Stats Week 8 Poll

[FargoBison]

1
North Dakota State (163)
7-0
4,075
1


2
Kennesaw State
6-1
3,865
3


3
James Madison
5-2
3,728
4


4
Weber State
5-2
3,447
7


5
Eastern Washington
5-2
3,133
9


6
UC Davis
6-1
3,051
10


7
South Dakota State
4-2
2,948
2


8
Elon
5-2
2,760
11


9
Wofford
5-2
2,614
12


10
Towson
6-1
2,559
13


11
Illinois State
5-2
2,428
8


12
Jacksonville State
5-2
2,182
5


13
Central Arkansas
5-2
1,869
15


14
McNeese
5-2
1,854
6


15
Stony Brook
6-2
1,845
18


16
Colgate
6-0
1,753
17


17
Northern Iowa
4-3
1,465
25


18
North Carolina A&T
6-2
1,338
19


19
Princeton
6-0
933
23


20
Nicholls
4-3
900
20


21
Delaware
5-2
859
24


22
North Dakota
5-2
667
NR


23
Sam Houston State
4-3
584
14


24
Maine
4-3
489
16


25
ETSU
6-2
415
21


Others receiving votes: Dartmouth (394) , Southeast Missouri State (195) , Chattanooga (132) , Florida A&M (125) , Rhode Island (111) , Idaho State (91) , UIW (70) , Murray State (28) , Montana State (21) , Montana (12) , Missouri State (11) , Monmouth (9) , San Diego (6) , Western Illinois (4) , Samford (2) , Mercer (2) , Alcorn State (1)

[Professor Chaos]

OMG! SHSU is ranked below UND!

Of course the fact that SHSU is ranked at all is xlolx-worthy.

I'm mildly surprised UNI got within 10 spots of SDSU.

And then there's Jacksonville St at #12.... McNeese at #14.... this poll is full of laughers.

[JSUSoutherner]

What an abortion.

[Bison56]

Trash

[Reign of Terrier]

I'm starting to wonder how often people agree on these polls? When was the last time a poll was posted and people said it was good?

[TheKingpin28]

At least it's not the Coaches poll.

I'm still under the belief that if the NCAA looked at AGS, we could convince them that we deserve the National Poll spotlight and not these garbage "journalists/beat writers".

[FargoBison]

Well I mean at least they have UCD in the top 10 and SHSU behind UND.

[Sammy94]

OMG! SHSU is ranked below UND!

Of course the fact that SHSU is ranked at all is xlolx-worthy.

I'm mildly surprised UNI got within 10 spots of SDSU.



And then there's Jacksonville St at #12.... McNeese at #14.... this poll is full of laughers.


OMG JMU is ranked over Elon.

[Professor Chaos]

OMG JMU is ranked over Elon.
And if the SHSU/UND situation is a lesson JMU will have to lose two more FCS games before they'll be ranked below Elon in the STATS poll and 3 more FCS games before they'll be ranked below Elon in the Coaches poll.

[Sammy94]

And if the SHSU/UND situation is a lesson JMU will have to lose two more FCS games before they'll be ranked below Elon in the STATS poll and 3 more FCS games before they'll be ranked below Elon in the Coaches poll.

And your excuse why you have EWU higher than Weber? At least this poll has that right. I agree that Sam should not be ranked but you keep hounding on a one point game in early August. Many teams are much different now in late Oct.

[Professor Chaos]

And your excuse why you have EWU higher than Weber? At least this poll has that right. I agree that Sam should not be ranked but you keep hounding on a one point game in early August. Many teams are much different now in late Oct.
Because I think Weber's win over EWU was flukish. That's backed up by the fact that EWU beat the same NAU team that Weber lost to and that EWU has beaten the other two common opponents they've had (Cal Poly and Montana St) by wider margins than Weber has.

[Professor]

So my question is, Why every week is it a complaint about these polls? Lets be honest, who is beating or has a chance to beat NDSU this year? That is what the poll should be

[WileECoyote06]

So my question is, Why every week is it a complaint about these polls? Lets be honest, who is beating or has a chance to beat NDSU this year? That is what the poll should be

I call it the NDSU effect, where their success has given others unrealistic expectations of every other program. xcoffeex


xlolx

[Professor]

I call it the NDSU effect, where their success has given others unrealistic expectations of every other program. xcoffeex


xlolx

Makes no sense. They are going to win the title again. Who cares who's ranked where. It's not going to matter come Jan. It will be NDSU vs someone

[Catbooster]

Because I think Weber's win over EWU was flukish. That's backed up by the fact that EWU beat the same NAU team that Weber lost to and that EWU has beaten the other two common opponents they've had (Cal Poly and Montana St) by wider margins than Weber has.
Having watched my team play against both, I moved EWU back above WSU this week. If Weber can get their offense working, I may move them back up, but not for now.

[Professor Chaos]

Having watched my team play against both, I moved EWU back above WSU this week. If Weber can get their offense working, I may move them back up, but not for now.
I was kinda shocked this week when looking at the stats on NCAA.com and saw that Weber St is dead last, 124th out of 124, in the FCS in 3rd down conversion percentage at a paltry 20.6% conversion rate. And they're a ways below the next closest (NC Central and Jackson St both at 22.4%). If they can't improve that they're going to put way too much pressure on their defense as the season goes on and into the playoffs and they'll burn out eventually.

[TheKingpin28]

I was kinda shocked this week when looking at the stats on NCAA.com and saw that Weber St is dead last, 124th out of 124, in the FCS in 3rd down conversion percentage at a paltry 20.6% conversion rate. And they're a ways below the next closest (NC Central and Jackson St both at 22.4%). If they can't improve that they're going to put way too much pressure on their defense as the season goes on and into the playoffs and they'll burn out eventually.Cantwell was their Streveler of last year of you catch my drift. He sid enough to let Taron Johnson and co take them to the quarterfinals, which they should have fun.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[BisonTru]

Makes no sense. They are going to win the title again. Who cares who's ranked where. It's not going to matter come Jan. It will be NDSU vs someone

Meh I think you still want to see your team finish well even if NDSU takes the title again. 23 teams not named NDSU will make the playoffs. Can Colgate, KSU, or Wofford make a run out of a weaker conference. Will a big sky or caa team end up in the final or maybe it’s an all MVFC title game.

Really the AGS poll is better at predicting playoff teams but all the polls give you some insight into who’s looking at getting into the playoffs and a playoff birth can be an accomplishment in itself especially for a program that hasn’t been in a while. Also there is the debate over who gets the top 8 seeds and in what order.

Like I said the AGS poll is historically better but fans and teams will point to the stats or coaches poll as validation as they both have more name credibility than the AGS poll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

I call it the NDSU effect, where their success has given others unrealistic expectations of every other program. xcoffeex


xlolxI feel like I created this concept like 6 hours ago but I nevertheless agree

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Meh I think you still want to see your team finish well even if NDSU takes the title again. 23 teams not named NDSU will make the playoffs. Can Colgate, KSU, or Wofford make a run out of a weaker conference. Will a big sky or caa team end up in the final or maybe it’s an all MVFC title game.

Really the AGS poll is better at predicting playoff teams but all the polls give you some insight into who’s looking at getting into the playoffs and a playoff birth can be an accomplishment in itself especially for a program that hasn’t been in a while. Also there is the debate over who gets the top 8 seeds and in what order.

Like I said the AGS poll is historically better but fans and teams will point to the stats or coaches poll as validation as they both have more name credibility than the AGS poll.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI keep hearing this last paragraph, but I am skeptical

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

I keep hearing this last paragraph, but I am skeptical

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
You can see for yourself.

Here's how it broke down in 2017: http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?199223-Battle-of-the-Polls. It was actually fairly competitive last year in terms of picking the at-large teams right but AGS blew the other two away when it came to placing the seeds.

In 2016 I didn't break it down by poll but the AGS poll nailed the 24 team field (which the STATS poll also did) and had the seeds perfect except for switching SDSU/UND at #7/#8 (whereas STATS wasn't even close there): http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?189184-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-12-11-20-2016-SELECTION-SUNDAY&p=2417919&viewfull=1#post2417919

In 2015 AGS hit 13 of 14 at large teams and had the seeds off a bit (no more than 2 spots in any direction). STATS had 12 of 14 at large teams and were once again way off on the seed placement. Links: AGS thread discussing it (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?178262-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-12-2015) and STATS rankings from 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings).

[grizband]

I'm starting to wonder how often people agree on these polls? When was the last time a poll was posted and people said it was good?
The discussions/arguments about polls are as rooted in AGS history as the football itself! xthumbsupx

[caribbeanhen]

OMG JMU is ranked over Elon.

Not to mention Kennesaw over JMU, JMU curb stomps kenny

[Reign of Terrier]

You can see for yourself.

Here's how it broke down in 2017: http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?199223-Battle-of-the-Polls. It was actually fairly competitive last year in terms of picking the at-large teams right but AGS blew the other two away when it came to placing the seeds.

In 2016 I didn't break it down by poll but the AGS poll nailed the 24 team field (which the STATS poll also did) and had the seeds perfect except for switching SDSU/UND at #7/#8 (whereas STATS wasn't even close there): http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?189184-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-12-11-20-2016-SELECTION-SUNDAY&p=2417919&viewfull=1#post2417919

In 2015 AGS hit 13 of 14 at large teams and had the seeds off a bit (no more than 2 spots in any direction). STATS had 12 of 14 at large teams and were once again way off on the seed placement. Links: AGS thread discussing it (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?178262-AGS-Poll-Results-WEEK-12-2015) and STATS rankings from 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings).This seems like pretty marginal differences and only a sample of 3. Got any more? Not saying it's not valid, but we're only talking about 24 teams or so, and the 22+ team format is less than 10 years old.

The way this talking point is thrown around seems like navel gazing because it makes it sound like the other polls are off by like 5-6+ spots. But if it's only 2-3, that is about the margin of error.

When the dust settles it's not hard to figure out who the seeds are or should be. I can understand why AGS would be better than the coaches at that. But when we are talking about the general field, that's where the navel gazing comes in for me. Because it's like a blunt object used by some pollsters to justify their own positions and disparage the other polls for not supporting their opinions/bias.

Sidenote: I would love to see how AGS voter sampling herds with successful teams. Namely, when your team is successful, you're more likely to pay attention and vote (I'm guilty). This can put more weight on certain teams/conferences over others. That could be huge and insightful when we're talking about seeding, but when we're talking about the last 8 in or so, the logic gets a little problematic and appealing to the soundness of the poll when it's accuracy is marginally better seems a little circular to me.

And this isn't to disparage the poll. It's a great poll! I appreciate the work Ursus and Superman and you and whoever else does to put it together. And I don't think anyone can do any better. As I say, polls are flawed and show perception just as much as reality.

But as someone who has to use social science/polling insights for may day job, I think knowing the limits of polls is a good heuristic, so the blunt force use of it to support ones opinions makes me roll my eyes.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

This seems like pretty marginal differences and only a sample of 3. Got any more? Not saying it's not valid, but we're only talking about 24 teams or so, and the 22+ team format is less than 10 years old.

The way this talking point is thrown around seems like navel gazing because it makes it sound like the other polls are off by like 5-6+ spots. But if it's only 2-3, that is about the margin of error.

When the dust settles it's not hard to figure out who the seeds are or should be. I can understand why AGS would be better than the coaches at that. But when we are talking about the general field, that's where the navel gazing comes in for me. Because it's like a blunt object used by some pollsters to justify their own positions and disparage the other polls for not supporting their opinions/bias.

Sidenote: I would love to see how AGS voter sampling herds with successful teams. Namely, when your team is successful, you're more likely to pay attention and vote (I'm guilty). This can put more weight on certain teams/conferences over others. That could be huge and insightful when we're talking about seeding, but when we're talking about the last 8 in or so, the logic gets a little problematic and appealing to the soundness of the poll when it's accuracy is marginally better seems a little circular to me.

And this isn't to disparage the poll. It's a great poll! I appreciate the work Ursus and Superman and you and whoever else does to put it together. And I don't think anyone can do any better. As I say, polls are flawed and show perception just as much as reality.

But as someone who has to use social science/polling insights for may day job, I think knowing the limits of polls is a good heuristic, so the blunt force use of it to support ones opinions makes me roll my eyes.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I don't have the time the go back for a bigger sample size but I will be trying to track it in a thread each year as we go forward. If you want you can find all the old Coach's and STATs polls on Wikipedia and final polls for AGS from previous years in the site archives. You can call it "margin of error" but I call it a trend. Every year during the last 3 years both the STATS and Coaches poll have ranked at least one seeded team 4 or more spots away from where the committee has while the AGS poll in that time has never been further than 2 spots away with any team.

For as long as I've been paying attention to them the AGS Poll and the selection committee rankings have generally mirrored each other and then the STATS poll and Coaches poll have generally mirrored each other. It's a pretty simple theory as to why in my mind. The voters in the AGS Poll and on the selection committee talk with each other to understand where they may be unfair or biased in their view of teams and the STATS poll voters (with a select few exceptions) and Coaches poll voters do not. I'd be willing to bet that if we didn't allow poll discussion on this board yet still voted and released a poll every week we'd see results that more closely resemble the STATS or Coaches polls.

[BisonTru]

This seems like pretty marginal differences and only a sample of 3. Got any more? Not saying it's not valid, but we're only talking about 24 teams or so, and the 22+ team format is less than 10 years old.

The way this talking point is thrown around seems like navel gazing because it makes it sound like the other polls are off by like 5-6+ spots. But if it's only 2-3, that is about the margin of error.

When the dust settles it's not hard to figure out who the seeds are or should be. I can understand why AGS would be better than the coaches at that. But when we are talking about the general field, that's where the navel gazing comes in for me. Because it's like a blunt object used by some pollsters to justify their own positions and disparage the other polls for not supporting their opinions/bias.

Sidenote: I would love to see how AGS voter sampling herds with successful teams. Namely, when your team is successful, you're more likely to pay attention and vote (I'm guilty). This can put more weight on certain teams/conferences over others. That could be huge and insightful when we're talking about seeding, but when we're talking about the last 8 in or so, the logic gets a little problematic and appealing to the soundness of the poll when it's accuracy is marginally better seems a little circular to me.

And this isn't to disparage the poll. It's a great poll! I appreciate the work Ursus and Superman and you and whoever else does to put it together. And I don't think anyone can do any better. As I say, polls are flawed and show perception just as much as reality.

But as someone who has to use social science/polling insights for may day job, I think knowing the limits of polls is a good heuristic, so the blunt force use of it to support ones opinions makes me roll my eyes.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

We had these same conversations last year with Sammy fans when Sammy was ranked higher in Stats than AGS. Once again, though, the committee is generally more in line with the AGS poll and it showed in the seedings. PC gave you three years of evidence of that and if you want to go back further you will see more of the same. I think you have to recognize you have some bias in this conversation. Which is fine, but like I said the AGS poll is the better poll at determining the seedings and at larges, every year.

[Reign of Terrier]

We had these same conversations last year with Sammy fans when Sammy was ranked higher in Stats than AGS. Once again, though, the committee is generally more in line with the AGS poll and it showed in the seedings. PC gave you three years of evidence of that and if you want to go back further you will see more of the same. I think you have to recognize you have some bias in this conversation. Which is fine, but like I said the AGS poll is the better poll at determining the seedings and at larges, every year.There's a motte and bailey argument being made here. The easy claim is that AGS is more accurate than the other polls when it comes to seeds. The harder claim AGS is more predictive for the entire field.

I'm going after the harder claim, everyone else is defending the easy one. I concede that AGS is better at picking the seeds, but then again I said that was probably easier anyway for anyone focusing intently.

But if you look at the entire field and in 3 years AGS is only 1-2 better *sometimes,* thats margin of error.

MVFC fans make this site insufferable at times because they use these little talking points to bash anyone who differentiates from their opinion on the marginal at large teams. It's an equivocation because AGS is a poll, which means it's an average; the disagreement is built in. So talking about how great AGS at predicting the entire field and chest beating the MVFC when it's only marginal, when it's really only noticeably better with seeds (which probably aren't controversial) is a clever, albeit fallacious tactic.

Because really, the disagreement is usually not about seeding. Everyone is pretty even headed about MVFC and CAA teams and some Big Sky teams having harder schedules and thus higher seeds. The controversy comes from the at large selections. The teams at 7-4 or 8-3 or better in lesser conferences. It seems to me that the majority of fans who vote and aren't MVFC are more willing to give these teams a shot or the benefit of the doubt.

And AGS is not much better than other polls at predicting those teams. When non-MVFC fans point this out we're called biased and told how predictive AGS is. Motte and Bailey, circular reasoning, ad infinitum.

In reality, everyone is biased here, and the claims of neutrality supported by impartial evidence is over promised and under delivered.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

There's a motte and bailey argument being made here. The easy claim is that AGS is more accurate than the other polls when it comes to seeds. The harder claim AGS is more predictive for the entire field.

I'm going after the harder claim, everyone else is defending the easy one. I concede that AGS is better at picking the seeds, but then again I said that was probably easier anyway for anyone focusing intently.

But if you look at the entire field and in 3 years AGS is only 1-2 better *sometimes,* thats margin of error.

MVFC fans make this site insufferable at times because they use these little talking points to bash anyone who differentiates from their opinion on the marginal at large teams. It's an equivocation because AGS is a poll, which means it's an average; the disagreement is built in. So talking about how great AGS at predicting the entire field and chest beating the MVFC when it's only marginal, when it's really only noticeably better with seeds (which probably aren't controversial) is a clever, albeit fallacious tactic.

Because really, the disagreement is usually not about seeding. Everyone is pretty even headed about MVFC and CAA teams and some Big Sky teams having harder schedules and thus higher seeds. The controversy comes from the at large selections. The teams at 7-4 or 8-3 or better in lesser conferences. It seems to me that the majority of fans who vote and aren't MVFC are more willing to give these teams a shot or the benefit of the doubt.

And AGS is not much better than other polls at predicting those teams. When non-MVFC fans point this out we're called biased and told how predictive AGS is. Motte and Bailey, circular reasoning, ad infinitum.

In reality, everyone is biased here, and the claims of neutrality supported by impartial evidence is over promised and under delivered.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
You think only MVFC fans think the AGS Poll is a more accurate playoff predictor than the STATS or Coaches polls? You think you're getting bashed? This is a discussion that you're pulling in a bunch of different directions that it doesn't need to go (I don't know what SOS or conference bias has to do with any of this). I'll put together a list of how all 3 polls have done picking the at-large field since it expanded to 24 teams in 2013 if that's what you want to see.

FWIW I don't claim to be completely unbiased because everyone is biased to a certain extent. The AGS voting pool is a collection of biased opinions, some more than others, but the proof that it is a more accurate representation of what the playoff committee comes up with year in and year out is in the data. Give me a day or two and I'll show you.

[Birdman_]

There's a motte and bailey argument being made here. The easy claim is that AGS is more accurate than the other polls when it comes to seeds. The harder claim AGS is more predictive for the entire field.

I'm going after the harder claim, everyone else is defending the easy one. I concede that AGS is better at picking the seeds, but then again I said that was probably easier anyway for anyone focusing intently.

But if you look at the entire field and in 3 years AGS is only 1-2 better *sometimes,* thats margin of error.

MVFC fans make this site insufferable at times because they use these little talking points to bash anyone who differentiates from their opinion on the marginal at large teams. It's an equivocation because AGS is a poll, which means it's an average; the disagreement is built in. So talking about how great AGS at predicting the entire field and chest beating the MVFC when it's only marginal, when it's really only noticeably better with seeds (which probably aren't controversial) is a clever, albeit fallacious tactic.

Because really, the disagreement is usually not about seeding. Everyone is pretty even headed about MVFC and CAA teams and some Big Sky teams having harder schedules and thus higher seeds. The controversy comes from the at large selections. The teams at 7-4 or 8-3 or better in lesser conferences. It seems to me that the majority of fans who vote and aren't MVFC are more willing to give these teams a shot or the benefit of the doubt.

And AGS is not much better than other polls at predicting those teams. When non-MVFC fans point this out we're called biased and told how predictive AGS is. Motte and Bailey, circular reasoning, ad infinitum.

In reality, everyone is biased here, and the claims of neutrality supported by impartial evidence is over promised and under delivered.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Point well made. Obviously people are always looking for things to talk about, and polls certainly satiate the desire for debate. While there's no disputing the fact that everyone is biased, these debates are certainly a positive thing since they create interest beyond one's own team/conference. Sometimes it's comical how seriously people take these things though.

I'm still new to the FCS scene, so still learning all of the nuances, however a lot of people on here really know their stuff about teams regardless of conferences, which is honestly really impressive.

[Herder]

Mediocrity in the CAA is rewarded vs mediocrity in the MVFC being penalized in the polls. You’d think the CAA is the top Conf. The sagarin shows the Valley as way ahead in that race.

[Reign of Terrier]

You think only MVFC fans think the AGS Poll is a more accurate playoff predictor than the STATS or Coaches polls? You think you're getting bashed? This is a discussion that you're pulling in a bunch of different directions that it doesn't need to go (I don't know what SOS or conference bias has to do with any of this). I'll put together a list of how all 3 polls have done picking the at-large field since it expanded to 24 teams in 2013 if that's what you want to see.

FWIW I don't claim to be completely unbiased because everyone is biased to a certain extent. The AGS voting pool is a collection of biased opinions, some more than others, but the proof that it is a more accurate representation of what the playoff committee comes up with year in and year out is in the data. Give me a day or two and I'll show you.

I challenge you to count the proportion of fans that consistently bash *any* team for losing at all to a non-MVFC team. Most of them are in the MVFC. I'm just pointing out that the AGS poll isn't as perfect as some people say it is. It's a good poll, heck it's the best poll, but it's a data point, not the entire field.

I've been on this board on and off for 10 years and the poll bashing is worse today than it was 5 years ago. I'm not the only one who's being "bashed." Probably 30% of the rep I've received in the last year comes from pointing out the inconsistencies of the MVFC chest-beaters.

[Mayville Bison]

There's a motte and bailey argument being made here. The easy claim is that AGS is more accurate than the other polls when it comes to seeds. The harder claim AGS is more predictive for the entire field.

I'm going after the harder claim, everyone else is defending the easy one. I concede that AGS is better at picking the seeds, but then again I said that was probably easier anyway for anyone focusing intently.

But if you look at the entire field and in 3 years AGS is only 1-2 better *sometimes,* thats margin of error.

MVFC fans make this site insufferable at times because they use these little talking points to bash anyone who differentiates from their opinion on the marginal at large teams. It's an equivocation because AGS is a poll, which means it's an average; the disagreement is built in. So talking about how great AGS at predicting the entire field and chest beating the MVFC when it's only marginal, when it's really only noticeably better with seeds (which probably aren't controversial) is a clever, albeit fallacious tactic.

Because really, the disagreement is usually not about seeding. Everyone is pretty even headed about MVFC and CAA teams and some Big Sky teams having harder schedules and thus higher seeds. The controversy comes from the at large selections. The teams at 7-4 or 8-3 or better in lesser conferences. It seems to me that the majority of fans who vote and aren't MVFC are more willing to give these teams a shot or the benefit of the doubt.

And AGS is not much better than other polls at predicting those teams. When non-MVFC fans point this out we're called biased and told how predictive AGS is. Motte and Bailey, circular reasoning, ad infinitum.

In reality, everyone is biased here, and the claims of neutrality supported by impartial evidence is over promised and under delivered.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

It's all in the eye of the beholder to what's most important. To me, the top 8 seeding in the correct order is WAY more important than who the 20-24th teams are. Who gets the home game in the quarters and semis is the thing to be arguing about.

[Reign of Terrier]

It's all in the eye of the beholder to what's most important. To me, the top 8 seeding in the correct order is WAY more important than who the 20-24th teams are. Who gets the home game in the quarters and semis is the thing to be arguing about.

And I typically agree with the consensus on AGS about this! It's just when we talk about the bubble teams that the discourse is garbage

[BisonTru]

There's a motte and bailey argument being made here. The easy claim is that AGS is more accurate than the other polls when it comes to seeds. The harder claim AGS is more predictive for the entire field.

I'm going after the harder claim, everyone else is defending the easy one. I concede that AGS is better at picking the seeds, but then again I said that was probably easier anyway for anyone focusing intently.

But if you look at the entire field and in 3 years AGS is only 1-2 better *sometimes,* thats margin of error.

MVFC fans make this site insufferable at times because they use these little talking points to bash anyone who differentiates from their opinion on the marginal at large teams. It's an equivocation because AGS is a poll, which means it's an average; the disagreement is built in. So talking about how great AGS at predicting the entire field and chest beating the MVFC when it's only marginal, when it's really only noticeably better with seeds (which probably aren't controversial) is a clever, albeit fallacious tactic.

Because really, the disagreement is usually not about seeding. Everyone is pretty even headed about MVFC and CAA teams and some Big Sky teams having harder schedules and thus higher seeds. The controversy comes from the at large selections. The teams at 7-4 or 8-3 or better in lesser conferences. It seems to me that the majority of fans who vote and aren't MVFC are more willing to give these teams a shot or the benefit of the doubt.

And AGS is not much better than other polls at predicting those teams. When non-MVFC fans point this out we're called biased and told how predictive AGS is. Motte and Bailey, circular reasoning, ad infinitum.

In reality, everyone is biased here, and the claims of neutrality supported by impartial evidence is over promised and under delivered.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Spare me the MVFC outrage. First off, I nor did any other MVFC fan bring up the conference at all. Second, my team is number one by every voter in every poll. There isn't a debate there. Third, the MVFC is starting to look like the easiest conference to sort out as 4 teams look likely in at 7+ wins and no other team may be above 5 wins making them for sure out. Fourth if you want rep, go down to the poli board and get on a certain aisle. Getting rep doesn't mean your arguments make sense just that some posters agree enough to hit a button.

Now if we can move this conversation back to where it was and should be, the AGS poll has absolutely been better at predicting the at large bids than Stats or the Coaches poll. I am glad to see you have conceded the AGS poll is better at the seedings, but the evidence is also there on the at larges as well. Is the AGS poll perfect? No, but that would be a high bar to hold them too, that no other poll is nailing perfect either. It's the best poll when determining what the committee will do, and there's many years of evidence to that.

[Reign of Terrier]

Spare me the MVFC outrage. First off, I nor did any other MVFC fan bring up the conference at all. Second, my team is number one by every voter in every poll. There isn't a debate there. Third, the MVFC is starting to look like the easiest conference to sort out as 4 teams look likely in at 7+ wins and no other team may be above 5 wins making them for sure out. Fourth if you want rep, go down to the poli board and get on a certain aisle. Getting rep doesn't mean your arguments make sense just that some posters agree enough to hit a button.

Now if we can move this conversation back to where it was and should be, the AGS poll has absolutely been better at predicting the at large bids than Stats or the Coaches poll. I am glad to see you have conceded the AGS poll is better at the seedings, but the evidence is also there on the at larges as well. Is the AGS poll perfect? No, but that would be a high bar to hold them too, that no other poll is nailing perfect either. It's the best poll when determining what the committee will do, and there's many years of evidence to that.

You're missing the point of the rep comment. You're disregarding my comments as lone wolf whining (basically), when my point is that other posters agree with my assessment (and many of them have given up advocating). Again, you can disparage my position as being totally biased or whatever, but you're not really providing any counterpoint other than reasserting my bias and stroking the AGS poll.

When it comes to at large teams, being 1 or 2 better than the other polls isn't really saying much in a sample of 14 (that's 7-14%). The entire genesis of this conversation, if you trace it back to Professor's comments, is how many complains about polls and (going back to other threads) it seems that there's a subliminal comparison to NDSU that just isn't fair because it's really not something any up and comer team can live up to.

It's abundantly obvious to anyone outside of an MVFC team that whenever people bash the other polls, it's because it puts too little weight on the perceived flaws of non-MVFC teams and too much weight on the flaws of MVFC teams. It's a buzz kill for everyone else, because everyone wants to see some turnover in the playoffs among the at large (we want to see, say, Murray State or Incarnate Word or ETSU make some noise in the polls and have a better shot at the playoffs), and seeing them move a little up the rankings helps that possibility. But the goal posts are moved in ways only the MVFC and whoever NDSU plays OOC can meet.

Put another way: Every team has flaws, NDSU is the gold standard, it's unlikely anyone will beat NDSU, and MVFC teams think they don't get enough respect because they have to play NDSU every year (or something). We get it, you play a tough schedule and the MVFC is a tough conference. But I guarantee you there is herding in this poll, favoring the teams that are successful because their fans are more likely to pay attention (I bet in the mid-2000 App State fans had a disproportionate influence and Wofford benefited from it too).

And it's annoying for everyone else who likes watching FCS football to see this constant negativity toward non-MVFC teams, even though counterexamples to these narratives are abundant.

[BisonTru]

You're missing the point of the rep comment. You're disregarding my comments as lone wolf whining (basically), when my point is that other posters agree with my assessment (and many of them have given up advocating). Again, you can disparage my position as being totally biased or whatever, but you're not really providing any counterpoint other than reasserting my bias and stroking the AGS poll.

When it comes to at large teams, being 1 or 2 better than the other polls isn't really saying much in a sample of 14 (that's 7-14%). The entire genesis of this conversation, if you trace it back to Professor's comments, is how many complains about polls and (going back to other threads) it seems that there's a subliminal comparison to NDSU that just isn't fair because it's really not something any up and comer team can live up to.

It's abundantly obvious to anyone outside of an MVFC team that whenever people bash the other polls, it's because it puts too little weight on the perceived flaws of non-MVFC teams and too much weight on the flaws of MVFC teams. It's a buzz kill for everyone else, because everyone wants to see some turnover in the playoffs among the at large (we want to see, say, Murray State or Incarnate Word or ETSU make some noise in the polls and have a better shot at the playoffs), and seeing them move a little up the rankings helps that possibility. But the goal posts are moved in ways only the MVFC and whoever NDSU plays OOC can meet.

Put another way: Every team has flaws, NDSU is the gold standard, it's unlikely anyone will beat NDSU, and MVFC teams think they don't get enough respect because they have to play NDSU every year (or something). We get it, you play a tough schedule and the MVFC is a tough conference. But I guarantee you there is herding in this poll, favoring the teams that are successful because their fans are more likely to pay attention (I bet in the mid-2000 App State fans had a disproportionate influence and Wofford benefited from it too).

And it's annoying for everyone else who likes watching FCS football to see this constant negativity toward non-MVFC teams, even though counterexamples to these narratives are abundant.

You bitch about MVFC posters and them pimping their conference and how the rest of you are sick of it, but then why in the hell are you turning this conversation into a MVFC vs. the rest conversation. We can do that conversation if you would like. I can post a ****load of stuff on why the MVFC is the toughest conference, but that isn't what the conversation is about. So why do you keep trying to go there. Myself nor any MVFC poster here made it about the MVFC.

So again to bring the conversation back on point, 1 or 2 better than the other polls consistently is a significant mark. You can point to it only being 7-14% of the total at large field, but reality is the first 10 are usually pretty damn obvious. It's the last four in that we really have the debate about. So when AGS is consistently getting those right more often Stats and the Coaches poll it makes it a lot better predictor of the field. You can go look at the historical results. Every year AGS outperforms the others. You can hold out hope that this is the year the other polls or the one that has your team higher out performs AGS but imo that's wishful thinking more than objectivity based on past results.

[Original_RMC]

I should post my weekly poll for Stats but don't want the attacks...opps...did I say that out-loud?