Just Looked at Last Years GPI and saw something

[Stang Fever]

Now out here on the west there is always a talk about an east coast bias....and i believe in many cases there is one...but i just looked at the GPI and saw something intresting

out of the top five GPI conf. 3 "WEST" conf. were in the top 5

3) BIG SKY
4) Southland
5) GWFC

so is there really an east coast bias...why not more teams from these three conf. in the playoffs (yes more then half of hte GWFC is cant play in the playoffs)

[GannonFan]

Come on, that's a silly way to look at it. First of all, the GPI was never really meant to be used for conference strengths, it's stated purpose is to provide a way to judge the 16th team in the playoffs versus the 1st team (#17) not in the playoffs. Second, there isn't a huge amount of difference GPI-wise between the top conferences anyway - they're all fairly even in this measurement. And third, which teams should have gotten in versus which ones didn't? Is there a Big Sky, GWFC, or Southland team that didn't make the playoffs but should have? I'm not sure there was one, also considering that the NCAA says you need to have 7 DI wins to qualify for consideration. I don't see any geograhpical bias at all when it comes down to playoff selection of individual teams.

[Stang Fever]

what i was really trying to get out of that statment above was to note that there is not a really big east coast bias as some would state....seemed like the "West" conf. got its fair shake...didnt feel like anyteams got left out here on the west

one could make an agrument for MSU over Montana given the fact that MSU beat UM but thats for another day

[RabidRabbit]

Aw heck, let's have even more fun with this. :eyebrow:

Hypothetically, Cal Poly (or SUU), but we'll use Cal Poly for this, because it could happen this year.

Cal Poly goes 8-3, losing to NDSU and Cal-Davis, along with San Diego St. FINISHES in 2nd place of GWFC (NDSU or Davis wins GWFC)

Beats MT who wins Big Sky & San Jose St (1A) + SDSU, SUU, SSU, Ft. Lewis, Weber St. and SacSt.

Do they get an invite to play-offs?

[OL FU]

what i was really trying to get out of that statment above was to note that there is not a really big east coast bias as some would state....seemed like the "West" conf. got its fair shake...didnt feel like anyteams got left out here on the west

one could make an agrument for MSU over Montana given the fact that MSU beat UM but thats for another day

There is a mid-major bias:rolleyes:

[Ronbo]

what i was really trying to get out of that statment above was to note that there is not a really big east coast bias as some would state....seemed like the "West" conf. got its fair shake...didnt feel like anyteams got left out here on the west

one could make an agrument for MSU over Montana given the fact that MSU beat UM but thats for another day

Yeah there's a Montana bias. We were 8-3, MSU was 7-4. We put 23,000 butts in the seats and send 5-6,000 on the road. One game a season does not make. That's why Poly might still make it back this year even though they'll get their butts handed to them in Missoula. The boys are marking the calender as Poly has a big target on their backs this year and the team is hungry for revenge.

[UAalum72]

Come on, that's a silly way to look at it. First of all, the GPI was never really meant to be used for conference strengths

What???? Tell ralph, he's been using GPI to show how much better the OVC is than the NEC in the 'Gridiron Classic' thread

[*****]

Golf anyone? :)

[Frosty The Snowbuff]

Now out here on the west there is always a talk about an east coast bias....and i believe in many cases there is one...but i just looked at the GPI and saw something intresting

out of the top five GPI conf. 3 "WEST" conf. were in the top 5

3) BIG SKY
4) Southland
5) GWFC

so is there really an east coast bias...why not more teams from these three conf. in the playoffs (yes more then half of hte GWFC is cant play in the playoffs)

Wait a minute??? The Southland (who have been known to put 2 teams in playoffs at times (like last yr) is considered west???

With that said....If teams like us (Northwestern State) quit getting curbstomped by Big Sky Teams (Montana)...then we would have a higher GPI. Other then McNeese (who somehow does this year in and yr out, showoffs)...Not many Southland teams fare well on the road (or in Northwestern State's case against "power teams" (see our North Dakota State game --- and they're not quite a power yet (ugh!!)

[RabidRabbit]

Wait a minute??? The Southland (who have been known to put 2 teams in playoffs at times (like last yr) is considered west???

With that said....If teams like us (Northwestern State) quit getting curbstomped by Big Sky Teams (Montana)...then we would have a higher GPI. Other then McNeese (who somehow does this year in and yr out, showoffs)...Not many Southland teams fare well on the road (or in Northwestern State's case against "power teams" (see our North Dakota State game --- and they're not quite a power yet (ugh!!)

xlolx xlolx NDSU's a power, just still in transition! xlolx xlolx
There Bison, even a Bunny will stick up for you :p

[Frosty The Snowbuff]

xlolx xlolx NDSU's a power, just still in transition! xlolx xlolx
There Bison, even a Bunny will stick up for you :p

The Bison being a power was sarcasm....(at least for now):smiley_wi

[89Hen]

Cal Poly goes 8-3, losing to NDSU and Cal-Davis, along with San Diego St. FINISHES in 2nd place of GWFC (NDSU or Davis wins GWFC)

Beats MT who wins Big Sky & San Jose St (1A) + SDSU, SUU, SSU, Ft. Lewis, Weber St. and SacSt.

Do they get an invite to play-offs?
Immposible to say without seeing the others in line for an at-large. Some years yes, some years no.

[slostang]

Yeah there's a Montana bias. We were 8-3, MSU was 7-4. We put 23,000 butts in the seats and send 5-6,000 on the road. One game a season does not make. That's why Poly might still make it back this year even though they'll get their butts handed to them in Missoula. The boys are marking the calender as Poly has a big target on their backs this year and the team is hungry for revenge.
Ronbo,

Cal Poly made the trip to Missoula last year and we are comming back this year. Since 1994 Cal Poly has been to Missoula six times (seven counting the playoffs) and Montana has only been to San Luis Obispo twice. When is Montana going to return the favor?

Montana is one of the best home teams in all of I-AA, but they are only an above average team on the road. I am not asking for a home and home, but how about a 2 for 1. It would be appreciated, not to mention the right thing to do.

We will see about the game in Missoula this year. Our boys always have that one circled and now they know they can win.

[Tod]

Ronbo,

Cal Poly made the trip to Missoula last year and we are comming back this year. Since 1994 Cal Poly has been to Missoula six times (seven counting the playoffs) and Montana has only been to San Luis Obispo twice. When is Montana going to return the favor?

Montana is one of the best home teams in all of I-AA, but they are only an above average team on the road. I am not asking for a home and home, but how about a 2 for 1. It would be appreciated, not to mention the right thing to do.

We will see about the game in Missoula this year. Our boys always have that one circled and now they know they can win.

I agree with that. I've questioned it too.

[Ronbo]

Ronbo,

Cal Poly made the trip to Missoula last year and we are comming back this year. Since 1994 Cal Poly has been to Missoula six times (seven counting the playoffs) and Montana has only been to San Luis Obispo twice. When is Montana going to return the favor?

Montana is one of the best home teams in all of I-AA, but they are only an above average team on the road. I am not asking for a home and home, but how about a 2 for 1. It would be appreciated, not to mention the right thing to do.

We will see about the game in Missoula this year. Our boys always have that one circled and now they know they can win.

I read somewhere that this is a home and home. We had a home and home agreement last time too. We bought you out. Sorry, the money talked. We had a deficit to pay down. I guess going to San Luie is expensive and doesn't pay much. Now we have a new member which will cost the program $650,000 every other year, UNC. That is now a home and home that replaces two home games. So we will be even harder to get home and homes with. We'll have 4 away BSC games every year, that means we will look for 2 home OOC games and one away I-A. You guys have just two away Conference games so you can load up with home games. If they pass the 12 games then things will change.

[RabidRabbit]

I read somewhere that this is a home and home. We had a home and home agreement last time too. We bought you out. Sorry, the money talked. We had a deficit to pay down. I guess going to San Luie is expensive and doesn't pay much. Now we have a new member which will cost the program $650,000 every other year, UNC. That is now a home and home that replaces two home games. So we will be even harder to get home and homes with. We'll have 4 away BSC games every year, that means we will look for 2 home OOC games and one away I-A. You guys have just two away Conference games so you can load up with home games. If they pass the 12 games then things will change.

Ronbo - This is why the Great West needs to remain a separate, viable conference. If you're a college out west, and you want to play football at the D-1AA level, about your only option is the Big Sky. The Great West needs at least one more schollied football playing school. Otherwise, you're scrambling throughout the lower 48, especially going east of the MS R to get games. Not much incentive for Cal schools to add football if always on a plane to play.

[Linehawg]

Isn't the bottom line that you guys just need to play better football out there and you'll shoot up the ratings.xlolx

[Ronbo]

You see where the problem is. Our AD has committed to the fans at least 6 home games a year. That leaves 5 away. Four of those are Conference. Oh boy it's hard to turn down the big I-A money, $650,000 from Iowa this season, $450,000 last season at Oregon. Our program costs $3,600,000 to run. We need the home games and the I-A game to stay in the black. We gross about $650,000 at home and net over $400,000 profit. When we go to a school that gets 6000 fans in the seats they don't pay much, maybe just enough to cover expenses.

[slostang]

You see where the problem is. Our AD has committed to the fans at least 6 home games a year. That leaves 5 away. Four of those are Conference. Oh boy it's hard to turn down the big I-A money, $650,000 from Iowa this season, $450,000 last season at Oregon. Our program costs $3,600,000 to run. We need the home games and the I-A game to stay in the black. We gross about $650,000 at home and net over $400,000 profit. When we go to a school that gets 6000 fans in the seats they don't pay much, maybe just enough to cover expenses.
Ronbo,

I agree that in I-AA you have to go where the money is to a point, but at some point you have to return a game here and there or you will be filling your home OOC schedule with D-II teams. Like I said before, I am not asking for a home and home, just return the favor every now and then.

Mustang Stadium is being renovated and will up the seating cap. to just over 10,000 with the ability to add temp seating in the end zone for big games that can bring the cap. up to about 11,000. This is up from 8,500. I can assure you that if Montana came to town there would be at least 11,000 butts in the seats and we could pay more than we have in the past.

Ask the two conference teams that beat the Griz last year (MSU and EWU) how it is to play the Mustangs at home. We beat MSU 38-10 and EWU 40-35. Are you sure it is only about money when it comes to not wanting to come to San Luis Obispo?:smiley_wi

[bluehenbillk]

The only mistake with this thread is someone actually looked at the GPI! Hey, hey, ho, ho...

[Mr. C]

The only mistake with this thread is someone actually looked at the GPI! Hey, hey, ho, ho...
What is your point? Yes, a lot of people (even the playoff committee) look at the GPI, because it has been extremely accurate in measuring predicting playoff teams. Ralph and I don't agree 100% on all of the elements and how they work, but it sure works better than the thing the BCS uses and it is better than any other computer system, or other measuring device at this time. Get a clue, dude.

[*****]

The only mistake with this thread is someone actually looked at the GPI! Hey, hey, ho, ho...xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[GannonFan]

What is your point? Yes, a lot of people (even the playoff committee) look at the GPI, because it has been extremely accurate in measuring predicting playoff teams. Ralph and I don't agree 100% on all of the elements and how they work, but it sure works better than the thing the BCS uses and it is better than any other computer system, or other measuring device at this time. Get a clue, dude.

Not true - the "GannonFan Picks the Playoff Teams" system matched the GPI last year - seriously, how hard was it to pick the playoff teams outside of the Lafayette/Youngstown issue, which most people, and the GPI, got wrong anyway? I respect the work that people do on this, but let's remember the original and still sole stated purpose of the GPI was to predict the playoff field, and namely, to predict who the 16th team was - this thread started off with a conference to conference standings using the GPI - I believe that's what we call scope creep. :nod:

[bluehenbillk]

Ralph I love the sweatshirt, can we put that in the AGS Store? You'll have one guaranteed sale here!

[GannonFan]

Make that two - I'll take one as well. :nod:

[*****]

Not true - the "GannonFan Picks the Playoff Teams" system matched the GPI last year - seriously, how hard was it to pick the playoff teams... let's remember the original and still sole stated purpose of the GPI was to predict the playoff field, and namely, to predict who the 16th team was...The GPI is an index, a mix of computer systems and polls. The purpose is to rank the teams of I-AA. It is the best indicator of which at-large teams should be picked for the playoffs. It starts in October. It's not one person who makes a list of eight at-large teams right before playoff selection.:rolleyes: It ranks every team in I-AA and can be used as such.

[GannonFan]

The GPI is an index, a mix of computer systems and polls. The purpose is to rank the teams of I-AA. It is the best indicator of which at-large teams should be picked for the playoffs. It starts in October. It's not one person who makes a list of eight at-large teams right before playoff selection.:rolleyes: It ranks every team in I-AA and can be used as such.

Hey, we could just save everyone a lot of time and just change the name to what it is then: BCS-IAA (or BCS-PCG or whatever it comes to) - that'll help to widen the appeal of IAA then since everyone knows the BCS already. Any chance on having that name change come about in the August meetings? ;)

[OL FU]

Hey, we could just save everyone a lot of time and just change the name to what it is then: BCS-IAA (or BCS-PCG or whatever it comes to) - that'll help to widen the appeal of IAA then since everyone knows the BCS already. Any chance on having that name change come about in the August meetings? ;)

I guess your concern is using the index for "official" purposes as opposed to taking into to consideration along with every other index, poll, etc. I am asking out of curiousity, not criticism. To me is seems like a good indicator blending both polls and power ratings. Do you have a problem with its existence or its potential use?

[*****]

... since everyone knows the BCS already...Are you sure you know that the BCS is the BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES... a series of bowl games that help determine the BCS champion?

The GPI is a ranking system, it doesn't determine who plays in the D-I playoffs. :read:

[GannonFan]

I guess your concern is using the index for "official" purposes as opposed to taking into to consideration along with every other index, poll, etc. I am asking out of curiousity, not criticism. To me is seems like a good indicator blending both polls and power ratings. Do you have a problem with its existence or its potential use?

I like I-AA's way of settling things on the field - the playoffs are obviously, to a lot of people, the best thing about I-AA. When you start looking to emulate things from the division above us (and I note that now I-AA.com even calls the GPI a "BCS-style ranking") you always run the danger of impacting the playoffs in a negative way. What was once just a predictor of the field of 16 is being used now by posters to gauge anything and everything. If it becomes so great to use why even have that silly 16 (or higher) team tournament - the GPI already tells us who is better than whom. Obviously, that won't happen overnight, but it wasn't that long ago that we were being told that the GPI wasn't anything like the BCS and now even i-aa.com says it is. Anything that has the potential to damage the playoffs, in my opinion, no matter how small, is something to be avoided. And hey, like I said, who couldn't have predicted 15 of the 16 playoff teams last year - who needed the GPI for that? :nod:

[GannonFan]

Are you sure you know that the BCS is the BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES... a series of bowl games that help determine the BCS champion?

The GPI is a ranking system, it doesn't determine who plays in the D-I playoffs. :read:

Not yet - but a few years ago no one was using it - now I think you even referenced that the NCAA wanted to use it as a tool for who plays in the playoffs - this is how SkyNet took over - be afraid, be very afraid (I know, mixed movie references, but I was rushing!)

[*****]

... (and I note that now I-AA.com even calls the GPI a "BCS-style ranking") you always run the danger of impacting the playoffs in a negative way... the GPI already tells us who is better than whom... it wasn't that long ago that we were being told that the GPI wasn't anything like the BCS...:rolleyes: I-AA.org maintains the GPI. The GPI has always been called a "BCS-Style ranking" because that ranking came first but it is different from that too. The GPI is an indicator, not saying who can beat who... AGS right? The playoffs and the playoff committee are not going away. The GPI is the best ranking for I-AA, that's all.

[OL FU]

I like I-AA's way of settling things on the field - the playoffs are obviously, to a lot of people, the best thing about I-AA. When you start looking to emulate things from the division above us (and I note that now I-AA.com even calls the GPI a "BCS-style ranking") you always run the danger of impacting the playoffs in a negative way. What was once just a predictor of the field of 16 is being used now by posters to gauge anything and everything. If it becomes so great to use why even have that silly 16 (or higher) team tournament - the GPI already tells us who is better than whom. Obviously, that won't happen overnight, but it wasn't that long ago that we were being told that the GPI wasn't anything like the BCS and now even i-aa.com says it is. Anything that has the potential to damage the playoffs, in my opinion, no matter how small, is something to be avoided. And hey, like I said, who couldn't have predicted 15 of the 16 playoff teams last year - who needed the GPI for that? :nod:

Since I don't know all the uses it is hard for me to gauge the potential damage but I usually tend toward more information is better and if something seems fairly accurate then use it. I don't think it will replace the playoffs or and I really don't see how it would diminish it. The sub-classification (except for a few) seem committed to the playoffs. The committee has to use something and as long as it is just one of the tools I don't see the harm:twocents:

Do you remember when the official I-AA poll was determined by the vote of four AD's from different regions of the country ( I think that is the way it used to be done). Now that is scary:D

[89Hen]

THE major flaw IMO with the GPI is that it becomes wholly inaccurate after the first 15 or so teams and also how it values conferences. The polls only go to 25, so every team after that receives the same value for not being in the poll. Every year there are teams in the 15-20 range that have no business being there and they are invariably from the conference that ends up with the highest ranking. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to remedy this other than to place a higher importance on the polls.

2005
19 Portland St 6-5

2004
18T Massachusetts 6-5
18T Northeastern 5-6
20 Maine 5-6

2003
16 Montana State 7-6
18 Weber State 8-4

[*****]

THE major flaw IMO with the GPI is that it becomes wholly inaccurate after the first 15 or so teams and also how it values conferences...That's your opinion but it is my opinion that some 5-6 teams are better than some 8-3/9-2 teams. Conferences are measured by the average of their members, how is that wrong?

[bluehenbillk]

Are you sure you know that the BCS is the BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES... a series of bowl games that help determine the BCS champion?


Absolutely incorrect, yea there are a series of games, but the #1 reason the crap known as the BCS was created was to pit the #1 team in the land versus #2, period.

College football is the greatest sport there is, which does nothing but the wrong thing in trying to emulate the BCS, which plain & simple is what the GPI does, on a 1-AA level. Thank God it holds no weight except for entertainment purposes.

[*****]

Absolutely incorrect, yea there are a series of games, but the #1 reason the crap known as the BCS was created was to pit the #1 team in the land versus #2, period.
College football is the greatest sport there is, which does nothing but the wrong thing in trying to emulate the BCS, which plain & simple is what the GPI does, on a 1-AA level. Thank God it holds no weight except for entertainment purposes.The GPI is a ranking. As such it holds plenty of weight but it doesn't select playoff participants, the committee does.

[89Hen]

That's your opinion but it is my opinion that some 5-6 teams are better than some 8-3/9-2 teams. Conferences are measured by the average of their members, how is that wrong?
It's the pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps theory. JMU, UNH and even W&M and UD inflated the A10's standing that year which in turn made 6-5 teams appear better which in turn made the rest of the A10 appear better. Same thing happened in 2003 with the Big Sky.

There is no way in God's green Earth that you can convince anyone that Northeastern was the #18 team in the nation in 2004 (let alone 10 or 15 as some of the computers would have you think). They beat Cheney (1-10), Towson (3-8), Villanova (6-5), URI (4-7) and Hoftstra (5-6). THE COMPUTERS CAN BE WRONG (and often are). I know that we've been through this 100 times and I also know that the GPI throws out the high and low, but THE COMPUTERS CAN BE WRONG.

2004 Sagarin:
1. JMU
3. UNH
4. W&M
6. Delaware
7. Villanova
10. Northeastern
13. Maine
16. UMass
17. Hofstra

Are you serious?!!

BTW, Dwiggins has Northeastern at 51! Garbage in, garbage out.

[OL FU]

THE major flaw IMO with the GPI is that it becomes wholly inaccurate after the first 15 or so teams and also how it values conferences. The polls only go to 25, so every team after that receives the same value for not being in the poll. Every year there are teams in the 15-20 range that have no business being there and they are invariably from the conference that ends up with the highest ranking. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to remedy this other than to place a higher importance on the polls.

2005
19 Portland St 6-5

2004
18T Massachusetts 6-5
18T Northeastern 5-6
20 Maine 5-6

2003
16 Montana State 7-6
18 Weber State 8-4

I am not going to argue whether those teams should be in or out. I think there are very few rankings that are fool proof. However if it got one wrong out of 25 that is a pretty good percentage. (Yes, I realize that was an example and there may be more). From a top 25 standpoint it seems as good as any, however I do agree that once you give the same weight to the teams that are not rated in a poll, that would seem to cause some difficulty.

(The following is not a reply to 89's post) I guess my bigger question is if it is a ranking like so many other rankings, why the animosity towards this one. Take it as it is. When people use the GPI to make a point argue the point first. It seems to me that arguing a point by stating " THE GPI IS CRAP" is a lot like arguing a point by saying "DID YOU SEE EVERY TEAM PLAY" Once again my:twocents:

[89Hen]

However if it got one wrong out of 25 that is a pretty good percentage. (Yes, I realize that was an example and there may be more).
Correct. Last year wasn't as bad because there wasn't the glaring discrepancies in conference standings.

2005 - 6.5 points separating 1-6
1. Gateway Football Conference (25.82)
2. Southern Conference (26.99)
3. Big Sky Conference (28.27)
4. Southland Conference (30.44)
5. Great West Football Conference (31.65)
6. Atlantic 10 Conference (32.24)

2004 - 10 points separating 1-2!
1. A10 - Atlantic 10 Conference (19.31)
2. GWFC - Great West Football Conference (29.39)
3. SLC - Southland Conference (31.32)
4. BSC - Big Sky Conference (32.11)
5. IVY - Ivy League (35.53)
6. GFC - Gateway Football Conference (36.17)
7. SOCON - Southern Conference (38.42)

2003 - over 14 points from 1 to 3
BSC - 23.07
GFC - 25.17
A10 - 37.86
SLC - 39.56
Ivy - 53.87
SoCon - 54.54

[OL FU]

Correct. Last year wasn't as bad because there wasn't the glaring discrepancies in conference standings.

2005 - 6.5 points separating 1-6
1. Gateway Football Conference (25.82)
2. Southern Conference (26.99)
3. Big Sky Conference (28.27)
4. Southland Conference (30.44)
5. Great West Football Conference (31.65)
6. Atlantic 10 Conference (32.24)

2004 - 10 points separating 1-2!
1. A10 - Atlantic 10 Conference (19.31)
2. GWFC - Great West Football Conference (29.39)
3. SLC - Southland Conference (31.32)
4. BSC - Big Sky Conference (32.11)
5. IVY - Ivy League (35.53)
6. GFC - Gateway Football Conference (36.17)
7. SOCON - Southern Conference (38.42)

2003 - over 14 points from 1 to 3
BSC - 23.07
GFC - 25.17
A10 - 37.86
SLC - 39.56
Ivy - 53.87
SoCon - 54.54

I will now seem like I am arguing both sides of the deal:eek:

I do agree that too much emphasis is placed on SOS by the computers and because of that strong teams in a conference can pull weak teams' power ratings up. I have never liked Sagarin. But at least the GPI moderates that somewhat by including the polls. Unfortunately, as we have stated the polls only rank 25.

[bluehenbillk]

Great point 89, I'm shocked that fans of schools outside of the A-10 have never complained about the Sagarin ratings, which really historically favor the A-10 versus other 1-AA teams/leagues.

Computers are garbage in & garbage out. That's why I like an AGS poll, of course a lot of polls are garbage too, the committees work best IMO.

[GannonFan]

Hey, I tease Ralph about the GPI because it's fun to do. But in seriousness, I really don't mind the fact that the playoff selection is in the committee's hands (note, the selection - once the new rule gets passed and they start seeding 1 through 16 all the glaring flaws of the past will come to life again - get ready to see these guys seed 16 teams - if you think there's disagreement now, just wait) - in reality, how often is more than one team genuinely snubbed and left out of the playoffs? Almost never. And there's enough to argue about on that 16th team that it's often not that big of a snub. You will always have discussions and disagreements over that 16th team in, but rarely, if ever, are you talking about more than one spot in the playoffs. The regular season in I-AA does a great job of weeding the field down so that the playoff selection, even sans GPI, isn't really that difficult, again, if it's just choosing the top 16 teams (not the seeds to go along with each). I don't think trying to emulate any component of the BCS just to come up with a top 16 ranking is all that useful considering that the system of picking the playoff field isn't really broken - on the contrary, it works remarkably well.

[OL FU]

Hey, I tease Ralph about the GPI because it's fun to do. But in seriousness, I really don't mind the fact that the playoff selection is in the committee's hands (note, the selection - once the new rule gets passed and they start seeding 1 through 16 all the glaring flaws of the past will come to life again - get ready to see these guys seed 16 teams - if you think there's disagreement now, just wait) - in reality, how often is more than one team genuinely snubbed and left out of the playoffs? Almost never. And there's enough to argue about on that 16th team that it's often not that big of a snub. You will always have discussions and disagreements over that 16th team in, but rarely, if ever, are you talking about more than one spot in the playoffs. The regular season in I-AA does a great job of weeding the field down so that the playoff selection, even sans GPI, isn't really that difficult, again, if it's just choosing the top 16 teams (not the seeds to go along with each). I don't think trying to emulate any component of the BCS just to come up with a top 16 ranking is all that useful considering that the system of picking the playoff field isn't really broken - on the contrary, it works remarkably well.

I understand now. Tools are good as long as they are looked at with an understanding of the potential weakness. And now that I know we are teasing Ralph.

I'll take one of those tee shirts:D

[89Hen]

once the new rule gets passed and they start seeding 1 through 16 all the glaring flaws of the past will come to life again - get ready to see these guys seed 16 teams - if you think there's disagreement now, just wait
:nod: Yup. Some of the newer folks might not remember the days when a team that didn't draw too well somehow magically ended up 9 or 10 in the bracket just so they'd be on the road first round. Or when a team pissed off the Committee by NOT submitting a minimum bid for a home game and then asking for one the next year.... see Lehigh 1998/99. 11-0 in 1998 didn't submit for a bid then 10-1 in 1999 sent on the road first round after submitting the bid. Imagine going 21-1 over two seasons and 1-1 in the playoffs and then being sent on the road to Hempstead who Lehigh probably outdrew 2-1 in attendance. :eek:

[89Hen]

The regular season in I-AA does a great job of weeding the field down so that the playoff selection, even sans GPI, isn't really that difficult, again, if it's just choosing the top 16 teams
True dat. I think most of the fans here have nailed the 8 at-large just as much as the GPI has.

[*****]

True dat. I think most of the fans here have nailed the 8 at-large just as much as the GPI has.*sigh* You guys act as if you don't know the difference. :(

[89Hen]

You guys act as if you don't know the difference. :(
And you act as if Northeastern really was the #18 team in the country in 2004. :p

[*****]

And you act as if Northeastern really was the #18 team in the country in 2004. :pThat's irrelevant to the conversation of one person picking playoff teams on the last weekend of the season and what the GPI does. :nod:

[89Hen]

That's irrelevant to the conversation of one person picking playoff teams on the last weekend of the season and what the GPI does. :nod:
:confused: I look at the whole season when I make my predictions, it just happens to be on the last weekend of the season because that's when they generally pick the field. Surely you're not suggesting that I either make my prediction after week 10 or that the GPI would accurately predict the field after week 10? Neither are accurate until the last game is played.

[*****]

The GPI, which ranks every single team in I-AA becomes more and more accurate as the season progresses, it is a process. You, look at the teams when the season is basically over and see who finished where then choose what teams you think will make it. Do you see a difference or was I right when I said you didn't?

[GannonFan]

The GPI, which ranks every single team in I-AA becomes more and more accurate as the season progresses, it is a process. You, look at the teams when the season is basically over and see who finished where then choose what teams you think will make it. Do you see a difference or was I right when I said you didn't?

Not that much different than the GannonFan Method (copyright pending, and on the GFM abbreviation as well) - I'm not accurate at the start of the year but I get better as the year goes along and I'm very good at picking the field of 16. :p

[*****]

GPI- many different components that rank all teams
Single person- one component that predicts the playoff field

See any difference there?

BTW, I've started another thread just about the GPI so we can stop taking over this one. :)

[89Hen]

The GPI, which ranks every single team in I-AA becomes more and more accurate as the season progresses, it is a process.
More accurate than what, itself? You've stated numerous times that the GPI does not predict games, only the at-large field. If I can predict the at-large field, how is the GPI more accurate than I am?

Does it accurately rank every single team in I-AA? Was Alabama State really 10 spots better than Monmouth?

[*****]

More accurate than what, itself? You've stated numerous times that the GPI does not predict games, only the at-large field. ... Does it accurately rank every single team in I-AA? Was Alabama State really 10 spots better than Monmouth?Wrong. The GPI is retrodictive meaning once it is done it states where teams are at, not where they will be.

[89Hen]

Wrong. The GPI is retrodictive meaning once it is done it states where teams are at, not where they will be.
So how is that different from me telling you after the last week where teams are at that moment? :confused: You can't have it both ways.