Major Changes to Playoff Selection Criteria coming this year

[danefan]

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/403617/group/Sports/


In a surprise move that blindsided almost everybody including NDSU athletic director Gene Taylor, the FCS Championships Committee last week approved a new ratings system to gauge the quality of a team’s schedule. It will take into account games with Football Bowl Subdivision, FCS and Division II opponents.

The expansion of the FCS playoff field from 20 to 24 teams was a reason cited for the change, Taylor said.

“There will be levels of strength of schedule,” Taylor said. “For instance, a Division II win will not count as much as an FBS win. Home wins and road wins are also counted differently.”

Taylor said the exact formula still needs to be finalized, so it has yet to be publically released.

[AppMan]

“For instance, a Division II win will not count as much as an FBS win.

What a novel concept! 'Bout time these guys started using their noggins for something other than a cap rack.

[Saint3333]

Have to wonder if the FBS will also have a similar formula as many have speculated.

[CID1990]

“For instance, a Division II win will not count as much as an FBS win.

What a novel concept! 'Bout time these guys started using their noggins for something other than a cap rack.

That might have been a hypothetical, since DII wins have never played a role in whether a team gets in or not anyway.

I have been in favor of some kind of strength of schedule criteria, though. Not sure if the league can implement it properly, but if they can there might be fewer teams being woffed.

Sent from the center of the universe.

[The Eagle's Cliff]

How will "DI" non-scholarship wins count? One and a half basketballs?

[Bogus Megapardus]

I guess the idea is to encourage the ADs not to schedule any more of those weak, overrated Ivy and Patriot teams that don't belong in Division I in the first place. Not that they ever counted for squat anyhow.

[Saint3333]

I think he means the Pioneer league teams like Davidson and Bulter.

[wmmii]

Long overdue! This year teams will face the reality of padded schedules, should help many CAA teams but hurt a few.

[centraljerseycat]

I like this change. It would prevent the Blue Hens from ever making the playoffs unless they got the CAA autobid.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

I like this change. It would prevent the Blue Hens from ever making the playoffs unless they got the CAA autobid.

It may get UD to play on the road more.

I still have a major problem with rewarding teams for playing paycheck games. Hopefully, common sense is applied....

[Ivytalk]

Makes sense to me. But I thought this was already happening.

[walliver]

I'm afraid they are moving towards more arithmetic and less common sense.

Rational observers can tell strength of schedule with plugging numbers into a computer. What is worse is the idea that a team giving 25 scholarships (many D-2 conferences) is somehow less worthy than a team providing none.

[Engineer86]

Makes sense to me. But I thought this was already happening.

It absolutely is already happening already. I do not see the change. DII wins already don't count and Lehigh was excluded at 10-1 for our weak schedule. The only thing I see that is new, maybe, is the "Delaware rule" where road wins may count more than a home win.

[danefan]

It absolutely is already happening already. I do not see the change. DII wins already don't count and Lehigh was excluded at 10-1 for our weak schedule. The only thing I see that is new, maybe, is the "Delaware rule" where road wins may count more than a home win.

It wasn't happening. DII wins were not considered. They're now saying they might if they're strong DII teams.

The 7 DI win guideline may also be out the door. Now what matters is quality wins, regardless of classification.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

I'm afraid they are moving towards more arithmetic and less common sense.

Rational observers can tell strength of schedule with plugging numbers into a computer. What is worse is the idea that a team giving 25 scholarships (many D-2 conferences) is somehow less worthy than a team providing none.

You think the 7 win rule wasn't arithmetic? I think they are moving towards less black and white and more nuance.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

It absolutely is already happening already. I do not see the change. DII wins already don't count and Lehigh was excluded at 10-1 for our weak schedule. The only thing I see that is new, maybe, is the "Delaware rule" where road wins may count more than a home win.

Perhaps in the "new" formula Lehigh's 6-0 road record would have counted more?

[henfan]

It absolutely is already happening already. I do not see the change. DII wins already don't count and Lehigh was excluded at 10-1 for our weak schedule. The only thing I see that is new, maybe, is the "Delaware rule" where road wins may count more than a home win.

Encouraging schools like UD, Montana, etc., who have historically depended on the financial windfall of noncon home games, to lose money playing road games is probably not a greatest idea for a subdivision who wishes to retain long-term members.

[AmsterBison]

I'm afraid they are moving towards more arithmetic and less common sense.

Rational observers can tell strength of schedule with plugging numbers into a computer. What is worse is the idea that a team giving 25 scholarships (many D-2 conferences) is somehow less worthy than a team providing none.

I'm a little worried about that too. I just hope that the FCS isn't moving to anything like the D2 system (not sure that they still use it, but let's put it this way: with the D2 system, Lehigh would have been the #1 seed last year.) There has to be some middle ground. For the record, not picking on Lehigh - Lehigh should have been in and New Hampshire out last year.

[seantaylor]

Wish this happened sooner. Sammy Baker would have been fired more than a decade ago.

[WestCoastAggie]

Well A&T is playing App. State, Virginia-Lynchburg and Elon this season. The MEAC has a diverse out of conference this year due to the 12 game scheduling abilities we have. If we can win a few of these match-ups against these teams in other FCS conferences, this formula could help us out.

[CID1990]

The only bad thing is that this system had been in place before, we wouldn't have the term "woffed".


Sent from the center of the universe.

[walliver]

I would like to see the actual new policy.

After thinking this over overnight, these changes make sense.

In 2013 there will be 24 playoff spots available (4 new) and three of the top teams in the subdivision will be ineligible (ASU, GSU, and ODU). This creates the potential for some poor teams to make the playoffs under current rules.
The details are important because sometimes labels are not particularly helpful.
Not all FBS wins should be ranked at a premium (Georgia State comes to mind).
Not all non-scholly FCS teams are the same - some take football seriously, for some it is a glorified club team.
There are D2 schools that could compete with the big boys of FCS, and there are schools that might as well be D3

[UAalum72]

Teams shouldn't get any benefit of strength of schedule for getting pounded by an FBS team either. Losing 70-3 doesn't prove anything - anybody can do that. You should only get credit for winning, or at least keeping it close.

[Saint3333]

I would like to see the actual new policy.

After thinking this over overnight, these changes make sense.

In 2013 there will be 24 playoff spots available (4 new) and three of the top teams in the subdivision will be ineligible (ASU, GSU, and ODU). This creates the potential for some poor teams to make the playoffs under current rules.
The details are important because sometimes labels are not particularly helpful.
Not all FBS wins should be ranked at a premium (Georgia State comes to mind).
Not all non-scholly FCS teams are the same - some take football seriously, for some it is a glorified club team.
There are D2 schools that could compete with the big boys of FCS, and there are schools that might as well be D3

Two words scholarship minimums, been saying it for years. This is the subdivisions number one issue.

Grants count before the Ivy and Patriot members jump on this.

[danefan]

Grants count before the Ivy and Patriot members jump on this.

Ivys don't offer athletic grants and Patriot is scholarship now.

[AppMan]

Two words scholarship minimums, been saying it for years. This is the subdivisions number one issue.

Grants count before the Ivy and Patriot members jump on this.

I've been preaching this since 1985 when ASU finished 8-3, 6-1 in the SoCon and ranked 12th in the last poll. My Apps had a 7 point loss to South Carolina, 3 point loss to Wake Forest and 14 point loss to conf champions Furman - who just happened to beat NC State by 22 and lost to Ga Southern on a last minute TD in the national championship game.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

You think the 7 win rule wasn't arithmetic? I think they are moving towards less black and white and more nuance.

That is the way it appears to me as well. Rounding off the edges of some of the hard and fast rules to try and look at the whole of how a team is prepared for the playoffs. I'll bet a team starting slow but having a strong finish will have more hope of getting in now that before. That's only one of many probable positives that could happen.

It is opening a pandora's box for the last few teams left out as well. The bitching will probably go up twofold. xlolx

[UNH Fanboi]

I'm fine with taking a more mathematical approach to taking into account SoS, but I don't have much faith in the NCAA doing so properly. I think the committee has generally done a good job of taking SoS account already.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm fine with taking a more mathematical approach to taking into account SoS, but I don't have much faith in the NCAA doing so properly. I think the committee has generally done a good job of taking SoS account already.

If you think they've done a good job overall with this already and you are fine with a more mathmatical approach with the SoS the why would you not have much faith in this?

[UNH Fanboi]

If you think they've done a good job overall with this already and you are fine with a more mathmatical approach with the SoS the why would you not have much faith in this?

Because creating a good computer ranking system is very difficult, especially for college football with the very limited inter-conference and inter-division play and overall limited sample size.

[Go...gate]

I've been preaching this since 1985 when ASU finished 8-3, 6-1 in the SoCon and ranked 12th in the last poll. My Apps had a 7 point loss to South Carolina, 3 point loss to Wake Forest and 14 point loss to conf champions Furman - who just happened to beat NC State by 22 and lost to Ga Southern on a last minute TD in the national championship game.

Colgate had a similar complaint in 1985. 7-3-1 (good losses to Rutgers [28-14] and Peach-Bowl bound Army [45-43], a tie with Ivy League Champion Penn (27-27) and a loss to Holy Cross) in the last year before the Patriot League started. Colgate was screwed without a kiss.

[Engineer86]

Ivys don't offer athletic grants and Patriot is scholarship now.

Call them what you will. The Ivy's like the prior Patriot gave money to athletes that they wanted. I think that is the point. I know there were certain former star Freshman RBs that did not get money based on need, but certainly got money.

[danefan]

Call them what you will. The Ivy's like the prior Patriot gave money to athletes that they wanted. I think that is the point. I know there were certain former star Freshman RBs that did not get money based on need, but certainly got money.

The Ivy aid structure was not the same as the old PL. All $$$s given to Ivy football player are readily available to non athletes. No aid set aside like the Patriot had.

[Southern Bison]

That is the way it appears to me as well. Rounding off the edges of some of the hard and fast rules to try and look at the whole of how a team is prepared for the playoffs. I'll bet a team starting slow but having a strong finish will have more hope of getting in now that before. That's only one of many probable positives that could happen.

It is opening a pandora's box for the last few teams left out as well. The bitching will probably go up twofold. xlolx

xconfusedx So there will be 4 Lehigh fans screaming about being left out again instead of 2??

[Go...gate]

Possible that fewer at large bids will go to Patriot League teams, as not all conference members schedule strong OOC opponents.

[Tubby Raymond]

“For instance, a Division II win will not count as much as an FBS win.

What a novel concept! 'Bout time these guys started using their noggins for something other than a cap rack.

For the record, Lee was a traitor

[Sader87]

Colgate had a similar complaint in 1985. 7-3-1 (good losses to Rutgers [28-14] and Peach-Bowl bound Army [45-43], a tie with Ivy League Champion Penn (27-27) and a loss to Holy Cross) in the last year before the Patriot League started. Colgate was screwed without a kiss.

We probably screwed you guys that year...1985 was a very weird season for HC football. Started out strong with wins over you guys and Delaware but we stumbled home to a 4-6-1 season. Lot of internal problems, injuries with that year's squad etc etc Program rebounded to go 10-1 in '86 and 11-0 in '87.

[bluehenbillk]

OK I have a couple of thoughts:

1- I still don't like the idea of FCS teams playing D-2 teams. Delaware played West Chester for years (series is now discontinued) and fans hated it. I'll be very curious to see how this is carried out.
2- Strength of Schedule - I like it on the surface, again will be very interested to see how this plays out. My first reaction is that it will become even more difficult for non-autobid teams outside of the more powerful conferences to gain entrance to the final 24. Sounds good for the MVFC, Big Sky, CAA, Southland, & maybe the new SoCon. But doesn't sound great for everyone else.
3- Will margin of victory or defeat play into this? So if you play a FBS team & you lose, will it matter if you got blown away 49-0 versus you hung tough & lost 24-21? Style points.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

OK I have a couple of thoughts:

1- I still don't like the idea of FCS teams playing D-2 teams. Delaware played West Chester for years (series is now discontinued) and fans hated it. I'll be very curious to see how this is carried out.
2- Strength of Schedule - I like it on the surface, again will be very interested to see how this plays out. My first reaction is that it will become even more difficult for non-autobid teams outside of the more powerful conferences to gain entrance to the final 24. Sounds good for the MVFC, Big Sky, CAA, Southland, & maybe the new SoCon. But doesn't sound great for everyone else.
3- Will margin of victory or defeat play into this? So if you play a FBS team & you lose, will it matter if you got blown away 49-0 versus you hung tough & lost 24-21? Style points.

Same questions here. I think it may have the effect of loading the AQ's with the top 4 or 5 conferences but if it does it may also prompt some of the lesser conferences to schedule the top 4 conferences to up the resume. Obvious point I know but it would be nice to have a little something to maybe get BSC teams more FCS games across the country. Hoping some of the top teams from the weaker conferences want to get out and go up against the top conferences to make a mark.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

In all seriousness, how do you do this without a computer?

Youngstown State is 7-4 with a 70-3 win over Valparaiso. Montana State has a close loss to D-II Chadron State. Which is "better"?

[NoDak 4 Ever]

In all seriousness, how do you do this without a computer?

Youngstown State is 7-4 with a 70-3 win over Valparaiso. Montana State has a close loss to D-II Chadron State. Which is "better"?

Either way, both are better than Lehigh. xlolx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

In all seriousness, how do you do this without a computer?

Youngstown State is 7-4 with a 70-3 win over Valparaiso. Montana State has a close loss to D-II Chadron State. Which is "better"?
Is MT State also 7-4? There would be many other variables but I'm assuming you are going for Ceteris paribus here?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yes. Assume it's for the final spot and that Montana State is 7-4 with close loss to Chadron State, and Youngstown State is 7-4 with the 70-3 win over Valpo. Assume they have about the same ratio of "quality wins" and "quality losses".

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yes. Assume it's for the final spot and that Montana State is 7-4 with close loss to Chadron State, and Youngstown State is 7-4 with the 70-3 win over Valpo. Assume they have about the same ratio of "quality wins" and "quality losses".

I think it goes to YSU cuz the Valpo and Chadron St. are gonna be seen as fairly similar teams or at least close enough that you give the nod to them. Even though Chadron in good years would take that game most likely if those two were to play. A D2 loss is still gonna have a stigma to it.

[bluehenbillk]

I think it goes to YSU cuz the Valpo and Chadron St. are gonna be seen as fairly similar teams or at least close enough that you give the nod to them. Even though Chadron in good years would take that game most likely if those two were to play. A D2 loss is still gonna have a stigma to it.

I concur 100%.

[BisonFan02]

I concur 100%.

And it isn't close...the real question would be if someone 8-3 with a D2 loss would get in over someone who is 7-4 in a similar scenario as used before.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

And it isn't close...the real question would be if someone 8-3 with a D2 loss would get in over someone who is 7-4 in a similar scenario as used before.

Yeah, to me that's close but goes the other way. It would also be closer if both YSU and MSU had lost to their respective teams and still ended up 7-4 but the way LFN has it I couldn't see MSU taking the spot.

[BisonFan02]

Yeah, to me that's close but goes the other way. It would also be closer if both YSU and MSU had lost to their respective teams and still ended up 7-4 but the way LFN has it I couldn't see MSU taking the spot.

Or that as well. I would say a loss to Valpo would be as bad as a loss to a good D2 school.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

How about playing a strictly FCS schedule? I know it's somewhat of a novel idea but....

[RichH2]

Same response as always, minimums do little to assure success or failure. Win or lose on the field not in a meeting room.

[MarkyMark]

How about playing a strictly FCS schedule? I know it's somewhat of a novel idea but....

Why take away the FCS vs. FBS matchup from the rest of us? This is always one of my favorite games of the year.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Why take away the FCS vs. FBS matchup from the rest of us? This is always one of my favorite games of the year.

Because there's simply no way to accurately asses schedules with FBS games. Personally, I give schools zero credit for paycheck games and I'd like to think the selection committee feels the same way. So where do you draw the line?

[MarkyMark]

With a 24 team playoff field I feel you will always get every deserving team into the playoffs from now on. If you are a fringe playoff team in a 24 team field then too bad. As far as seeding I can see your point.

My feeling is teams should find appropriate matchups whether you are talking FCS vs. D2 or FCS vs. FBS. The terrible mismatches against FBS do nothing to figure out how good an FCS team is. I also understand a big payday is needed by most FCS teams to make their programs work.

[Wallace]

Is the NCAA officially adopting the modified GPI?


As an at-large playoff selection indicator:

The GPI Indicated:
2. Montana State
3. Sam Houston State
6. Cal Poly
7T. South Dakota State
9. Old Dominion
10. Illinois State
11. Appalachian State
12. Wofford
13. Eastern Kentucky
14T. Towson

The committee chose #23 Stony Brook and #26 New Hampshire, instead of #13 Eastern Kentucky and #14T Towson.

Sad to say but Eastern Kentucky and Towson share the "Woofed" team of the year.

[Lehigh'98]

With a 24 team playoff field I feel you will always get every deserving team into the playoffs from now on. If you are a fringe playoff team in a 24 team field then too bad. As far as seeding I can see your point.

My feeling is teams should find appropriate matchups whether you are talking FCS vs. D2 or FCS vs. FBS. The terrible mismatches against FBS do nothing to figure out how good an FCS team is. I also understand a big payday is needed by most FCS teams to make their programs work.

Pretty much this. This is enough for 2-3 deep from the conferences. If you are complaining at this point, no one wants to hear it.

[eaglewraith]

Is the NCAA officially adopting the modified GPI?

DaneFan appearance in 3....2......

[alvinkayak6]

It doesn't seem intelligent to classify wins differently based upon Division level. Not only does this reinforce stereotypes and existing biases, it makes the FCS look stupid.

We are counting wins against NDSU and Valparaiso as "FCS" vs. LSU and Georgia State as "FBS" ?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It doesn't seem intelligent to classify wins differently based upon Division level. Not only does this reinforce stereotypes and existing biases, it makes the FCS look stupid.

We are counting wins against NDSU and Valparaiso as "FCS" vs. LSU and Georgia State as "FBS" ?

No. I'm pretty sure the human element takes into account the fact the LSU and Ga State are not equal and I would be pretty sure a math model would do the same. That's sort of what we're speculating about is how the strengths will be valued.

There is no doubt they are different and it's never happened that way before it won't happen that way now.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It doesn't seem intelligent to classify wins differently based upon Division level. Not only does this reinforce stereotypes and existing biases, it makes the FCS look stupid.

We are counting wins against NDSU and Valparaiso as "FCS" vs. LSU and Georgia State as "FBS" ?

OK, so you have two teams, one with a win against Angelo State and another with a win against Davidson. How do committee members differentiate unless there's a computer involved? The guy from the Big Sky hasn't seen either team.

For that matter, do most committee members value a win against, say, a 6-5 Villanova team over an 0-11 Georgia State team? I don't think they have in the past. No matter how ****ty they are, the FBS win is "valuable".

[alvinkayak6]

OK, so you have two teams, one with a win against Angelo State and another with a win against Davidson. How do committee members differentiate unless there's a computer involved? The guy from the Big Sky hasn't seen either team.

For that matter, do most committee members value a win against, say, a 6-5 Villanova team over an 0-11 Georgia State team? I don't think they have in the past. No matter how ****ty they are, the FBS win is "valuable".

I didn't say anything about computers or strength of schedule. I said classifying wins based upon Division. Should I have been clearer and said classifying wins solely based upon Division?

[GannonFan]

Because there's simply no way to accurately asses schedules with FBS games. Personally, I give schools zero credit for paycheck games and I'd like to think the selection committee feels the same way. So where do you draw the line?

And of course there's simply no way to accurrately assess schedules even if they are just 11 game all-FCS schedules. There just isn't near enough number of games and enough inter-conference matchups to make any credible assessment. Maybe if the season was twice as long, but only in college football would anyone pretend that 11 games is enough of a data set to assess something like schedule strength.

[MplsBison]

In all seriousness, how do you do this without a computer?

Youngstown State is 7-4 with a 70-3 win over Valparaiso. Montana State has a close loss to D-II Chadron State. Which is "better"?

I would absolutely love to hear how having a computer validates an answer to your question.

[MplsBison]

Because there's simply no way to accurately asses schedules with FBS games. Personally, I give schools zero credit for paycheck games and I'd like to think the selection committee feels the same way. So where do you draw the line?

Unless of course they win the game!

Any bottom FBS team would be considered a top flight team in the FCS and a win should be treated as such. I'd also like to see significant credit given to close loses against teams from the elite five conferences in FBS.

[MplsBison]

And of course there's simply no way to accurrately assess schedules even if they are just 11 game all-FCS schedules. There just isn't near enough number of games and enough inter-conference matchups to make any credible assessment. Maybe if the season was twice as long, but only in college football would anyone pretend that 11 games is enough of a data set to assess something like schedule strength.

Absolutely correct.

And only in college football would anyone pretend that their method of evaluating an 11 game strength of schedule is validated because the output of some arbitrarily defined algorithm says so!

Just brainless.

[alvinkayak6]

Absolutely correct.

And only in college football would anyone pretend that their method of evaluating an 11 game strength of schedule is validated because the output of some arbitrarily defined algorithm says so!

Just brainless.

The greatest chess player in the world is a "brainless" computer. Bow to your master.

[danefan]

DaneFan appearance in 3....2......


The answer is......who knows what the hecj they're doing. But until they do, screw Ralph and the GPI.

[alvinkayak6]

With 24 teams this year, I imagine it's possible to have a team with 6 wins, especially if the likes of ODU, Georgia Southern, and App State are not in the playoffs this year. Also imagine how many good teams (Lehigh, Towson, McNeese, Samford) would have made the playoffs last year with 8 extra slots (well 7 since you've got the PFL champ now).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

And of course there's simply no way to accurrately assess schedules even if they are just 11 game all-FCS schedules. There just isn't near enough number of games and enough inter-conference matchups to make any credible assessment. Maybe if the season was twice as long, but only in college football would anyone pretend that 11 games is enough of a data set to assess something like schedule strength.

And yet, that's the playoff subcommittee's job.

[Wallace]

The answer is......who knows what the hecj they're doing. But until they do, screw Ralph and the GPI.
There's your substantiation of danefan. But then we already knew that. xreadx

[Wallace]

And of course there's simply no way to accurrately assess schedules even if they are just 11 game all-FCS schedules. There just isn't near enough number of games and enough inter-conference matchups to make any credible assessment. Maybe if the season was twice as long, but only in college football would anyone pretend that 11 games is enough of a data set to assess something like schedule strength.

You do know that qualified statisticians disagree with you? Now to what degree of accuracy is attained is always up for dispute but schedule strength is measurable to some point.

[Go...gate]

We probably screwed you guys that year...1985 was a very weird season for HC football. Started out strong with wins over you guys and Delaware but we stumbled home to a 4-6-1 season. Lot of internal problems, injuries with that year's squad etc etc Program rebounded to go 10-1 in '86 and 11-0 in '87.

I remember, and it is still so very sad.

Rest in Peace, Rick Carter.

A very good coach and a very good man.

[MplsBison]

The greatest chess player in the world is a "brainless" computer. Bow to your master.

Good point, with chess and football being exactly the same thing.

[MplsBison]

You do know that qualified statisticians disagree with you? Now to what degree of accuracy is attained is always up for dispute but schedule strength is measurable to some point.

Assuming the process isn't stochastic.

Which football absolutely is.

[alvinkayak6]

Good point, with chess and football being exactly the same thing.

You do realize there are a ton of similarities between chess and football strategy? A human coach vs. a computer coach in a football game. We'd both take the computers all day -- even over Bear Bryant and Nick Saban.

[MplsBison]

Of course there are similarities. That's what makes your statement seem reasonable to someone who only glances at it for half a second.

[GannonFan]

You do know that qualified statisticians disagree with you? Now to what degree of accuracy is attained is always up for dispute but schedule strength is measurable to some point.

What's being disagreed with? You yourself just brought up the important point of degree of accuracy. Sure, you can measure the SOS of college football teams at any point in the season - it's easy to come up with a number. The tricky part is, though, the accuracy, and you just don't have a good enough level of accuracy at 11 games, especially when 8 of those games (conference games) are played within a tiny subset of the overall number of teams. You can get a number, it's just whether you want a believable one or not.

[MplsBison]

What's being disagreed with? You yourself just brought up the important point of degree of accuracy. Sure, you can measure the SOS of college football teams at any point in the season - it's easy to come up with a number. The tricky part is, though, the accuracy, and you just don't have a good enough level of accuracy at 11 games, especially when 8 of those games (conference games) are played within a tiny subset of the overall number of teams. You can get a number, it's just whether you want a believable one or not.

Perfectly stated - an algorithm will always give you an output for some given inputs and the output will always be perfectly objective in the context of the algorithm.

The point is, how do know if that output is any 'good' or not? You have to do a sanity check and compare it against what "should be" right. So once you do that, it's just right back to a subjective measurement and therefore no more valid than any other subjective measurement.

End

[smallcollegefbfan]

I would like to see the actual new policy.

After thinking this over overnight, these changes make sense.

In 2013 there will be 24 playoff spots available (4 new) and three of the top teams in the subdivision will be ineligible (ASU, GSU, and ODU). This creates the potential for some poor teams to make the playoffs under current rules.
The details are important because sometimes labels are not particularly helpful.
Not all FBS wins should be ranked at a premium (Georgia State comes to mind).
Not all non-scholly FCS teams are the same - some take football seriously, for some it is a glorified club team.
There are D2 schools that could compete with the big boys of FCS, and there are schools that might as well be D3

Exactly. One problem I have had with FCS is that there are basically D3 caliber teams and FBS caliber teams in the same division and not just 1 or 2 but 10-15 that fit both calibers. I think FCS would be stronger if there was a 63 scholarship minimum and it was enforced. Those who don't want to could drop to D2. This would kind of separate those in the FCS serious about football and those who aren't. I know Wofford is serious but I also know that many in the Pioneer League and others aren't. I also think the Ivy League should participate in the playoffs because we all know their champ is a top 20 team, most of the time, and thus another quality team left out of the playoffs. The SWAC doesn't always have a top 20 caliber team but often times does and now with their two best teams not able to compete as well along with the 3 teams moving up to FBS there will potentially be 4-7 teams worthy of the playoffs this year who won't be in there. There will likely be teams in the 30-35 range of receiving votes who will get in and I personally would like to see the 24 best teams play.

[BEAR]

It's amazing to me that when a football team is penalized and loses a couple of scholarships for a year or two, the fans and most FCS fans agree that that team will have a pretty tough time until it is fully restored.

So how can schools that don't offer schollys to players expect anything but tough times against scholarship teams, especially those offering 63? C'mon a 63 scholarship team 90% of the time can expect to lose to an 85 scholarship team. And from reading the above statement FCS has schools that offer anywhere from 0 - 63 schollys?! What kind of Frankenstein College Subdivision is this???!!!!

[Engineer86]

I concur 100%.

West Chesterxlolx

[Wallace]

And of course there's simply no way to accurrately assess schedules even if they are just 11 game all-FCS schedules. There just isn't near enough number of games and enough inter-conference matchups to make any credible assessment. Maybe if the season was twice as long, but only in college football would anyone pretend that 11 games is enough of a data set to assess something like schedule strength.


You do know that qualified statisticians disagree with you? Now to what degree of accuracy is attained is always up for dispute but schedule strength is measurable to some point.


What's being disagreed with? You yourself just brought up the important point of degree of accuracy. Sure, you can measure the SOS of college football teams at any point in the season - it's easy to come up with a number. The tricky part is, though, the accuracy, and you just don't have a good enough level of accuracy at 11 games, especially when 8 of those games (conference games) are played within a tiny subset of the overall number of teams. You can get a number, it's just whether you want a believable one or not.

Well, qualified statisticians disagree with you. These are not just Joe Blow in the stands, these have advanced degrees in statistics relating specifically to college football. They have stated that there is enough connectedness, even after half a season to arrive at a believable and viable number. So I think that strength of schedule is a perfectly fine component in an overall analysis.

[Saint3333]

If it was 11 games that crossed over FCS conferences vs. 8 vs. conference opponents, 1 vs. an FBS opponent, and maybe 2 FCS OOC games (some D2 games) the data would be more reliable.

[danefan]

It's amazing to me that when a football team is penalized and loses a couple of scholarships for a year or two, the fans and most FCS fans agree that that team will have a pretty tough time until it is fully restored.

So how can schools that don't offer schollys to players expect anything but tough times against scholarship teams, especially those offering 63? C'mon a 63 scholarship team 90% of the time can expect to lose to an 85 scholarship team. And from reading the above statement FCS has schools that offer anywhere from 0 - 63 schollys?! What kind of Frankenstein College Subdivision is this???!!!!


FCS is and always will be cost containment football. Even those schools with 63 rides are making a specific decision to fund football on a cost containment basis.

The reason there is such disparity within FCS is really simple.....the need for everyone and their mother to play DI basketball.

The Dayton rule is stupid. Let schools play whatever level of football they want, regardless or basketball. Football is a beast unto itself. Tying it to basketball is just shortsighted and an easy answer to grease a squeaky wheel.

[bluehenbillk]

Well, qualified statisticians disagree with you. These are not just Joe Blow in the stands, these have advanced degrees in statistics relating specifically to college football. They have stated that there is enough connectedness, even after half a season to arrive at a believable and viable number. So I think that strength of schedule is a perfectly fine component in an overall analysis.

Yep, these would be the same "qualified statisticians" that have made public comments in the past either in the press or on boards such as these that they were disappointed in how their ratings came out & they would tweak them? Those qualified statisticians? Takes quite a sack to say that on a board that has produced a poll that has outperformed the index of such proclaimed qualified statisticians in selecting at-large playoff teams in each of the last three years. How about that stat??

[Accelerati Incredibilus]

The greatest chess player in the world is a "brainless" computer. Bow to your master.

I suppose that would be a relevant point if if this discussion was about the chess playoffs.

[MplsBison]

FCS is and always will be cost containment football. Even those schools with 63 rides are making a specific decision to fund football on a cost containment basis.

The reason there is such disparity within FCS is really simple.....the need for everyone and their mother to play DI basketball.

The Dayton rule is stupid. Let schools play whatever level of football they want, regardless or basketball. Football is a beast unto itself. Tying it to basketball is just shortsighted and an easy answer to grease a squeaky wheel.

I actually see the point of the DIII schools (the true, real DIII schools, small, liberal arts colleges -- not the j-off Wisconsin public schools that should be ***FORCED*** into DII..that's another thread).

Schools like Dayton have larger budgets and revenue from basketball that can be used as an edge in football.


No easy way to solve that, because you can't force the Pioneer schools to fund their football programs above DIII levels but you also can't let them go back to DIII.

[MplsBison]

I suppose that would be a relevant point if if this discussion was about the chess playoffs.

His point is asinine on much deeper levels than that, both in terms of philosophy and computer science.