Final 2007 Gridiron Power Index (GPI), Appalachian State No. 1

[CSN-info]

Final 2007 Gridiron Power Index (GPI), Appalachian State No. 1
College Sporting News
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=89801

The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the hybrid ranking for the Division I Football Championship Subdivision has national champion Appalachian State University in the top spot at the end of the 2007-2008 season. The FCS's largest conference, the Colonial Athletic Association is the top ranked league. The CAA has seven of their teams in the top 25; the Southern Conference placed six; the Gateway Football Conference placed three; the Ivy League, the Big Sky and the Great West Football Conferences placed two each; and the Mid-Eastern Athletic, Ohio Valley and Southland Conferences placed one each.

GPI Top 25
1. Appalachian St (1.00)
2. Northern Iowa (2.88)
3T. Richmond (3.63)
3T. Delaware (3.63)
5. S Illinois (5.38)
6. N Dakota St (6.00)
7. Massachusetts (6.50)
8. Wofford (9.00)
9T. McNeese St (9.38)
9T. James Madison (9.38)
11. Montana (11.50)
12. E Washington (11.63)
13. New Hampshire (14.50)
14. S Dakota St (16.13)
15. Villanova (16.63)
16. Ga Southern (17.63)
17. Elon (17.88)
18. Youngstown St (18.13)
19. Yale (20.00)
20. E Kentucky (20.38)
21. Hofstra (22.25)
22T. Harvard (22.50)
22T. The Citadel (22.50)
24. Furman (23.00)
25. Delaware St (24.50)

Conference Rank
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
1. Colonial Athletic Association (21.71)
2. Southern Conference (23.92)
3. Great West Football Conference (28.88)
4. Gateway Football Conference (28.95)
5. Big Sky Conference (41.39)
6. Southland Conference (42.07)
7. Patriot League (47.02)
8. Ivy League (48.94)
9. Big South Conference (54.50)
10. Southwestern Athletic Conference (55.44)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (55.77)
12. Ohio Valley Conference (57.10)
13. Pioneer Football League (63.71)
14. Independents (65.75)
15. Northeast Conference (68.82)
16. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (79.13)

[GannonFan]

xwhistlex

[appfan2008]

no surprises on that in my opinion... one of those computer rankings gave uni the top spot... no wonder they drop the high and low

[NDSUFREAK]

wow, talk about late

[CSN-info]

wow, talk about lateSince the season ended on January 7, six days ago, we had to wait until all the computer ratings were done. Sorry for that but it's out of our hands.

[appfan2008]

our season ended on December 14, 2007 in chattanooga with ASU beating Deleware... remember?!?!?!

[UNHWildCats]

our season ended on December 14, 2007 in chattanooga with ASU beating Deleware... remember?!?!?!
some of the computer rankings also include FBS and thus their final rankings werent out until after the BCS Title game....

[Appinator]

our season ended on December 14, 2007 in chattanooga with ASU beating Deleware... remember?!?!?!

Yeah, but the Sagarin ratings that this feeds from factors in all of division 1, both FCS and FBS. The final rankings could have been different from the one at the time of our championship. Hence, the calculations would have changed and not been accurate until the final overall computer rankings were out.

[CSN-info]

our season ended on December 14, 2007 in chattanooga with ASU beating Deleware... remember?!?!?!Computer ratings do not finish until EVERYONE is done. CSN well remembers when your season finished:

2007 NCAA D-I Football Championship Info
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=89142

CSN Championship Weekend Coverage
PHOTOS:
• 12/12/07 Champ Day 1 Onfield, Chattanooga, TN, by Ralph Wallace
• 12/13/07 Champ Pregame Press Conferences, Chattanooga, TN, by Ralph Wallace
• 12/13/07 Sports Network Awards, Chattanooga, TN, by Mark Campbell
• 12/14/07 Delaware v. Appalachian Pre-game, Chattanooga, TN, by Ralph Wallace
• 12/14/07 Delaware v. Appalachian State (gallery 1), Chattanooga, TN, by Mark Campbell
• 12/14/07 Delaware v. Appalachian State (gallery 2), Chattanooga, TN, by Thomas Brown
• 12/14/07 Champ Postgame Press Conferences, Chattanooga, TN, by Thomas Brown

VIDEOS:
• 12/14/07 Champ Game Coin Flip
• 12/14/07 Champ Game Field Rush

CSN WAVES AUDIO:
• 12/12/07 Champ Game Onfield Interviews
• 12/13/07 Champ Game Pregame Press Conferences
• 12/13/07 Sports Network Awards Show
• 12/14/07 Champ Game Postgame Press Conferences

Appalachian State Wins Third Consecutive National Title
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=89495

Year Of The Mountaineer
http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stories/121507aaj.html

The CAA Today: The Championship Game!
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=89551

The FCS College Football Weekly Preview, Volume XVI, Issue 18
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=89553

CSN So South: Appalachian State Etches Its Story in the Football History Books
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=89535

xthumbsupx

[birdbrain]

45. Illinois St (37.75)

But but :(

[Eight Legger]

UR was 6-1 against the final top 25 this year, only loss was to App. I think App was 7-1 against this group. Does anyone else come close to those records?

[ButlerGSU]

UR was 6-1 against the final top 25 this year, only loss was to App. I think App was 7-1 against this group. Does anyone else come close to those records?

App lost to both Georgia Southern and Wofford, both of which were ranked in this top 25.

[SuperEagle]

my goodness, 75% of the SOCON made the final rankings. Has a conference ever had that percentage of their conference make the final GPI? Even though I'm a homer, I never expected the results to look like that.
Now, I'm only pointed out how impressive that is. Yes, I know the CAA has the top spot for conferences and I don't want to turn this into smack.
So FCS Preview, you don't have to come on here and tell me how bad the SOCON is and how great the CAA is.
I am merely stating that 6 out of 8 teams ending up in the top 25 in the final GPI is pretty awesome. That's all.
And CSN-Info, thanks for the post.

[Longhorn]

6 CAA teams (50% of the league) in the top 15. Banner year for the CAA.

[bluehenbillk]

It was close but the final BS rankings do actually come out before National Letter of Intent day.

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

UR was 6-1 against the final top 25 this year, only loss was to App. I think App was 7-1 against this group. Does anyone else come close to those records?

2-4:(

[Fordham]

Don't understand Fordham at #35. This is a composite of the polls out there, correct? If so, every one that I saw had Fordham at 21 or higher to finish the season. Add to it that we're below Holy Cross, who is at #29, and well behind Harvard, who lost to both Lehigh and Holy Cross this year, and I just don't get it.

I can see why we took a big hit, post-Bucknell, but don't understand the #35 when the other polls have shown us in the top 20 (or 21). Anyone have an explanation?

[Appinator]

Don't understand Fordham at #35. This is a composite of the polls out there, correct? If so, every one that I saw had Fordham at 21 or higher to finish the season. Add to it that we're below Holy Cross, who is at #29, and well behind Harvard, who lost to both Lehigh and Holy Cross this year, and I just don't get it.

I can see why we took a big hit, post-Bucknell, but don't understand the #35 when the other polls have shown us in the top 20 (or 21). Anyone have an explanation?

The computers killed you, look at the CSN page, and you'll see that they ranked you consistantly in the 40's and upper 30's.

[FCS Preview]

...I don't want to turn this into smack.
So FCS Preview, you don't have to come on here and tell me how bad the SOCON is and how great the CAA is.
I am merely stating that 6 out of 8 teams ending up in the top 25 in the final GPI is pretty awesome. That's all...

I've never said the SoCon is bad...just that they deserved two teams this year, and got two teams this year. Period, end of story.

[DetroitFlyer]

Don't understand Fordham at #35. This is a composite of the polls out there, correct? If so, every one that I saw had Fordham at 21 or higher to finish the season. Add to it that we're below Holy Cross, who is at #29, and well behind Harvard, who lost to both Lehigh and Holy Cross this year, and I just don't get it.

I can see why we took a big hit, post-Bucknell, but don't understand the #35 when the other polls have shown us in the top 20 (or 21). Anyone have an explanation?

There are a number of "obscure" computer rankings included that probably have Fordham listed lower.... Dayton at #30.... Please.... I used to have some faith in the GPI, but no longer.... Absolutely criminal to have Holy Cross, Harvard and Yale ranked ahead of Dayton in any poll. Just too much "tradition" and not enough of really considering the relative strength of teams.... Once you get outside of the top 10 or so, I think the quality of any ranking starts to head south....

[UAalum72]

As for getting a consensus of all the polls and ranking -

"It is a common fallacy among (experts) that incompetence coordinated equals competence" - Dr. Laurence Peter, The Peter Principle

[GannonFan]

As for getting a consensus of all the polls and ranking -

"It is a common fallacy among (experts) that incompetence coordinated equals competence" - Dr. Laurence Peter, The Peter Principle

xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx xlolx xbeerchugx xsmileyclapx

[93henfan]

As for getting a consensus of all the polls and ranking -

"It is a common fallacy among (experts) that incompetence coordinated equals competence" - Dr. Laurence Peter, The Peter Principle

Head of nail, meet hammer! xthumbsupx

[bluehenbillk]

As for getting a consensus of all the polls and ranking -

"It is a common fallacy among (experts) that incompetence coordinated equals competence" - Dr. Laurence Peter, The Peter Principle


You know, over years of exhibiting the fallacies of this "index", I've never said it as good as that statement. Bravo!!

xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[CSN-info]

There are a number of "obscure" computer rankings included that probably have Fordham listed lower.... Dayton at #30.... Please.... I used to have some faith in the GPI, but no longer.... Absolutely criminal to have Holy Cross, Harvard and Yale ranked ahead of Dayton in any poll. Just too much "tradition" and not enough of really considering the relative strength of teams.... Once you get outside of the top 10 or so, I think the quality of any ranking starts to head south....The GPI, now entering its 10th year is an established index of teams in the FCS.

It combines the top polls and the best computer ratings to generate a ranking of FCS teams.

The computer ratings are not obscure at all and are a blend of types. In fact of the seven used, six are in the top eight at Massey Ratings.

Every year there are complaints from partisan fans that their team is ranked too low but the GPI is just that, an index. Often it exposes teams that might be over-ranked in human polls which often underestimate strength of schedule.

Despite the very few here who loudly attempt to discredit it, it has proven to be a high quality measurement and very popular.

Now that all the games are done for 2007-2008 we at CSN look forward to the 2008-2009 season and the 10th anniversary of the GPI! xthumbsupx

[GannonFan]

xwhistlex

[JohnStOnge]

As for getting a consensus of all the polls and ranking -

"It is a common fallacy among (experts) that incompetence coordinated equals competence" - Dr. Laurence Peter, The Peter Principle

UA, I have a challenge for you. If you believe the GPI is "incompetent," I can test your own beliefs about who should be rated where against it. I propose that you rank all the FCS teams in order of who is best, second best, on down to worst. Then I will do a test of whether or not your opinion is as good in terms of rating teams as the GPI is.

If rating all teams is too much, do it this way: You rank as many teams as necessary to capture all of the teams rated in the top 25 by the GPI. For instance, if you think Yale is the worst team in what the GPI rates as the top 25, you keep rating teams from best, to second best, to third best, and so on until you reach Yale.

[UAalum72]

It doesn't matter if I can do better.

ONE of these polls or ratings is the best. Averaging that one with ANY other rating will give a result worse than the best one. Would a simpler GPI of only Massey's rating plus Pete's Power Poll be better than Massey' alone?

The presumption is that by combining all these ratings, the mistakes and biases will cancel themselves out. But that requires that the biases are evenly distributed. First, bias is introduced when you choose which polls and rating will comprise the GPI. Then, if a large number of pollsters have the same bias as the playoff selection committee, they reinforce themselves - committee justifies selection by GPI, then GPI says it's a predictor of playoff selection.

If GPI is supposed to predict playoff selection, there's no need for it after selection Sunday. College basketball RPI ratings stop calculating after the tournament field is chosen.

[CSN-info]

It doesn't matter if I can do better.

ONE of these polls or ratings is the best. Averaging that one with ANY other rating will give a result worse than the best one. Would a simpler GPI of only Massey's rating plus Pete's Power Poll be better than Massey' alone?

The presumption is that by combining all these ratings, the mistakes and biases will cancel themselves out. But that requires that the biases are evenly distributed. First, bias is introduced when you choose which polls and rating will comprise the GPI. Then, if a large number of pollsters have the same bias as the playoff selection committee, they reinforce themselves - committee justifies selection by GPI, then GPI says it's a predictor of playoff selection.

If GPI is supposed to predict playoff selection, there's no need for it after selection Sunday. College basketball RPI ratings stop calculating after the tournament field is chosen.The GPI was never a predictor of anything, it is an INDICATOR. It is not just great for indicating playoff selection though it has been very accurate over it's tenure.

It is nothing like the RPI which is an equation based on wins and losses.

All GPI computer ratings (annually chosen by Dr. Kenneth Massey) and polls continue until the end of the season, not ending on selection Sunday. So has the GPI.

There's no need to disgrace the elements of the GPI (the best ratings and polls) by comparing it with Pete's.

It is YOUR bias that one of the polls or ratings is the best. The GPI is an index of the best of both.

Have a nice winter! xpeacex

[UAalum72]

Either the polls and ratings are all equal, or one of them is the best. Which do you think is correct?

The purpose of RPI is to predict tournament selection.

BEFORE the playoff selection, CSN called the GPI the "top index indicator of at-large playoff selection". The distinction between a pre-selection 'indicator' and a predictor escapes me. If you're not trying to predict playoff selection, why do you care if the selection agrees with you?

Saying Pete 'disgraces' the GPI elements shows your own bias. Who says so, you? Or even everybody?

'The GPI is an index of the best of both'. By definition, it's also an index of the worst elements of both.

[DetroitFlyer]

Either the polls and ratings are all equal, or one of them is the best. Which do you think is correct?

The purpose of RPI is to predict tournament selection.

BEFORE the playoff selection, CSN called the GPI the "top index indicator of at-large playoff selection". The distinction between a pre-selection 'indicator' and a predictor escapes me. If you're not trying to predict playoff selection, why do you care if the selection agrees with you?

Saying Pete 'disgraces' the GPI elements shows your own bias. Who says so, you? Or even everybody?

'The GPI is an index of the best of both'. By definition, it's also an index of the worst elements of both.


And let's be real here.... Stated or not, if the GPI is working to be an indicator or predictor of playoff participants, it automatically reinforces the discrimination that the NEC and PFL have endured for years. I absolutely guarantee you that Dayton was ranked lower this year because of the "San Diego" factor. USD was ranked high, as they should have been in 2006, and that rankled the old guard something fierce. This year, the old guard banded together, and the PFL and NEC teams were rated lower. Lower rating equals less headaches for the old guard. This is not rocket science, it is obvious to anyone who actually bothers to look....

Conversely, it is very easy to rank the Ivy League high. There is zero, and I repeat zero risk. No Ivys in the playoffs, no controversy, no heartburn for the old guard, although most of them salivate over the potential Ivy money and exposure should they ever join the playoffs....

There is so much bias, ignorance, and corruption in the world of FCS, I really struggle to understand the attitude that says that FCS is any better than FBS. From where I sit, both are about the same.

[89Hen]

UA, I have a challenge for you. If you believe the GPI is "incompetent," I can test your own beliefs about who should be rated where against it. I propose that you rank all the FCS teams in order of who is best, second best, on down to worst. Then I will do a test of whether or not your opinion is as good in terms of rating teams as the GPI is.

If rating all teams is too much, do it this way: You rank as many teams as necessary to capture all of the teams rated in the top 25 by the GPI. For instance, if you think Yale is the worst team in what the GPI rates as the top 25, you keep rating teams from best, to second best, to third best, and so on until you reach Yale.
Don't do it UA. JSO will not follow up with you. Once he saw how good people at gohens.net were at picking games, he got a case of amnesia on how he was going to compare the humans with the computers. xcoffeex

[89Hen]

Every year there are complaints from partisan fans that their team is ranked too low...
xnonox AND by non-paritsan fans who realize that most of the computer polls absolutely suck. Garbage in = garbage out.

Sagarin
10. Villanova
11. Elon

Self
1. Northern Iowa

Keeper
6. Montana
7. McNeese
10. Wofford
18. Eastern Washington

The one interesting thing the GPI nailed though is UD and UR tied... xlolx xnodx

[lizrdgizrd]

And let's be real here.... Stated or not, if the GPI is working to be an indicator or predictor of playoff participants, it automatically reinforces the discrimination that the NEC and PFL have endured for years. I absolutely guarantee you that Dayton was ranked lower this year because of the "San Diego" factor. USD was ranked high, as they should have been in 2006, and that rankled the old guard something fierce. This year, the old guard banded together, and the PFL and NEC teams were rated lower. Lower rating equals less headaches for the old guard. This is not rocket science, it is obvious to anyone who actually bothers to look....
xrolleyesx

[Eaglesrus]

UR was 6-1 against the final top 25 this year, only loss was to App. I think App was 7-1 against this group. Does anyone else come close to those records?

Regarding ASU being 7-1, I don't know about the 7 part, but the 1 should be a 2.

[Touchdown Yosef]

Regarding ASU being 7-1, I don't know about the 7 part, but the 1 should be a 2.

Really? Just off the top of my head I think we had a 2 loss season and wofford was the only team that we lost to, to be included in the playoff field and I'm pretty sure we didn't lose in the playoffs either.