN. They do not select everything (like many articles and blogs) so we do post some things here (not everything). The GPI has been a part of FCS for over a decade so we posted the notice here.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Hello everyone. The article says it all, nearly a direct quote from the NCAA announcement. Nothing to hide, clarify, or define. Have a great time this weekend and the GPI will be here on Monday!

PS. CSN doesn't post on the news feeds forums. Those are articles that AGS selects to have there from CSN. They do not select everything (like many articles and blogs) so we do post some things here (not everything). The GPI has been a part of FCS for over a decade so we posted the notice here.

Yes and that's cool and all and good job with it but the main point was that someone wanted to inquire about it and you answer with "The article says it all" instead of just informing and clarifying. That kind of says it all.

I figured DaneFan had a portion of it correct but apparently there is nothing he says to refute.

[danefan]

Hello everyone. The article says it all, nearly a direct quote from the NCAA announcement. Nothing to hide, clarify, or define. Have a great time this weekend and the GPI will be here on Monday!

PS. CSN doesn't post on the news feeds forums. Those are articles that AGS selects to have there from CSN. They do not select everything (like many articles and blogs) so we do post some things here (not everything). The GPI has been a part of FCS for over a decade so we posted the notice here.

Thank you for changing your article to clarify.

I assume then, unless you indicate otherwise that in 2011 (like in 2010), the NCAA Selection Committee will ONLY officially use the a modified GPI including Massey, Ashburn, Self, Laz and Wolfe.

This will ONLY be used as one of the three prongs for the Bridge AQ that ONLY applies to determine whether the winner of the PFL is entitled to an AQ.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Thank you for changing your article to clarify.

I assume then, unless you indicate otherwise that in 2011 (like in 2010), the NCAA Selection Committee will ONLY officially use the a modified GPI including Massey, Ashburn, Self, Laz and Wolfe.

This will ONLY be used as one of the three prongs for the Bridge AQ that ONLY applies to determine whether the winner of the PFL is entitled to an AQ.

I think that is what they officially use it for DF but they do give it to them every week of the season and we all know that even if they don't officially use it. They have it there and they use it at least for reference.

I'd also like to say thanks for changing the article so it reads more clearly and has the content now. Of course you could have just said that you change the article to clarify these points as opposed to intimating that it had been there the whole time.

[danefan]

I think that is what they officially use it for DF but they do give it to them every week of the season and we all know that even if they don't officially use it. They have it there and they use it at least for reference.

I'd also like to say thanks for changing the article so it reads more clearly and has the content now. Of course you could have just said that you change the article to clarify these points as opposed to intimating that it had been there the whole time.

Do we know that the Committee gets the full GPI every week and uses it?

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/2009-11-18/ncca6




John McCutcheon: That is a great question. The criteria we use to evaluate which teams get the top seeds are the same as those used to determine which teams get an at-large bid. Those are overall won-loss record, strength of schedule and quality of wins. External polls and computer rankings are not factored into our decisions. We also consider the input received by the regional advisory committees.

[CSN-info]

I think that is what they officially use it for DF but they do give it to them every week of the season and we all know that even if they don't officially use it. They have it there and they use it at least for reference.

I'd also like to say thanks for changing the article so it reads more clearly and has the content now. Of course you could have just said that you change the article to clarify these points as opposed to intimating that it had been there the whole time.

Hi everybody! We didn't change the article at all. It is an older article and has been online a while. We are glad that once you read it, you enjoyed it! We only referenced it here as a reminder that the GPI starts this coming Monday for 2011 so have fun in the meantime.

THE FCS IS BEST!

[danefan]

Hi everybody! We didn't change the article at all. It is an older article and has been online a while. We are glad that once you read it, you enjoyed it! We only referenced it here as a reminder that the GPI starts this coming Monday for 2011 so have fun in the meantime.

THE FCS IS BEST!

That's complete and utter BS Ralph.

You wrote a misleading article and got called on it.

Do you really think we're that stupid?

[Dane96]

Danefan, my weekend hero.

[GannonFan]

Gotta agree with Danefan here - I don't understand why CSN is being so smarmy in this - they come out with an entirely misleading headline and article, and then bristle when they get pushed for the facts, and then pretend that they didn't get completely exposed. Why?

[CSN-info]

Hello everyone! Who knows what the problem is here about an article written almost two months ago at College Sporting News or why some people here want to discredit CSN without a reason. We hope that you will enjoy the article which has not been altered since it was published on August 9, and the GPI this year. All of us at CSN have tried to bring the best we can to FCS coverage over the last 10 years and we will continue for all the fans of college football's highest championship level.

Have a great weekend! THE FCS IS BEST!

[FCS Go!]

They certainly stick to their talking points.

[danefan]

Hello everyone! Who knows what the problem is here about an article written almost two months ago at College Sporting News or why some people here want to discredit CSN without a reason. We hope that you will enjoy the article which has not been altered since it was published on August 9, and the GPI this year. All of us at CSN have tried to bring the best we can to FCS coverage over the last 10 years and we will continue for all the fans of college football's highest championship level.

Have a great weekend! THE FCS IS BEST!

You've discredited yourself Ralph.

It's a shame too. You were once thought of as a knowledgable fan and resource.

[jmufan999]

Refresh me... is the FCS best? Or are we #2? I can't remember which one it is.

[GA St. MBB Fan]

I don't get it. The guy who posts all of this stuff isn't really a guy at all? But a bot?

And who is this Ralph fellow?

[eaglewraith]

I don't get it. The guy who posts all of this stuff isn't really a guy at all? But a bot?

And who is this Ralph fellow?

Ralph is the one who started AGS. He's a bit of a weird character though.

[danefan]

I don't get it. The guy who posts all of this stuff isn't really a guy at all? But a bot?

And who is this Ralph fellow?

The poster is a person. I know, hard to believe.

[GA St. MBB Fan]

Ralph is the one who started AGS. He's a bit of a weird character though.

Okay...was he the original owner? Before the recent ownership changes (I believe there has been two since I joined).


The poster is a person. I know, hard to believe.

Yeah..that is hard to believe. I can see why some think he is a bot. Does he (they?) do that on purpose so that he (they) can come off as a bot?

[PantherRob82]

DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN, DANEFAN? xlolx

[danefan]

Okay...was he the original owner? Before the recent ownership changes (I believe there has been two since I joined).

Yeah..that is hard to believe. I can see why some think he is a bot. Does he (they?) do that on purpose so that he (they) can come off as a bot?

Ralph created AGS and for whatever reason sold to GAS who sold to Ursus and Cleets.

No one knows why he can't have a normal conversation now. This is the first time he's tried the "bot" approach. It's working great.

[bluehenbillk]

I thought Ralph was dead.

[danefan]

I thought Ralph was dead.

I think this thread must have him rolling over in his grave then (and PM'ing me to complain about it....) xeyebrowxxeyebrowx

[PantherRob82]

I think this thread must have him rolling over in his grave then (and PM'ing me to complain about it....) xeyebrowxxeyebrowx

How come you get extra entertainment? :(

[danefan]

How come you get extra entertainment? :(

I'm special.

[GA St. MBB Fan]

Interesting, thanks for the info.

[superman7515]

Bump

[ursus arctos horribilis]

xlolx