Sports Network rankings of at-large teams

[GSU Eagle]

If the 5 favorites (Nicholls St., Montana, Eastern Illinois, New Hampshire and Lehigh) win to get the other 5 autobids and join the 3 already decided autobids (Hampton, App. St. and Northern Iowa), here is how the other at-large teams are ranked by Matt Dougherty:

1. Furman
2. Georgia Southern
3. Youngstown St.
4. Massachusetts
5. Texas St.
6. Southern Illinois
7. Richmond
8. Cal Poly
9. Coastal Carolina
10. Colgate
11. South Carolina St.
12. McNeese

No need to go beyond #12.

I would make the following changes in the order of this list:
1. GSU and Furman would be switched. We did beat Furman and technically would finish 2nd in the SoCon and Furman 3rd (provided Furman win Chatt Sat.)
2. I would switch Youngstown and Southern Illinois
3. I would move McNeese to #10 and Colgate to #12.

What do others think of this ranking of the 12 at-large possibilities?

[*****]

Why rank at-large teams?

[PantherMan]

If the 5 favorites (Nicholls St., Montana, Eastern Illinois, New Hampshire and Lehigh) win to get the other 5 autobids and join the 3 already decided autobids (Hampton, App. St. and Northern Iowa), here is how the other at-large teams are ranked by Matt Dougherty:

1. Furman
2. Georgia Southern
3. Youngstown St.
4. Massachusetts
5. Texas St.
6. Southern Illinois
7. Richmond
8. Cal Poly
9. Coastal Carolina
10. Colgate
11. South Carolina St.
12. McNeese

No need to go beyond #12.

I would make the following changes in the order of this list:
1. GSU and Furman would be switched. We did beat Furman and technically would finish 2nd in the SoCon and Furman 3rd (provided Furman win Chatt Sat.)
2. I would switch Youngstown and Southern Illinois
3. I would move McNeese to #10 and Colgate to #12.

What do others think of this ranking of the 12 at-large possibilities?

I think they neglected the fact that Illinois State may be one of the top at-large candidates, even though they won't get in without a miracle of some sort...

[GSU Eagle]

He ranked the top 25 or so teams as far as playoff eligibility in his opinion. If you take out the autobid teams (if the favorites win Saturday), this list is what you are left with.

According to Matt the top 8 would be the at-large entries.

I just wondered if his ranking of the at-large possibilities are correct. I made a few corrections I would make.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

I think Mr. Dougherty follows the stipulation about a team's win record for ranking and giving out at large bids. Eastern Washington beat Montana in MISSOULA, in front of Washington-Grizzly Stadium's 3rd largest crowd EVER. Not to mention we knocked MSU out of contention for an at large bid with a 35-14 win; pretty convincing if you ask me. The eight at large bids should be considered not only on win record, but the squads ability to compete against the top ranked teams in the nation, and I believe EWU has shown that. After all, we knocked off the number one seed and ranked Southern Illinois in the first round last year. I also think it's pretty messed up that if Montana does win on Sunday, only one team would be heading to the playoffs. The Big Sky Conference has been at the top of the GPI for weeks now, and for the most part has always had the most depth and strength of teams and players. The committee should select another BSC team for the playoffs whether Montana wins or loses to MSU.

With that said, go MSU, and go EAGLES!

[GrizSweeper]

I also think it's pretty messed up that if Montana does win on Sunday, only one team would be heading to the playoffs. The Big Sky Conference has been at the top of the GPI for weeks now, and for the most part has always had the most depth and strength of teams and players. The committee should select another BSC team for the playoffs whether Montana wins or loses to MSU.

With that said, go MSU, and go EAGLES!

I agree

[FlyYtown]

YSU Won't get at a #3 like Matt says. Of course we know they deserve it but they won't and get from #6-#8.

[thirdgendin]

1. GSU and Furman would be switched. We did beat Furman and technically would finish 2nd in the SoCon and Furman 3rd (provided Furman win Chatt Sat.)


Actually, we would technically both finish second. There would be no need to break a tie because it doesn't concern the automatic bid.

Also, Furman would be 9-2 with a win on Saturday and GSU is 8-3. I think that puts Furman ahead of GSU.

[AppGuy04]

I would make the following changes in the order of this list:
1. GSU and Furman would be switched. We did beat Furman and technically would finish 2nd in the SoCon and Furman 3rd (provided Furman win Chatt Sat.)
2. I would switch Youngstown and Southern Illinois
3. I would move McNeese to #10 and Colgate to #12.

What do others think of this ranking of the 12 at-large possibilities?

It really doesn't matter with FU/GSU b/c if you really want to look at it, FU beat the conference champ, you guys got smashed by them, so it all evens out in my mind

[colgate13]

3. I would move McNeese to #10 and Colgate to #12.

Curious as to why?

Colgate's has two bad, early season losses and a loss to a top 10/15 program in Lehigh. They've also got a win against a top 15 program in UMass. 8-3 total record.

McNeese is 5-3 with two in conference losses, both by large margins. They lost by 24 to 3-6 SELA and by 42 to Texas St. Their best win was against GSU.

The GSU/UMass wins cancel each other out IMO. So you've then got a team that had two bad losses in terms of opponents but not score vs. two bad losses in terms of score.

Picking McNeese just because they beat the Eagles?

[89Hen]

I also think it's pretty messed up that if Montana does win on Sunday, only one team would be heading to the playoffs. The Big Sky Conference has been at the top of the GPI for weeks now, and for the most part has always had the most depth and strength of teams and players. The committee should select another BSC team for the playoffs whether Montana wins or loses to MSU.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

EWU is 1-2 OOC and lost to Idaho State, nobody to blame but themselves.

MSU is 2-2 OOC, nobody to blame but themselves.

The Committee should reward one of these teams with an at-large? Cal Poly is getting the Big Sky's at-large, and deservedly so...

Cal Poly 37 - SacSt 13
Cal Poly 38 - MSU 10
Cal Poly 40 - EWU 35
Montana 36 - Cal Poly 27
Cal Poly vs. Idaho State this week

CalPoly is the second best Big Sky team. :nod:

[colgate13]

CalPoly is the second best Big Sky team. :nod:

Great point. I never saw it that way, but under those facts, I think it's a great arguement. Cal Poly is the Big Sky at large! Of course, if they had beaten Montana, would they have gotten the auto? :p

[McNeese75]

Picking McNeese just because they beat the Eagles?

Makes sense to me :D

[colgate13]

Makes sense to me :D

ah, who asked you! :p

[McNeeserocket]

If the 5 favorites (Nicholls St., Montana, Eastern Illinois, New Hampshire and Lehigh) win to get the other 5 autobids and join the 3 already decided autobids (Hampton, App. St. and Northern Iowa), here is how the other at-large teams are ranked by Matt Dougherty:

1. Furman
2. Georgia Southern
3. Youngstown St.
4. Massachusetts
5. Texas St.
6. Southern Illinois
7. Richmond
8. Cal Poly
9. Coastal Carolina
10. Colgate
11. South Carolina St.
12. McNeese

No need to go beyond #12.

I would make the following changes in the order of this list:
1. GSU and Furman would be switched. We did beat Furman and technically would finish 2nd in the SoCon and Furman 3rd (provided Furman win Chatt Sat.)
2. I would switch Youngstown and Southern Illinois
3. I would move McNeese to #10 and Colgate to #12.

What do others think of this ranking of the 12 at-large possibilities?

Actually, if Nicholls wins this weekend it means they beat McNeese because that is who Nicholls is playing on Saturday. That would mean that Nicholls is the auto-bid. McNeese would have lost 3 conference games and only have a 5-4 record. So McNeese would not be considered as an at large bid.

However, if McNeese should beat Nicholls (a big "IF") then McNeese stands an opportunity to get an at large bid with a 6-3 record. The two I-AA teams that McNeese would have played (if not for two different hurricanes causing cancellations) were Southern Univ. and Southern Utah. Even if McNeese only had beaten one of those teams (both teams are having poor seasons) then McNeese would probably be no worse than 7-4 and could be considered a bubble team.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

EWU is 1-2 OOC and lost to Idaho State, nobody to blame but themselves.

MSU is 2-2 OOC, nobody to blame but themselves.

The Committee should reward one of these teams with an at-large? Cal Poly is getting the Big Sky's at-large, and deservedly so...

Cal Poly 37 - SacSt 13
Cal Poly 38 - MSU 10
Cal Poly 40 - EWU 35
Montana 36 - Cal Poly 27
Cal Poly vs. Idaho State this week

CalPoly is the second best Big Sky team. :nod:

One thing buddy:

CalPoly IS NOT IN THE BIG SKY!!! They may have played 5 BSC teams this season, but they are not in the BSC. They are in the Great West Conference! Agreed the Mustangs are playing great this year, and they did beat Eastern, but they have no chance at winning anything for the Big Sky because they are not in our conference. Eastern's losses have all been by 7 points or less, and the last three (ISU, Weber, and CalPoly) have been for a combined 14 points; all close games. Consider that with the fact that the EWU squad has been plagued all season with injuries. 19 players, most of which who have started at one point this year, have been injured and missed a combined 70-something games. Without them, we have still managed to defeat Montana in Missoula (which hasn't been done by any I-AA team in a few years, and only done 17 times ever) and completely shut down MSUs Lulay, who is a Walter Payton candidate. Our team when healthy can beat any I-AA team in the nation, and has proven that. That's why the committee will not give us an at large bid if Montana wins; because they don't want a 7-4, or possibly a 6-5 team wreaking havoc in the playoffs against their teams, let alone winning the thing. Something to think about...

[colgate13]

I think you missed something called sarcasm.

[TypicalTribe]

That's why the committee will not give us an at large bid if Montana wins; because they don't want a 7-4, or possibly a 6-5 team wreaking havoc in the playoffs against their teams, let alone winning the thing. Something to think about...

You've been hanging out with the JMU guys, haven't you?

[Mr. C]

One thing buddy:

CalPoly IS NOT IN THE BIG SKY!!! They may have played 5 BSC teams this season, but they are not in the BSC. They are in the Great West Conference! Agreed the Mustangs are playing great this year, and they did beat Eastern, but they have no chance at winning anything for the Big Sky because they are not in our conference. Eastern's losses have all been by 7 points or less, and the last three (ISU, Weber, and CalPoly) have been for a combined 14 points; all close games. Consider that with the fact that the EWU squad has been plagued all season with injuries. 19 players, most of which who have started at one point this year, have been injured and missed a combined 70-something games. Without them, we have still managed to defeat Montana in Missoula (which hasn't been done by any I-AA team in a few years, and only done 17 times ever) and completely shut down MSUs Lulay, who is a Walter Payton candidate. Our team when healthy can beat any I-AA team in the nation, and has proven that. That's why the committee will not give us an at large bid if Montana wins; because they don't want a 7-4, or possibly a 6-5 team wreaking havoc in the playoffs against their teams, let alone winning the thing. Something to think about...
And Eastern Washington has absolutely no chance of getting an at-large bid unless every 7-3 team in I-AA loses on Saturday. The committee members I've talked to say they don't think 7-4 teams (which EWU would be if they manage to defeat a good UC Davis team on the road) are deserving of a bid. You can go on and about EWU, but they won't even be on the board on Saturday for discussion. The Eagles are also ranked below Montana, Texas State and Cal Poly in the committee's regional poll.

[MarkCCU]

If the 5 favorites (Nicholls St., Montana, Eastern Illinois, New Hampshire and Lehigh) win to get the other 5 autobids and join the 3 already decided autobids (Hampton, App. St. and Northern Iowa), here is how the other at-large teams are ranked by Matt Dougherty:

1. Furman
2. Georgia Southern
3. Youngstown St.
4. Massachusetts
5. Texas St.
6. Southern Illinois
7. Richmond
8. Cal Poly
9. Coastal Carolina
10. Colgate
11. South Carolina St.
12. McNeese

No need to go beyond #12.

I would make the following changes in the order of this list:
1. GSU and Furman would be switched. We did beat Furman and technically would finish 2nd in the SoCon and Furman 3rd (provided Furman win Chatt Sat.)
2. I would switch Youngstown and Southern Illinois
3. I would move McNeese to #10 and Colgate to #12.

What do others think of this ranking of the 12 at-large possibilities?

I hate Furman so i'd kick Furman off. Other than that...

[Poly Pigskin]

One thing buddy:

CalPoly IS NOT IN THE BIG SKY!!! They may have played 5 BSC teams this season, but they are not in the BSC. They are in the Great West Conference! Agreed the Mustangs are playing great this year, and they did beat Eastern, but they have no chance at winning anything for the Big Sky because they are not in our conference. Eastern's losses have all been by 7 points or less, and the last three (ISU, Weber, and CalPoly) have been for a combined 14 points; all close games. Consider that with the fact that the EWU squad has been plagued all season with injuries. 19 players, most of which who have started at one point this year, have been injured and missed a combined 70-something games. Without them, we have still managed to defeat Montana in Missoula (which hasn't been done by any I-AA team in a few years, and only done 17 times ever) and completely shut down MSUs Lulay, who is a Walter Payton candidate. Our team when healthy can beat any I-AA team in the nation, and has proven that. That's why the committee will not give us an at large bid if Montana wins; because they don't want a 7-4, or possibly a 6-5 team wreaking havoc in the playoffs against their teams, let alone winning the thing. Something to think about...


You can go on and on about your banged up team, but guess what? Everyone has their injuries! I'm assuming you will still have some guys hurt when the playoffs start; why should the committee pick a team that is inconsitent because of injuries?

You had a real opportunity to make a statement on the road against an injured Cal Poly team, but your offense couldn't find itself until the last drive of the first quarter and your defense was nonexistant. How can you expect your team to make so much noise in the playoffs if you can't beat someone who is fighting you for an at-large? By most accounts we are going to be the last team in the field, and you really have no case to jump us with a worse record and a head-to-head loss. Yes, the BSC is tough and 2 bids would be nice. Take care of business OOC and you would have gotten them.

Go Griz, Go Aggies, and most importantly Go Mustangs!!

[FlyBoy8]

Switch SCSU and Colgate. The CCSU and Dartmouth losses cross out the UMass win, and MORE (Dartmouth is now 2-7 by the way, the seventh place Ivy team). SCSU beat everyone except two playoff teams.

SCSU's 9-2 is stronger than Colgate's 8-3 in my opinion.

Also, GPI rankings:
SCSU - 26
Colgate - 40

I'd take SCSU over Colgate.

[Chi Panther]

And Eastern Washington has absolutely no chance of getting an at-large bid unless every 7-3 team in I-AA loses on Saturday. The committee members I've talked to say they don't think 7-4 teams (which EWU would be if they manage to defeat a good UC Davis team on the road) are deserving of a bid. You can go on and about EWU, but they won't even be on the board on Saturday for discussion. The Eagles are also ranked below Montana, Texas State and Cal Poly in the committee's regional poll.

Mr C.....

you are wise beyond me and I'm sure know people in the know.....and are relaying what they have said, but what is your personal thoughts on a 7-4 making the playoffs?

I think the committee needs to open up and consider 7-4 teams. I understand that 8-3 makes it very easy for the committee so they seem to stick with it.....

IF App St didn't come out on the right side against UT-Chatt.....wouldn't you want consideration at 7-4....especially since you played 2 I-A teams.....

[FlyBoy8]

7-4 teams should not make the playoffs. If schools want to schedule two I-A teams and jeopardize their playoff chances, that's their problem. A four-loss team shouldn't be in the playoffs.

[ISUMatt]

I would take Illinois State over both SC St and Colgate :)

[Chi Panther]

I think Mr. Dougherty follows the stipulation about a team's win record for ranking and giving out at large bids. Eastern Washington beat Montana in MISSOULA, in front of Washington-Grizzly Stadium's 3rd largest crowd EVER. Not to mention we knocked MSU out of contention for an at large bid with a 35-14 win; pretty convincing if you ask me. The eight at large bids should be considered not only on win record, but the squads ability to compete against the top ranked teams in the nation, and I believe EWU has shown that. After all, we knocked off the number one seed and ranked Southern Illinois in the first round last year. I also think it's pretty messed up that if Montana does win on Sunday, only one team would be heading to the playoffs. The Big Sky Conference has been at the top of the GPI for weeks now, and for the most part has always had the most depth and strength of teams and players. The committee should select another BSC team for the playoffs whether Montana wins or loses to MSU.

With that said, go MSU, and go EAGLES!


I love it!!!!! Agree completely.......

Hampton's schedule....
2005 Schedule
DATE OPPONENT RESULT/TIME
09/03 Jackson St W 20-7
09/10 at Howard W 22-12
09/15 at NC A&T W 31-14
09/24 Morgan St W 44-14
10/01 Delaware St W 26-8
10/08 at Gardner Webb W 52-21
10/15 at Norfolk St W 55-14
10/22 SC St W 14-10
11/05 at Beth-Cook W 24-10
11/12 Florida A&M W 34-14
11/19 Savannah St 1:00 PM


Coastal Carolina.....
2005 Schedule
DATE OPPONENT RESULT/TIME
09/03 at Elon W 17-10
09/10 JMU W 31-27
09/17 at App St L 30-3
09/24 Delaware St W 24-6
10/01 at SC St W 24-23
10/15 Gardner Webb W 34-31
10/22 at Liberty W 27-21
10/29 VMI W 38-14
11/05 at Savannah St W 42-16
11/12 Mansfield W 71-8
11/19 at C Southern 12:30 PM

I'd put Coastal in before Hampton becuz they played JMU and App St.......to bad the MEAC has the auto bid.....

I also think the above is unfortunate for teams like Ill State and EWU.....

[GSUISBACK]

Yeah its real unfortunate they lost 4 games. Cry me river.

[colgate13]

Switch SCSU and Colgate. The CCSU and Dartmouth losses cross out the UMass win, and MORE (Dartmouth is now 2-7 by the way, the seventh place Ivy team). SCSU beat everyone except two playoff teams.

SCSU's 9-2 is stronger than Colgate's 8-3 in my opinion.

Also, GPI rankings:
SCSU - 26
Colgate - 40

I'd take SCSU over Colgate.

That's some mighty fine homer logic you got going there! Of course, I can't let it slide without my own homer rebuttal...

First off, you're assuming CCU is a playoff team. Not certain by the least. But more importantly, you swish away Colgate's quality win as if it is meaningless. The gesture of course is laid bare by the next statement: SCSU should get in because of who they lost to. Excuse me? Did I read that correctly? Who have they beat should be the discussion!

6-4 Alabama St.
6-4 Winston Salem St. (What Division are they again?)
7-3 Bethune Cookman
3-7 Norfolk St.
5-5 Florida A&M
6-4 Delaware St.
4-6 Howard
2-9 Morgan St.
3-8 NC A&T (assuming they lose to you)

So in reality we're looking at 8 Division I wins for SCSU vs. 8 Division I wins for Colgate. Your best win is... BCC? BCC who has six Division I wins?

Colgate has beaten:

7-3 UMass
5-4 Cornell
6-3 Princeton
2-8 Fordham
5-5 Holy Cross
7-3 Lafayette
1-9 Bucknell
4-7 Georgetown (assuming we beat them)

I'd stack UMass and Lafayette as better wins than BCC. In fact, I'd throw Princeton, Cornell and Holy Cross there too. And guess what, the GPI agrees with me! They all rank higher than BCC in the GPI. So do you want to trade Delaware State for BCC as you best win, since they rank higher in the GPI?

IMO Colgate goes over SCSU because we both have 8 D I wins, and frankly, Colgate's wins are more impressive.

[rcny46]

I would take Illinois State over both SC St and Colgate :)


For what it's worth,so would I.

[Tod]

For what it's worth,so would I.

Me too.

[*****]

... 6-4 Winston Salem St. (What Division are they again?)...WSSU is finishing their exploratory year in transition to D-I and the MEAC. Next year they will be fully covered by I-AA.org (you'll see their fans here for sure) as they will have passed the turn-back point and enter their four-year countdown to full D-I status.

http://i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=74285

[eaglesrthe1]

2005 EWU @7-4, will be the 2004 UNI @ 7-4.

[FlyBoy8]

That's some mighty fine homer logic you got going there! Of course, I can't let it slide without my own homer rebuttal...

I'm confused. Do you think I'm an SCSU/MEAC fan??? I suppose there is a first time for everything...



First off, you're assuming CCU is a playoff team. Not certain by the least.

Not certain, no. But in my opinion, probable. If anyone is upset next week, CCU is the first team in. And look at how this season has gone.



But more importantly, you swish away Colgate's quality win as if it is meaningless. The gesture of course is laid bare by the next statement: SCSU should get in because of who they lost to. Excuse me? Did I read that correctly?

No, you didn't. I said SCSU has beaten everyone on their schedule aside from two playoff teams, while Colgate has beaten one playoff team (assuming they win) and lost to a mid-major and a terrible Ivy League team. It's not about who SCSU lost to, it's about who Colgate lost to. Two crappy teams.


I'd stack UMass and Lafayette as better wins than BCC. In fact, I'd throw Princeton, Cornell and Holy Cross there too. And guess what, the GPI agrees with me! They all rank higher than BCC in the GPI. So do you want to trade Delaware State for BCC as you best win, since they rank higher in the GPI?

Let me get this straight, you're using the GPI - the same system that has Colgate ranked fifteen spots lower than SCSU - as a reason why Colgate deserves a spot over SCSU??? Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I can't comprehend that. Does not compute.


IMO Colgate goes over SCSU because we both have 8 D I wins, and frankly, Colgate's wins are more impressive.


I don't think either team should make the playoffs, but losing to Central Connecticut St. and Dartmouth should automatically remove a team from consideration. Do you realize that CCSU is 7-4? They've lost to Marist, St. Francis and Stony Brook, but they beat Colgate!

Who is the homer? SCSU may have played a non-D-I team, but at least they didn't lose to one. (apologies to the mid-majors, but the point needs to be made)

[TypicalTribe]

2005 EWU @7-4, will be the 2004 UNI @ 7-4.

Except for the fact that EWU has actually beaten some good teams.

[Black and Gold Express]

There's no question a 7-4 EWU should not be considered for an at-large spot. There are too many teams at 8-3 or better that did more on the field than EWU.

You can rightly say that EWU's 7-4 is tougher than others better records. But at some point you have to take wins and losses alone into account.

Of all the "popular" bubble teams talked about here, I would put 10-1 CCU, 9-2 SCSU, and 8-3 Cal Poly in before a 7-4 EWU.

The good news for EWU, they can back in to the playoffs still. And then they'd get to go on the road (no way in heck they'll sniff a home game) and prove to people they belong. But without that, they simply didn't do it on the field enough to warrant inclusion this year. "Good losses" is only a rational argument when comparing teams with the same records. EWU won't even get to a place where they have that, and the disparity of their W-L record is so much in some cases that the argument ends right there.

[bandl]

There's no question a 7-4 EWU should not be considered for an at-large spot. There are too many teams at 8-3 or better that did more on the field than EWU.

You can rightly say that EWU's 7-4 is tougher than others better records. But at some point you have to take wins and losses alone into account.

Of all the "popular" bubble teams talked about here, I would put 10-1 CCU, 9-2 SCSU, and 8-3 Cal Poly in before a 7-4 EWU.

The good news for EWU, they can back in to the playoffs still. And then they'd get to go on the road (no way in heck they'll sniff a home game) and prove to people they belong. But without that, they simply didn't do it on the field enough to warrant inclusion this year. "Good losses" is only a rational argument when comparing teams with the same records. EWU won't even get to a place where they have that, and the disparity of their W-L record is so much in some cases that the argument ends right there.

If a 7-4 EWU could get in, why not a 7-4 JMU team?? (Who'll bite....Who's gonna bite???) :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I kid. Don't yell at me. :rotateh:

I'll be wearing my JMU NC shirt on sunday while watching the selection committee...at least I know that one team on that shirt will get in...Montana.

[Hamptongal]

If a 7-4 EWU could get in, why not a 7-4 JMU team?? (Who'll bite....Who's gonna bite???) :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I kid. Don't yell at me. :rotateh:

I'll be wearing my JMU NC shirt on sunday while watching the selection committee...at least I know that one team on that shirt will get in...Montana.
Rooooooooooooooooar. Just wanted to scream at you. :mad: :eek:
I don't think a single 7-4 team will get in, they may be considered, for a few minutes but then they will find too many times that they can justify with better schedules.

[bandl]

Rooooooooooooooooar. Just wanted to scream at you. :mad: :eek:
I don't think a single 7-4 team will get in, they may be considered, for a few minutes but then they will find too many times that they can justify with better schedules.

I know JMU doesn't deserve to get in. I won't try to say anything to defend them. They just couldn't cut it this year, simple as that!!!

HAHA...you bit my bait! That was too easy! :D

[Hamptongal]

I know JMU doesn't deserve to get in. I won't try to say anything to defend them. They just couldn't cut it this year, simple as that!!!

HAHA...you bit my bait! That was too easy! :D
Aww, I did it on purpose cuz you were soooo nice to me in the other thread that I thought somebody had to take your bait. If you think I truly care about it then you are a krazy kitty.

[bandl]

Aww, I did it on purpose cuz you were soooo nice to me in the other thread that I thought somebody had to take your bait. If you think I truly care about it then you are a krazy kitty.
The big Kitty ROOOOAARRR threw me off!!! :beerchug:

[Hamptongal]

The big Kitty ROOOOAARRR threw me off!!! :beerchug:
Ask Capn Cat, I am a gun totin hottie. ;) ;)

[colgate13]

I'm confused. Do you think I'm an SCSU/MEAC fan??? I suppose there is a first time for everything...

I don't know your affiliation since it's not clear by name or avatar. I of course think my reply is homerish. I said so!


No, you didn't. I said SCSU has beaten everyone on their schedule aside from two playoff teams, while Colgate has beaten one playoff team (assuming they win) and lost to a mid-major and a terrible Ivy League team. It's not about who SCSU lost to, it's about who Colgate lost to. Two crappy teams.

Two crappy teams in the first three weeks of the season. They are huge black marks, I don't dispute that. But when you throw out SC. St. as they have won 8 games and have lost to two playoffs teams, I throw out: but they haven't beat anyone!

I would firmly take the team that has the potential to win a game or two in the playoffs vs. a team that has beat some pretty low ranked teams but will most likely lose in the playoffs because they couldn't beat anyone! I'll take underachiever over little chance any day. The underachiever has a shot to win IMO.



Let me get this straight, you're using the GPI - the same system that has Colgate ranked fifteen spots lower than SCSU - as a reason why Colgate deserves a spot over SCSU??? Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I can't comprehend that. Does not compute.

I'm using that stat to refute the GPI as the sole basis for decision. It shows how wacky the GPI is. SCSU is 15 spots higher, yet Colgate has several wins over teams ranked significantly higher than any wins SCSU has.





I don't think either team should make the playoffs, but losing to Central Connecticut St. and Dartmouth should automatically remove a team from consideration.

Fair enough, but I think that's a pretty ridiculous stance IMO. Teams get upset all the time. Just because it's not the bottom feeder of a 'power' conference it's somehow worse? Using the wonderful GPI again, Dartmouth is 76 and CCSU is 88 (out of 120 mind you). Right around teams like Elon, VMI, SMS, etc. Would losses to those teams be better?

The real kicker though is this: 4 SCSU wins come from teams ranked BELOW CCSU. If losing to such teams is so bad, what about padding half of your wins from teams so low? (BTW, I'm very aware of 3 PL teams that low but I hope you get my point).

[bigchocolate]

I don't know your affiliation since it's not clear by name or avatar. I of course think my reply is homerish. I said so!



Two crappy teams in the first three weeks of the season. They are huge black marks, I don't dispute that. But when you throw out SC. St. as they have won 8 games and have lost to two playoffs teams, I throw out: but they haven't beat anyone!

I would firmly take the team that has the potential to win a game or two in the playoffs vs. a team that has beat some pretty low ranked teams but will most likely lose in the playoffs because they couldn't beat anyone! I'll take underachiever over little chance any day. The underachiever has a shot to win IMO.






I'm using that stat to refute the GPI as the sole basis for decision. It shows how wacky the GPI is. SCSU is 15 spots higher, yet Colgate has several wins over teams ranked significantly higher than any wins SCSU has.




[b]

Fair enough, but I think that's a pretty ridiculous stance IMO. Teams get upset all the time. Just because it's not the bottom feeder of a 'power' conference it's somehow worse? Using the wonderful GPI again, Dartmouth is 76 and CCSU is 88 (out of 120 mind you). Right around teams like Elon, VMI, SMS, etc. Would losses to those teams be better?

The real kicker though is this: 4 SCSU wins come from teams ranked BELOW CCSU. If losing to such teams is so bad, what about padding half of your wins from teams so low? (BTW, I'm very aware of 3 PL teams that low but I hope you get my point).



SCSU should be considered!! Lost (1) to CCU on 4th and 4 pass completion with seconds on the clock by 1 point and Lost (2) to the current #2 ranked 1AA team on their homefield by 4 points lost of possesion on downs inside there 30. Doesn't sound like a team not capable of potentially winning a playoff game!

[FlyBoy8]

I think that's a pretty ridiculous stance IMO. Teams get upset all the time. Just because it's not the bottom feeder of a 'power' conference it's somehow worse? Using the wonderful GPI again, Dartmouth is 76 and CCSU is 88 (out of 120 mind you). Right around teams like Elon, VMI, SMS, etc. Would losses to those teams be better?

No, of course not. If any team had losses to two of those teams, I'd be saying the exact same things I'm saying about Colgate. But the fact is, no other potential playoff team has two losses that are anywhere near as bad as Colgate's. Nobody even has a single loss as bad as either of them. There have been plenty of upsets, yeah, but not by mid-majors or last-place teams. Honestly, Lehigh's losses to Delaware and Holy Cross have to be the worst among other potential playoff teams.

I am a Delaware fan by the way.

Like I said, those two losses are all I need to see. My opinion that SCSU should get in over Colgate has nothing to do with SCSU and everything to with Colgate. SCSU has a very unimpressive resume, but it's not as bad as Colgate's. In my opinion, that is. And I believe the committee will feel the same way.