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

[CSN-info]

NCAA to Once Again Use CSN's GPI

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

Read More

[danefan]

Please clarify your statement:

Is the NCAA going to use the CSN GPI?

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

[CSN-info]

Hello and thank you for your interest in the College Sporting News Gridiron Power Index! Check out the article. Indeed the NCAA extended the invitation to use the CSN "GPI" as a tool for the selection of teams for the 2011 NCAA Division I Football Championship. CSN accepted for the fourth straight season and we are looking forward to an exciting race to the playoffs!

[danefan]

Hello and thank you for your interest in the College Sporting News Gridiron Power Index! Check out the article. Indeed the NCAA extended the invitation to use the CSN "GPI" as a tool for the selection of teams for the 2011 NCAA Division I Football Championship. CSN accepted for the fourth straight season and we are looking forward to an exciting race to the playoffs!

The article doesn't answer my question.

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

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

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

[Twentysix]

Dude don't argue with intelebot.

[eaglesrthe1]

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

[Skjellyfetti]

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

NCAA didn't use ANY external poll last year.

External polls and computer rankings are not factored into our decisions.

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

So, statements like this:

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

Seem like complete bull**** to me.

[danefan]

NCAA didn't use ANY external poll last year.


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

So, statements like this:


Seem like complete bull**** to me.

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

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbo...1_football.pdf

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

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

[Twentysix]

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

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbo...1_football.pdf

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

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

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

[danefan]

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

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