JMU has their man

[clenz]

Sounds like Citadel HC Mike Houston has taken the job.
http://dogfan1987.websitetoolbox.com/post/houston-leaving-for-jmu-7893317

[hebmskebm]

Great coach, but isn't he a triple option guy?

[clenz]

Great coach, but isn't he a triple option guy?
Move to the pistol/shot gun with a few slant routes, and some double moves and you've got yourself 85% of today's NCAA offenses.

It's all mostly the triple option, just out of gun.

[JMUNJ08]

Definitely a different lens than the hire of Withers from the FBS ranks. Houston seems like a guy that can turn around a program. The triple option is not what JMU would want to see but agree with clenz that a few tweaks and poof, passing game as well. All he really has to do to 'turn around' JMU is install better defensive packages and keep the O humming. Seems simple but getting the recruits to JMU will be key at this late juncture.

Big question is, with him moving up the ladder quickly, does he stick around or bolt for the next Texas State job as well?

[Libertine]

Big question is, with him moving up the ladder quickly, does he stick around or bolt for the next Texas State job as well?

The guy took a perennial loser at D2 Lenoir-Rhyne and had them in the playoffs in Year 2 and in the national championship in Year 3. He jumped to The Citadel where he took a habitual loser to the playoffs in Year 2.

If he can sustain that success at JMU, I think the bigger question is not whether or not he sticks around but rather how much do you really care?

[whitey]

Some posters who've been in the know before regarding JMU are saying he's not bringing the TO to JMU. We'll see. I like the hire.

[walliver]

If this pans out, with less than 2 weeks to National Signing Day, he has left the Citadel in a bad spot. Per Twitter, at least one Citadel commitment has already backed out today.

[RootinFerDukes]

I like this hire. As mentioned, he's turned two programs around at two lower levels and with many odds stacked against those programs. With the resources available at JMU, look out.
He just needs to keep our offense going, triple option with some passing built in. Improve this god awful defense and maybe we can compete with the north dakota states out there. Someone's gotta knock them off at some point... right?

As for leaving at a bad time, the timing sucked for JMU too when our HC took the first crappy FBS job he could get his hands on. It's CFB and the coaching carousel. It happens. He couldn't help that an opportunity appeared when it did. I wish the Citadel luck.

[centennial]

I think JMU got an upgrade.

[CID1990]

We just can't catch a break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Winindy]

Feh

[clenz]

Sounds like it's not a done deal.

Close, but with Bobby Hauck still in the running there may be some potential catches yet.

[RootinFerDukes]

HOLD THE FRONT DOOR......

FootballScoop Staff ‏@FootballScoop (https://twitter.com/FootballScoop) 12m12 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/FootballScoop/status/689167507232456704)
FootballScoop Staff Retweeted Scott Eisberg
Source at JMU relays that former UNLV / Montana HC Bobby Hauck remains in the process (along w Houston). Will update

[longtimemocfan]

If this pans out, with less than 2 weeks to National Signing Day, he has left the Citadel in a bad spot. Per Twitter, at least one Citadel commitment has already backed out today.

That sucks for The Citadel. With national signing day just over 2 weeks away.

[RootinFerDukes]

Matt Jones ‏@MattJones36 (https://twitter.com/MattJones36) 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/MattJones36/status/689180914258178048)
A source confirmed that Houston, Bobby Hauck and former JMU OC Jeff Durden were on campus today.

[dewey]

We just can't catch a break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True but it is better to lose a coach because he won then lose a coach because he couldn't win.

Dewey

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Whether Houston leaves or stays recruiting at The Citadel will likely be affected. Not a good outcome for Bulldogs either way.

[RootinFerDukes]

FootballScoop Staff ‏@FootballScoop (https://twitter.com/FootballScoop) 3m (https://twitter.com/FootballScoop/status/689207408309047296)
Am told it is a done deal. Citadel head coach Mike Houston will be the new head coach at JMU per sources http://FootballScoop.com/the-scoop (https://t.co/sNnVtycOD5)

Welcome aboard Coach Houston! I like this hire.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If JMU liked their 2004 team..which was built similar to what the Bison have now physically then they would like Hauck.

Pretty interesting goings on today.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

FootballScoop Staff ‏@FootballScoop (https://twitter.com/FootballScoop) 3m (https://twitter.com/FootballScoop/status/689207408309047296)
Am told it is a done deal. Citadel head coach Mike Houston will be the new head coach at JMU per sources http://FootballScoop.com/the-scoop (https://t.co/sNnVtycOD5)

Welcome aboard Coach Houston! I like this hire.

Nevermind the previous post. Congrats JMU, I feel bad for The Citadel though. They need to get Hauck on campus right now. xlolx

[kdinva]

Sounds like Citadel HC Mike Houston has taken the job.
http://dogfan1987.websitetoolbox.com/post/houston-leaving-for-jmu-7893317


http://jmusports.com/news/2016/1/18/Football_0118160646.aspx

[IBleedYellow]

Sucks for The Citadel.

[kdinva]

Sucks for The Citadel.

Wonder what Furman folks think??

[whitey]

100% done deal. Already saying he'll run basically same offense JMU has been running. So no TO.
Feel for The Citadel.

JMUSports @JMUSports: Answering a popular question proactively, new @JMUFootball HC Mike Houston will run an aggressive spread offense at JMU

[BullDog85]

Houston is a defense guy and always has been. He'll hire the right type of OC for you guys and make winners out of JMU. His biggest accomplishment at EL CID was turning around the defense in the off season from 2014-2015.

[ElCid]

Well this sucks.

[BisonFan02]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vmXWZFPvCAU/hqdefault.jpg

[BigHouseClosedEnd]

On the surface, this appears to be a pretty big upgrade for JMU.

[ngineer]

Matt Jones ‏@MattJones36 (https://twitter.com/MattJones36) 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/MattJones36/status/689180914258178048)
A source confirmed that Houston, Bobby Hauck and former JMU OC Jeff Durden were on campus today.

Isn't Hauck under consideration for a defensive coaching position with the Philadelphia Eagles?

Is Citdog marshalling the troops for an incursion into Virginny?

[Smitty]

I am going to guess most people had Citadel ranked 2nd in the league next season. Do you think that The Citadel will drop any with a new coach at the helm?

[LeopardBall10]

I am going to guess most people had Citadel ranked 2nd in the league next season. Do you think that The Citadel will drop any with a new coach at the helm?

No idea where the Citadel was going to be ranked, but i think it will depend on who they end up hiring. They are in a bad spot, late in the game. Most good coaches have already made their moves and hired on all of the good assistants. At this point, right before signing day, I don't know how you are able to find a quality coach.

[UNIFanSince1983]

Nevermind the previous post. Congrats JMU, I feel bad for The Citadel though. They need to get Hauck on campus right now. xlolx

Can Hauck run the TO?

[clenz]

No idea where the Citadel was going to be ranked, but i think it will depend on who they end up hiring. They are in a bad spot, late in the game. Most good coaches have already made their moves and hired on all of the good assistants. At this point, right before signing day, I don't know how you are able to find a quality coach.
The issue may not hit them immediately next year. I haven't look at whats back for Cit just yet, but if they have a solid core back and get a coach that continues the same mentality that is built there they'll be okay for next year.

Now, after that all bets are off. It could happen that this years class is decimated and non-existent, I've already read of a few potential de-commits. That could start to create depth issues in the coming years. Depending what type of system/player the new staff is looking for, those problems could become exasperated.

[Terry2889]

Sounds like Citadel HC Mike Houston has taken the job.
http://dogfan1987.websitetoolbox.com/post/houston-leaving-for-jmu-7893317

Very good hire. Although I always saw JMU as an FCS school that could steal talent from the FBS with their facilities. Triple option is more of a scheme used to compensate for lack of size and speed (not saying that triple option teams haven't had both). Should be interesting!

[walliver]

I am going to guess most people had Citadel ranked 2nd in the league next season*. Do you think that The Citadel will drop any with a new coach at the helm?

Before this news, I would have put the Citadel at preseason #1. As to what happens now, it all depends on which coordinators stay. If Houston is not going TO at JMU, the OC may well stay. If the Citadel promotes the DC as rumored and keeps their OC, they should still compete for a championship in 2016 with a possible fall-off back towards the school's baseline in 2017.

The bulldogs will likely lose a few recruits, but at this late stage, many programs have filled all their slots and there may not be a lot of options for all but the top players. Retention will always be a problem in Charleston. It's one thing to visit and see the shiny uniforms and say "I'm tough, I can take it", but quite another to try being a DI football player, college student and "knob" at the same time.

* My post-season prediction has Citadel finishing 2d or 3d with My T-Dogs returning to the top ;)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If I'm The Citadel I am promoting from within and not wasting a moment about it.

[RootinFerDukes]

Both JMU and Houston have already said JMU will not run the Triple Option offense and will continue a spread offense. If Houston can improve the defense, which is highly likely with how low it already is, we could be quite the force. All of our losses this year are solely on the shoulders of the defense and special teams. The offense pulled its weight every single game.

[PurpleStreamers]

Both JMU and Houston have already said JMU will not run the Triple Option offense and will continue a spread offense. If Houston can improve the defense, which is highly likely with how low it already is, we could be quite the force. All of our losses this year are solely on the shoulders of the defense and special teams. The offense pulled its weight every single game.

Yup. Really excited about this hire as any significant upgrade on D will really change the dynamic at JMU. As you noted, even after Vad Lee got hurt, the struggles really weren't on the offense which never stopped scoring. That said, I do feel bad for The Citadel. Since Houston has already said he isn't going to be running TO, hopefully they can hang onto a good portion of their offensive staff because he likely wouldn't be bringing them with him and not suffer too much in recruiting. JMU recruits were freaking out when Houston first surfaced b/c of the TO, so I'm really pleased he addressed that right away. Will be interesting to see who he brings into be OC here in Harrisonburg.

[Uncle Rico's Clan]

Isn't Hauck under consideration for a defensive coaching position with the Philadelphia Eagles?

You might be thinking of Bobby's brother, Tim Hauck. He played safety for the eagles (among other teams) for a time and has a lot of coaching experience at the college and professional level.

[Libertine]

If I'm The Citadel I am promoting from within and not wasting a moment about it.

This.

As for whether or not JMU runs the triple, if I'm hiring a guy who's been tied to one offense his entire career then I want that guy to keep doing what he's had success with. Everybody and their brother runs the spread; who else in the CAA would be running the triple?

[clenz]

This.

As for whether or not JMU runs the triple, if I'm hiring a guy who's been tied to one offense his entire career then I want that guy to keep doing what he's had success with. Everybody and their brother runs the spread; who else in the CAA would be running the triple?
The spread, when done "right" is nothing but the triple just with the center snapping to a pistol/gun rather than right under center.

Blocking concepts are the same, route trees are the same, reads are the same. You can motion a guy over the top, jet sweep, line up with multiple backs, etc... to get the triple look.

In college the spread option is DEADLY because it also allows for a guy to throw with more ease than a traditional tripe option.

Look at what Kaepernick and Fajardo did at Nevado. What Auburn has done with their QBs. What Ohio State does. Oregon. The names are endless.

Those are all, essentially, a "triple option" offense out of a spread look.

[LeopardBall10]

The spread, when done "right" is nothing but the triple just with the center snapping to a pistol/gun rather than right under center.

IMO the spread option is actually much better than the "old school triple" or even the flex bone run by GT and the like. You spread the field, have more "athletes" on the field, etc. but even looking at more X's and O's the blocking angles get better and the reads are easier. The QB is standing still watching his read from the snap, not reversing out and trying to find the DE in a mess of bodies. You also have the ability to read anyone on the field (a la Colgate) while the triple limits you to the end man on the line more often then not.

[Libertine]

The spread, when done "right" is nothing but the triple just with the center snapping to a pistol/gun rather than right under center.

Two things:

First, no, the spread option is not just the triple from shotgun. Spread option, triple option and wishbone all share a common parentage from the veer offense so there are some key similarities but they are completely different particularly in their philosophical approach to moving the ball and in the types of athletes needed to run them.

Second, under Withers, JMU wasn't running the spread option in the first place. They were running a true spread offense with 3/4/5 WR sets with one back and running Lee off the read-option which is much more like what Kaepernick was doing with the 49ers than with Nevada. If JMU is keeping this offense under Houston, it is night and day different from anything he's run since he's been in the college ranks.

[ElCid]

The issue may not hit them immediately next year. I haven't look at whats back for Cit just yet, but if they have a solid core back and get a coach that continues the same mentality that is built there they'll be okay for next year.

Now, after that all bets are off. It could happen that this years class is decimated and non-existent, I've already read of a few potential de-commits. That could start to create depth issues in the coming years. Depending what type of system/player the new staff is looking for, those problems could become exasperated.

We get most back. We lose a couple on each line, a WR, a safety a LB and one running back. Everyone else is back. Of the QB, and running backs we used this year, one was Sr, one a Jr, and everyone else was a Sophomore or RSF. But we were building good depth on both sides of the ball. This will hurt eventually unless the new coach can energize quickly. Not sure how it will fall out yet. Some are reporting that one already de-committed, but that was prior to the announcement and has been lumped in when it really was for a different reason. Time will tell.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Jamey Chadwell to El Cid?

[SUUTbird]

There is nothing wrong with the Triple Option, JMU would be really stupid to try and change Coach Houston's philosophy, especially one he has been so successful with.

[kdinva]

Jamey Chadwell to El Cid?

No, Off. Coord Brent Thompson will be promoted....

[longtimemocfan]

Houston is a defensive guy, he'll have someone run the offense for him. Huesman is the same way with Chattanooga.

[Libertine]

Jamey Chadwell to El Cid?

Certainly not now but probably not ever. Chadwell hasn't exactly endeared himself to The Citadel in the three years since they passed him over for Houston.

[JMU2004]

Two things:

First, no, the spread option is not just the triple from shotgun. Spread option, triple option and wishbone all share a common parentage from the veer offense so there are some key similarities but they are completely different particularly in their philosophical approach to moving the ball and in the types of athletes needed to run them.

Second, under Withers, JMU wasn't running the spread option in the first place. They were running a true spread offense with 3/4/5 WR sets with one back and running Lee off the read-option which is much more like what Kaepernick was doing with the 49ers than with Nevada. If JMU is keeping this offense under Houston, it is night and day different from anything he's run since he's been in the college ranks.

This is wrong. Our entire running game contained inside zone option read and jet sweep elements. We were not a "true spread" in the least. We typically ran an H-Back/TE with 3 wide. Only went 5 wide very very rarely. Triple option elements were present.

As we found out late in the year, if you stopped the inside zone and read option, you could stop JMU. We would run right at you, get on the ball, do it again, then when you were tired, take the top off the field.

I don't know what spread we'll run at JMU, but I would be shocked if the option wasn't a focal point.

[Libertine]

This is wrong. Our entire running game contained inside zone option read and jet sweep elements. We were not a "true spread" in the least. We typically ran an H-Back/TE with 3 wide. Only went 5 wide very very rarely. Triple option elements were present.

Jet sweeps and read plays are not exclusive to the option-based offenses and, in fact, they're pretty much standard fare in the spread.

I also said you ran 3WR sets with one back which pretty much infers that there was a TE or H-back but never a true FB which, again, is consistent with the spread. Further, in 2014, you went empty backfield a lot especially late in the year.

Spready spread spread spreadity spread spreaditude. It obviously worked well and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's also an offense that is a lot easier to recruit athletes to than the triple.

[jmufan999]

there is one ENORMOUS difference between spread and triple options that's right in the name: the spread actually SPREADS the field. the alignments (splits) are much greater, leaving more space to work. space is where great athletes make things happen. yes, they are both "option" offenses but are totally, totally different. it would have been a waste to have playmakers (like Ravenel) working in a triple option with limited opportunities to make plays in space. Vad Lee wouldn't have transferred from Georgia Tech if he felt he was a good fit for that offense (why he chose them in the first place is mind-boggling, but whatever).

one more thing: to anyone saying Houston should "stick with his offensive scheme"... he's a former defensive coordinator, just like Withers and Mickey. offense is not his specialty, so you wouldn't think he'd be as tied to one scheme. Mickey changed offensive schemes MANY times over the years: pro style, to run-heavy spread option, to pistol. An offensive-minded guy may not have been as flexible.

[kdinva]

Richmond Def. Coord. Trott moving to JMU......

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_d375606a-dac3-5135-a510-8bc63abc37b4.html

[TheKingpin28]

Richmond Def. Coord. Trott moving to JMU......

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_d375606a-dac3-5135-a510-8bc63abc37b4.html

Ouch. Losing both OC and DC in the same season is not easy.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Ouch. Losing both OC and DC in the same season is not easy.

Especially with this being a huge weekend for recruiting! Huge loss for Richmond and good get for JMU. Their defense needs all the help it can get!

[32counter]

Especially with this being a huge weekend for recruiting! Huge loss for Richmond and good get for JMU. Their defense needs all the help it can get!

14 solid verbals.1 solid verbal of which is 6-5,300 lineman from LCA DE-COMMITTED from JMU last week.OC hired-John Garrett(Jason's brother).Same offensive schemes will be run.Comes from FL.Dont foresee any recruiting issues.Danny will be elevating DC from within ranks where we have very capable guys or hire outside.Dont foresee any issue there either.UR returns 18 starters from its semifinal run.

John Garrett OC Oregon State:

https://youtu.be/x6Q_c3rEpqA

[32counter]

Ouch. Losing both OC and DC in the same season is not easy.

OC already hired.Experienced guy with pro and college background.Will keep UR's offensive schemes of which he is extremely familiar.DC assistants at UR are quite capable and seasoned and could be moving up into top slot.2 internal candidates have worked with Danny since Liberty.Seamless transition of OC and DC.

[blueballs]

I like this hire. As mentioned, he's turned two programs around at two lower levels and with many odds stacked against those programs.

I thought Citadel and Jame Madison were both FCS... did I miss something where JMU is now FBS?

[blueballs]

Jet sweeps and read plays are not exclusive to the option-based offenses and, in fact, they're pretty much standard fare in the spread.

I also said you ran 3WR sets with one back which pretty much infers that there was a TE or H-back but never a true FB which, again, is consistent with the spread. Further, in 2014, you went empty backfield a lot especially late in the year.

Spready spread spread spreadity spread spreaditude. It obviously worked well and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's also an offense that is a lot easier to recruit athletes to than the triple.

You can be a power running option team from the gun just as easy, maybe easier, than the classic TO from under center with the double slot look. The biggest difference is in the o-line.

When GS went from the Paul Johnson style under center TO to the Spread option in the gun the blocking scheme changed to more of a zone scheme with WAY bigger and less mobile o-linemen. In the classic TO the o-linemen were smaller, could "play under a card table" (Jeff Monken quote), and needed to be more mobile to get to the second and third levels. In the Paul Johnson scheme a guy 6'1" 280 lbs with good feet and a nasty attitude is perfect. There are a LOT of those guys out there for FCS schools to recruit.

Also, the wider the o-line splits in the option, the more successful it will be. The best fusion example I can give of the two styles is what GS ran against UF in 2013. That was a masterful gameplan built around misdirection, using motion to create numbers mismatches, creating angles, and just good old power football. If you can execute that gameplan and add in even an average passing game you'll be impossible to defend.

[RootinFerDukes]

I thought Citadel and Jame Madison were both FCS... did I miss something where JMU is now FBS?

CAA is to socon as big 10 is to mountain west. There are varying sublevels within divisions, just not "officially".

[BisonFan02]

I thought Citadel and Jame Madison were both FCS... did I miss something where JMU is now FBS?

Kinda like losing a coach to Tulane?

- - - Updated - - -


CAA is to socon as big 10 is to mountain west. There are varying sublevels within divisions, just not "officially".

That's a stretch...

[blueballs]

Kinda like losing a coach to Tulane?

- - - Updated - - -



That's a stretch...

GS losing Fritz to Tulane will turn out to be a blessing for them... just watch. Or better yet, take a look at GS's recruiting class under Summers.

Back to the subject at hand... it will be interesting to see how Houston does. JMU has underachieved IMO, they can and should be a national power year in and year out.

[RootinFerDukes]

It's not a stretch at all. The CAA is currently the second best Fcs conference. The big 10 is second best fbs conference. The socon is the equivalent of a high end G5 conference.
Let the number of playoff bids speak for themselves.

[FUBeAR]

It's not a stretch at all. The CAA is currently the second best Fcs conference. The big 10 is second best fbs conference. The socon is the equivalent of a high end G5 conference.
Let the number of playoff bids speak for themselves.

Balderdash!

Performance in 2016 Playoffs by FCS Conference


1. Missouri Valley (5/1) (NDSU (AQ) (4-0), ILL St (1-1), , UNI (2-1), SDSU (0-1), WIU (1-1)) 8-4 = .667


2. Ohio Valley (2/0) (JSU (AQ) (3-1), EIU (0-1)) 3-2 = .600


2. Southland (2/0) (McNeese (AQ) (0-1), SHSU (3-1)) 3-2 =.600


4. Southern (2/0) (Chatt (AQ) (1-1), CIT (1-1)) 2-2 = .500


4. Patriot League (2/0) (Colgate (AQ) (2-1), Fordham (0-1)) 2-2 = .500


6. Colonial Athletic Association (4/0) (Richmond (AQ) (2-1), JMU (0-1), W&M (1-1), UNH (0-1)) 3-4 = .429


7. Big South (2/0) (CSU (AQ) (1-1), CCU (0-1)) 1-2 = .333


8. Big Sky (3/0) (SUU (AQ) (0-1), Portland St (0-1), Montana (1-1)) 1-3 = .250


9. Northeast (1/0) (Duquesne (AQ) (L)) 0-1 .000


9. Pioneer League (1/0) (Dayton (AQ (L)) 0-1 .000





In addition to these Playoff Records, the CAA's Overall OOC Record in 2015 was 19-21 (.475), while the SoCon's was 19-17 (.528). The CAA was SLIGHTLY ahead of the SoCon in FCS OOC Record at 18-10 (.643) vs. 14-8 (.636). On the other hand, the SoCon's record vs. FBS Schools was 2-9 (.182) vs. 1-11 (.083) for the CAA. Further, looking at records vs. other Conferences, the SoCon was 5-0 (1.000) vs. PFL & MEAC teams, while the CAA was 4-2 (.667). The CAA did fare a bit better against BigSouth & Patriot League Schools going 7-3 (.700), while the SoCon was 5-4 (.556). The only head-to-head match-up was the best team in the CAA (Richmond) vs. the last place team in the SoCon (VMI) and was, predictably, won handily by Richmond at Richmond. I don't think many would argue that Chattanooga would have just as handily defeated Rhode Island at Chatt.

So....you can look at the number of playoff teams subjectively selected, which, I believe, was greatly affected by the scheduling challenges SoCon schools have faced the past 2 years, due to the departure of Appy and GaSou OR you can look at the Playoff and OOC competitiveness/records and draw a much more accurate picture than the BALDERDASH that CAA folks keep throwing up.

[RootinFerDukes]

# of playoff bids, regardless of performance, speaks to how the conference is perceived as well as how it's overall strength of schedule is assessed. This is the equivalent of you trying to argue the big 10 isn't as good as the A10 because more of their teams lost in earlier rounds, despite their 7 or 8 teams getting in, while the A10 got 3 teams in and one team had a good run to the elite 8.
If you want to argue the Socon is better, get as many or more teams into the playoff field. Then we can talk.

I understand there are many metrics to measure which conference is better (performance, attendance, media exposure, playoff bids). Only looking at one metric wouldn't be good. The CAA dominates all four of those measurements as of the last 10-15 years, especially when we're only counting current members.

Your playoff records are also useless, as you failed to remove CAA head to head matchups, which as far as i'm concerned, "don't count". Obviously a CAA team will suffer a playoff loss when they are forced to play each other due to the regionalization rule.

[CID1990]

# of playoff bids, regardless of performance, speaks to how the conference is perceived as well as how it's overall strength of schedule is assessed. This is the equivalent of you trying to argue the big 10 isn't as good as the A10 because more of their teams lost in earlier rounds, despite their 7 or 8 teams getting in, while the A10 got 3 teams in and one team had a good run to the elite 8.
If you want to argue the Socon is better, get as many or more teams into the playoff field. Then we can talk.

I understand there are many metrics to measure which conference is better (performance, attendance, media exposure, playoff bids). Only looking at one metric wouldn't be good. The CAA dominates all four of those measurements as of the last 10-15 years, especially when we're only counting current members.

Your playoff records are also useless, as you failed to remove CAA head to head matchups, which as far as i'm concerned, "don't count". Obviously a CAA team will suffer a playoff loss when they are forced to play each other due to the regionalization rule.

That's not the best indicator, given that the CAA is significantly larger than the SoCon, so by default they are going to get one or more teams in than the SoCon. Add to that the obvious considerations that the committee takes into account that have nothing to do with how good teams are... for example, regionalization played a role in some teams getting in and some not. WCU was as deserving as a couple other at large teams this year.

So it may be true that the CAA is a much stronger conference than the SoCon, and it may not... but your suggestion that there is the same amount of daylight between the CAA and the SoCon as there is between the Big Ten and the Mountain West is purely subjective. Nobody will ever be able to make a determination like that until there are significant OOC games played between the two conferences. We had a shot this year if the committee had paired El Cid/CSU with Richmond/W&M, but we'll never know.

[FUBeAR]

# of playoff bids, regardless of performance, speaks to how the conference is perceived as well as how it's overall strength of schedule is assessed. This is the equivalent of you trying to argue the big 10 isn't as good as the A10 because more of their teams lost in earlier rounds, despite their 7 or 8 teams getting in, while the A10 got 3 teams in and one team had a good run to the elite 8.
If you want to argue the Socon is better, get as many or more teams into the playoff field. Then we can talk.

I understand there are many metrics to measure which conference is better (performance, attendance, media exposure, playoff bids). Only looking at one metric wouldn't be good. The CAA dominates all four of those measurements as of the last 10-15 years, especially when we're only counting current members.

Your playoff records are also useless, as you failed to remove CAA head to head matchups, which as far as i'm concerned, "don't count". Obviously a CAA team will suffer a playoff loss when they are forced to play each other due to the regionalization rule.

POPPYCOCK!

We can talk NOW.

"Attendance" and "Media Exposure"??? Seriously??? Why don't we also compare such highly relevant metrics as height of the tallest building on campus, relative ferocity of mascots, 'tightness' of the trombone sections' marching maneuvers, and the number of attempted annexations of Puerto Rico by each school???

The ONLY relevant metrics for such a comparative assessment are OOC results, Playoff performance, Playoff bids, and the good old 'eye test.' The latter 2 of those are, undeniably, somewhat subjective. So, the only completely OBJECTIVE AND RELEVANT metrics are OOC Results & Playoff performance...which I previously laid out pretty clearly in a fair & balanced methodology.

As you suggest, I could have taken out intra-conference results in the Playoffs. OK, now, the CAA's winning percentage is down from .429 to .400 (vs. .500 for the SoCon). More meaningful now?

I could have also noted that the CAA went 1-5 (.167) vs. Non-Scholarship FCS Teams in 2015, while the SoCon was 3-0 (1.000), but I didn't think that was a completely 'fair' metric.

Speaking of 'fair,' you persist in pointing to the NUMBER of Playoff bids as a clear indication of this imagined quality chasm you're claiming between the CAA and the SoCon. Let's do be 'fair.'

The CAA had 33% of its teams in the playoffs and the SoCon had 25% of theirs. Clearly, New Hampshire was a bubble team, AT BEST... (http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2015/11/26/by-simple-rankings-system-new-hampshire-is-the-weakest-team-in-fcs-field/ & http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/11/22/ap-fbc-fcs-new-hampshire-large-bid) and probably got the subjective nod from the selection committee, in no small part, because they had been in the playoffs the prior 11 consecutive years; not to mention that the UNH AD is on the committee. Take the Wildcats out of the Playoffs (before the Patriot League's, Colgate, did...in the 1st round...a round in which SoCon teams were undefeated, BTW) and, the 'far superior' CAA had the exact same 25% of its teams in the Playoffs as the SoCon did.

C'mon, you know that BALDERDASH & POPPYCOCK is all you are trying to 'sell.'

BTW - Have y'all seen the movie "Revenant?"


https://vimeo.com/150120476

I'm thinking that Bears just might be near the top of that all-important Mascot Ferocity metric. Terriers...maybe not so much. xlolx

[RootinFerDukes]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. We're homers for our own conferences and that's a good thing I say.
However, if attendance and media exposure don't matter, tell that to the power five. I bet they'd be willing to part with both of these meaningless metrics.

[FUBeAR]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. We're homers for our own conferences and that's a good thing I say.
However, if attendance and media exposure don't matter, tell that to the power five. I bet they'd be willing to part with both of these meaningless metrics.

OK - I'm a 'Homer' with facts, data, and statistics supporting my position & you are a 'Homer' with an opinion and outlandish, unsupported claims. I can agree to that.

[BigHouseClosedEnd]

As much as I hate being in the same side of a debate as a JMU fan, can someone explain why Elon left the SoCon for the CAA?

By the way, the fact that the JMU fan is using Richmond's success to bolster his argument is noted. FCS juggernaut JMU has amassed 1 playoff win in the last 7 seasons combined. Impressive stuff.

[FUBeAR]

can someone explain why Elon left the SoCon for the CAA?

I'm sorry. I'm unfamiliar with this school. You're saying they were IN the SoCon at some point? Never heard of them.

[Thumper 76]

POPPYCOCK!

We can talk NOW.

"Attendance" and "Media Exposure"??? Seriously??? Why don't we also compare such highly relevant metrics as height of the tallest building on campus, relative ferocity of mascots, 'tightness' of the trombone sections' marching maneuvers, and the number of attempted annexations of Puerto Rico by each school???

The ONLY relevant metrics for such a comparative assessment are OOC results, Playoff performance, Playoff bids, and the good old 'eye test.' The latter 2 of those are, undeniably, somewhat subjective. So, the only completely OBJECTIVE AND RELEVANT metrics are OOC Results & Playoff performance...which I previously laid out pretty clearly in a fair & balanced methodology.

As you suggest, I could have taken out intra-conference results in the Playoffs. OK, now, the CAA's winning percentage is down from .429 to .400 (vs. .500 for the SoCon). More meaningful now?

I could have also noted that the CAA went 1-5 (.167) vs. Non-Scholarship FCS Teams in 2015, while the SoCon was 3-0 (1.000), but I didn't think that was a completely 'fair' metric.

Speaking of 'fair,' you persist in pointing to the NUMBER of Playoff bids as a clear indication of this imagined quality chasm you're claiming between the CAA and the SoCon. Let's do be 'fair.'

The CAA had 33% of its teams in the playoffs and the SoCon had 25% of theirs. Clearly, New Hampshire was a bubble team, AT BEST... (http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2015/11/26/by-simple-rankings-system-new-hampshire-is-the-weakest-team-in-fcs-field/ & http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/11/22/ap-fbc-fcs-new-hampshire-large-bid) and probably got the subjective nod from the selection committee, in no small part, because they had been in the playoffs the prior 11 consecutive years; not to mention that the UNH AD is on the committee. Take the Wildcats out of the Playoffs (before the Patriot League's, Colgate, did...in the 1st round...a round in which SoCon teams were undefeated, BTW) and, the 'far superior' CAA had the exact same 25% of its teams in the Playoffs as the SoCon did.

C'mon, you know that BALDERDASH & POPPYCOCK is all you are trying to 'sell.'

BTW - Have y'all seen the movie "Revenant?"


https://vimeo.com/150120476

I'm thinking that Bears just might be near the top of that all-important Mascot Ferocity metric. Terriers...maybe not so much. xlolx

Using your metric is skewed because it's much easier for two teams to amass a higher win % than a conference that had 4. Do you really think the OVC is the second best conference? Also have to factor in if a team lost to a team in its own conference because that game essentially doesn't count in terms of using win percentage for the conference when the other conference may have had only inter conference match ups and if they win the essentially get a built in bump over the other conference due to that fact. So the win percentage is good if the number of teams is comparable to the other and they had the same number of inter conference match ups. Otherwise it's a skewed stat, just like using the conferences OOC record without factoring in who played DII/FBS games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RootinFerDukes]

Why even stop at one year, why not historically, especially the last 10-15 years? At the same time, you can't count accomplishments of teams no longer in the conference due to realignment.
Oh man, it's starting to get really complicated. I'll just stand by my # of playoff bids, conference rankings, # of ranked teams, etc.
Recruiting... Which is influenced by things like fan base size, TV games, revenue.... Winning.

[FUBeAR]

Using your metric is skewed because it's much easier for two teams to amass a higher win % than a conference that had 4.

I'm having a hard time grasping your math here. I guess you are saying that because only 1 team, ultimately, will win all of their Playoff games; so the more teams that are in, the more losses they will have to amass. But they also have more opportunities to win, no? Anyway, I think the skewing you suggest is relatively small. Perhaps, you can do some detailed mathematical modeling of the probabilities based on n teams, n+1 teams, n+2 teams, etc. in 24 team, semi-seeded, 1/3 of N teams with 1st round byes format and report the skewing you calculate. My math skills are not that advanced.


Do you really think the OVC is the second best conference?

I think the OVC had the 2nd best winning % of all of the conferences participating in the 2015/16 Playoffs without extracting intra-conference games nor accounting for possible skewing as cited above.


Also have to factor in if a team lost to a team in its own conference because that game essentially doesn't count in terms of using win percentage for the conference when the other conference may have had only inter conference match ups and if they win the essentially get a built in bump over the other conference due to that fact. So the win percentage is good if the number of teams is comparable to the other and they had the same number of inter conference match ups. Otherwise it's a skewed stat...

Wow - you lost me a little bit there. I think I get your point, but I'm sure I'll understand it better when you add this factoring to the anti-skewing calculations that you are going to apply.


...just like using the conferences OOC record without factoring in who played DII/FBS games.

I'm not sure you should stop with just considering the DII/FBS games. I think you must complete a detailed Strength of Schedule analysis on each Team and each Conference and then apply that factor as a multiplier to derive your Conference-to-Conference comparative strength matrix.

I appreciate your detailed critique of the analytical work I did. I think you make some great points about how much more depth I could have taken the time to go into and called out some possible weaknesses in my models.

Really looking forward to see the thoroughly factored, completely unskewed, strength-of-schedule-considered models of Conference vs. Conference Playoff performance & Relative Strength of Conferences based on OOC results that you are going to calculate and post in the near future. THANKS!

[centennial]

As much as I hate being in the same side of a debate as a JMU fan, can someone explain why Elon left the SoCon for the CAA?

By the way, the fact that the JMU fan is using Richmond's success to bolster his argument is noted. FCS juggernaut JMU has amassed 1 playoff win in the last 7 seasons combined. Impressive stuff.
Cheap shot. I like it.

[FUBeAR]

Why even stop at one year, why not historically, especially the last 10-15 years? At the same time, you can't count accomplishments of teams no longer in the conference due to realignment.
Oh man, it's starting to get really complicated. I'll just stand by my # of playoff bids, conference rankings, # of ranked teams, etc.
Recruiting... Which is influenced by things like fan base size, TV games, revenue.... Winning.

So, I'm reading this to say:

"I really don't have any data to refute the points you made about 2015 Playoff performance & OOC results, nor to support my unfounded claim regarding the relative strength of the CAA vs. the SoCon, but if I can frame the conversation exactly as I would like to frame it without providing any reasoning behind my chosen framing AND add another completely subjective variable (Recruiting) into that conversation, then I can feel like I'm "Winning" the discussion."

It stands to reason, that in the context of college football, the most recent history is, statistically, the best indicator of the current state and the best predictive indicator of the near future. The further back you move your historical data or move forward your predicted horizon, the less accurate will be the results. That's why I have focused my analysis on 2015 instead of 2014 or 2001 or 1951-ish - when I don't believe the CAA existed and the SoCon included most of the teams in the SEC and ACC today.

Bottom Line - In terms of on-the-field performance in 2015 & to use the format of your initial ridiculous analogy, BUT to much more realistically characterize the actual results: IF the MVFC is the SEC, and IF the CAA is the Big10, THEN the SoCon is the Big12 OR PAC12 (or something in that 'genre'...not exactly sure of the 'right' P5 Conference to 'assign' as I don't really follow FBS Football much)



EDIT - BTW - Per the CAA website, CAA Football has only existed since the 2007 season, so going back "historically for...15 years" might prove a bit challenging for a Conference that has only been playing for 14 seasons. If we can only count current members, I'm gonna speculate that the ROUT the SoCon put on the 'null set' CAA in 2006 overwhelms all seasons since, combined! xsmiley_wix

[Thumper 76]

1) I'm having a hard time grasping your math here. I guess you are saying that because only 1 team, ultimately, will win all of their Playoff games; so the more teams that are in, the more losses they will have to amass. But they also have more opportunities to win, no? Anyway, I think the skewing you suggest is relatively small. Perhaps, you can do some detailed mathematical modeling of the probabilities based on n teams, n+1 teams, n+2 teams, etc. in 24 team, semi-seeded, 1/3 of N teams with 1st round byes format and report the skewing you calculate. My math skills are not that advanced.



I think the OVC had the 2nd best winning % of all of the conferences participating in the 2015/16 Playoffs without extracting intra-conference games nor accounting for possible skewing as cited above.



3) Wow - you lost me a little bit there. I think I get your point, but I'm sure I'll understand it better when you add this factoring to the anti-skewing calculations that you are going to apply.



4) I'm not sure you should stop with just considering the DII/FBS games. I think you must complete a detailed Strength of Schedule analysis on each Team and each Conference and then apply that factor as a multiplier to derive your Conference-to-Conference comparative strength matrix.

I appreciate your detailed critique of the analytical work I did. I think you make some great points about how much more depth I could have taken the time to go into and called out some possible weaknesses in my models.

Really looking forward to see the thoroughly factored, completely unskewed, strength-of-schedule-considered models of Conference vs. Conference Playoff performance & Relative Strength of Conferences based on OOC results that you are going to calculate and post in the near future. THANKS!

Love the sarcasm. 1) I'm not going to create a formula. It's not hard to grasp. Every team in is guaranteed to have a loss unless they win it all. So their wins won't be of the same value. Pretty sure you know that. Add in that the team with more teams with a bye, and they are at an even larger disadvantage than the other conference. They lose an extra game to win compared to a team that didn't. Part of the amount of teams being a bigger picture would be the fact that they had more teams in the top 24 best in the country. More likely higher than that when you factor in weak conferences auto bids. One at large from a conference compared to three or four is a big difference. Much better way to judge overall strength of a conference.

2) You were using this as a reasoning for the SoCon being a better conference than the CAA. Don't back out cause it disproves you. Either step up and say you think they were the second best conference or admit that when a conference gets in a small number of teams and ends with a higher win percentage, all it means is the conference is top heavy or had one really good team.

3) I like the I'll play dumb and sit back and wait for a specific formula. Don't be a simpleton. You know what I meant.

4) I don't need to do **** because this already exists. And you know what it says. The CAA is better than the SoCon, but this can be referenced to #3, you already know that it does.

In the end, just because your argument was weak and I showed it, don't act like a spoiled kid and demand I make up a full out formula. You sure didn't. You cherry picked what fit for you statistically and I pointed out the reason it was a poor stat to use.


Edit: I don't really have a dog in the fight, but for my money, when one conference gets twice the bids it's most likely better. Doesn't mean it's by miles and miles. And I'm not saying the SoCon is poor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FUBeAR]

Love the sarcasm.
Thanks - my wife appreciates it a lot as well. ;)


1) I'm not going to create a formula. It's not hard to grasp. Every team in is guaranteed to have a loss unless they win it all. So their wins won't be of the same value. Pretty sure you know that. Add in that the team with more teams with a bye, and they are at an even larger disadvantage than the other conference. They lose an extra game to win compared to a team that didn't. Part of the amount of teams being a bigger picture would be the fact that they had more teams in the top 24 best in the country. More likely higher than that when you factor in weak conferences auto bids. One at large from a conference compared to three or four is a big difference. Much better way to judge overall strength of a conference.

Hadn't considered the less-games-to-win aspect of the Byes - something to think about. Still though...unless you can apply certain justifiable values to the variable characteristics of each team's differing path through the playoffs and accumulate those values by conference, then you can't really draw a meaningful statistical conclusion as to each conference's performance in the Playoffs. I do think that would take some fairly sophisticated modeling to accomplish. Maybe not all that sophisticated...but I know I sure can't do it. So, it probably would have been better to 'wash out' the intra-conference games, but I'm not going to take the time to go back and do it, even though that piece wouldn't be all that hard. And, I see how you can draw certain inferences from the skewing you are suggesting, but I still don't think it is highly significant. So, unless someone wants to improve and create that better model indicating different results, I'm just going to keep it simple and rely on Playoff Winning % as one pretty good (though imperfect) measure of relative Conference strength.


2) You were using this as a reasoning for the SoCon being a better conference than the CAA. Don't back out cause it disproves you. Either step up and say you think they were the second best conference or admit that when a conference gets in a small number of teams and ends with a higher win percentage, all it means is the conference is top heavy or had one really good team.

First of all, I don't believe I have said in this thread that I think the SoCon is a better conference than the CAA. The original posted made an outlandish claim about the relative strength of the CAA over the SoCon, indicating a rather large chasm between the two. I have only provided data & analysis to refute his ridiculous claim.

Also, I don't believe I said anything about the OVC with regard to the relative strength of the CAA vs. the SoCon, so I'm not real sure how only citing what the analysis indicates is "backing out" or "not stepping up." If you are saying that I'm using that analysis as part of my argument to support my contention that there is certainly not the chasm claimed, then I'll say this - "Frikkin'-A - this analysis indicates that, in the aggregate, the Top 25% of the SoCon's Teams were certainly as good as (allowing for some possible margin of imperfection in the analysis), if not better than the aggregated Top 33% of the CAA's Teams." Does that work for you?


3) I like the I'll play dumb and sit back and wait for a specific formula. Don't be a simpleton. You know what I meant.

Wrong - perhaps I am a simpleton because I was completely lost, at first, trying to understand what you meant. I think some hyphens and commas may have been helpful, but I still don't understand the distinction between that 'skewing factor' and the 'skewing factor' you cited earlier in your post. Regardless, I think that 'horse' is covered in whip-marks and on it's last breath by now. Let's move on.


4) I don't need to do **** because this already exists. And you know what it says. The CAA is better than the SoCon, but this can be referenced to #3, you already know that it does.

Love to see what exists. Can you help me with a link or something? Despite my 'leanings,' I'm not being a smart-a$$ here. Would like to see what you are referencing. I do recall seeing some FCS Conference rankings like this over the years & during this past season, but I don't recall that any one particular one of these was the single, recognized authority on the topic. I also recall that what I did see, throughout this season, was that the SoCon was rated higher than the CAA. Maybe I hallucinated that though....Played way-too-many plays without my helmet, they say. Seriously, if you could point me to what you're referencing, I would appreciate it.


In the end, just because your argument was weak and I showed it, don't act like a spoiled kid and demand I make up a full out formula. You sure didn't. You cherry picked what fit for you statistically and I pointed out the reason it was a poor stat to use.

I'm sorry that my phrasing led you to believe I was making a demand upon you. Perhaps such phrasing is peculiarly Southern, as in "Scarlett, you simply MUST meet Rhett. He is just divine!" My point was/is that if you want to go as deep as calculating variability of opponents beyond W's & L's, then it would make sense to consider all opponents' strengths. You've said such a model already exists and is, I'm assuming, the de facto authority on such, so I'm hoping to take a look at that soon.

I will not concede that my argument is "weak," nor that you "showed it." You pointed out some possible imperfections in my analysis that MAY bias the results to some unknown degree. All analyses have imperfections regardless of how must time is invested and how much depth is achieved. For the scope of this discussion, I believe my analysis is deep enough and I know I've invested all the time in it that I care to invest.

I did not "cherry pick" my analyses. I had no idea what the final Playoff performance results were going to be when I began (and posted) those calculations after the 1st round of the Playoffs. I had no idea what the CAA and SoCon OOC results were going to be when I began to look into those numbers after reading the original claim made by the other poster. I did not use just 1 stat to support my assertion. I looked fairly deeply into the only 2 completely objective comparative metrics that I believe exist. I had a feeling he was far off base, but now I KNOW it.

If you or anyone else can provide an alternative, objective analysis (though I understand it will not be a perfect analysis); then I will reconsider my position. As yet, all I've seen from either of you are critiques of my analysis - which is fine - as I said - I know it ain't perfect - but it's far, far better than nothing and/or only citing yours or others subjective opinions.


Edit: I don't really have a dog in the fight, but for my money, when one conference gets twice the bids it's most likely better. Doesn't mean it's by miles and miles.

33% is not twice 25%. It is 1.32 times. With the SoCon only having 2/3rds of the total # of teams as the CAA, it seems self-evident that the comparison of this metric should be considered on a percentage basis rather than a 'raw number.' Doesn't it?

You asked me my opinion about the OVC. Let me ask your opinion - Do you really believe the CAA is to the SoCon as the Big10 is to the Mountain West or nah?

[KPSUL]

OK - I'm a 'Homer' with facts, data, and statistics supporting my position & you are a 'Homer' with an opinion and outlandish, unsupported claims. I can agree to that.

Here's a "fact" and "stat" you should research Mr W. Edwards Deming:

How many CAA Head Coaches left their teams for SoCon Coaching opportunities this year?

[FUBeAR]

Here's a "fact" and "stat" you should research Mr W. Edwards Deming:

How many CAA Head Coaches left their teams for SoCon Coaching opportunities this year?

I believe one answer to that question would be...exactly the same number of CAA Head Coaches who were considered for SoCon Head Coaching opportunities this year.

...and who does this Deming guy Coach for?

[walliver]

As much as I hate being in the same side of a debate as a JMU fan, can someone explain why Elon left the SoCon for the CAA?

By the way, the fact that the JMU fan is using Richmond's success to bolster his argument is noted. FCS juggernaut JMU has amassed 1 playoff win in the last 7 seasons combined. Impressive stuff.

Elon, a SoCon bottom-feeder, joined the CAA because Elon recruits primarily from the mid-atlantic and northeast, not the South. They have not been missed.

[ElCid]

Now this whole argument is just silly. Apart from the obvious explanation as mentioned a couple times, that sheer number of teams and regionalization are probably more the reason for the Colonial having more teams in the playoffs, let’s see what the computers say this year. I will not even mention the choice of NH and leave that to your own opinions. You may not agree with the algorithms used by the computers, but all teams are treated the same. In other words, the results are at least subjective once the criteria are programmed in. In both of the primary computer ratings (Massey and Sagarin) the Colonial is behind the SOCON. Now, for the same reason why the Colonial may have had more teams in the playoffs, due to its having more teams overall (12), that may also be hurting their computer rating as well. Either way the SOCON and Colonial are fairly well matched. Obviously, the only Conf that has broken itself from the pack lately is the MVFC. A lot of data here, so hopefully I presented it well.

Massey (not composite) has it as (Rank-Conf/SOS Rank):
1-MVFC/1
2-Ivy/4
3-SOCON/2
4-Big Sky/3
5-Big South/8
6-Colonial/5
7-Patriot/7
8-Ohio Valley/6
9-Southland/9
10-Northeast/10
11-Pioneer/12
12-MEAC/11
13-SWAC/13

Here is Sagarin:
1-MVFC-58.74
2-Big Sky-48.67
3-SOCON-46.99
4- Colonial-45.90
5- Ohio Valley-44.89
6-Ivy-44.65
7-Big South-41.86
8-Southland-40.38
9-Patriot-40.15
10-Northeast-34.57
11-MEAC-32.51
12-SWAC-27.12
13-Pioneer-24.76

If we want to dig a little deeper, then let's look at the OOC schedule for each team to include the playoffs, but not include the conference foes in the playoffs. Why? Because we want to see how good these teams do against other conferences. The table below lists the team, its Massey FCS rank, SOS rank and record and each of its OOC games listed below that, with the score, and in green and red for wins and losses. Again, you may not like the computer but it is at least a neutral comparison. Massey takes ALL games into account including Div II, II, etc. What the results below show is that the bottom 6 CAA teams would be all behind the #7 SOCON team. The rest of the teams are matched up fairly well. There was only one head to head match all year (kind of surprising) and that was between the #1 CAA team (Richmond) and the last SOCON team (VMI) so it’s really not a good indicator. Overall I do think the SOCON benefitted in regard to the SOS due to a better FBS schedule than the CAA. The SOCON played 7 P5 teams. The CAA did play 6 but they were not the cream of the crop (e.g., Syracuse, WF, BC, Maryland, VA). They did have UNC who was pretty good. The SOCON had FSU, Tenn, A&M, Louisville, Clemson, Va Tech, USC (even bad, USC is rated above all but 2 FCS). Even Ga So was at 52 in Div I ahead of all FCS but NDSU at 47. But it might be offset a little by the fact that the SOCON did have 3 Div II and the CAA did not have any. I think the SOCON also benefitted from playing CSU and JSU twice (losing all 4 unfortunately). That really helped the SOS regardless.



Team
Massey FCS Rank
Massey SOS
Overall Record

Team
Massey FCS Rank
Massey SOS
Overall Record


The Citadel
#8
#11
9-4

Richmond
#11
#21
10-4


Davidson
69
0
Pioneer

Maryland
21
50
Big Ten


Ga So
13
48
Sun Belt

Hampton
31
28
MEAC


CSU
20
33
Big South

VMI
42
10
SOCON


USC
23
22
SEC

Ill St
39
27
MVFC


CCU
41
38
Big South

NDSU
7
33
MVFC


CSU
6
14
Big South


















UTC
#10
#13
9-4

W&M
#21
#34
9-4


JSU
20
23
OVC

Lafayette
34
7
Patriot


Mars Hill
44
34
Div II

Virginia
29
35
ACC


Presbyterian
21
0
Big South

Hampton
40
7
MEAC


FSU
13
52
ACC

Duquesne
52
49
Notheast


Fordham
50
20
Patriot







JSU
35
41
OVC


















WCU
#20
#14
7-4

James Madison
#24
#51
9-3


Mars Hill
42
14
Div II

Morehead St
56
7
Pioneer


Tenn
10
55
SEC

Lehigh
55
17
Patriot


Presbyterian
33
21
Big South

SMU
48
45
AAC


Texas A&M
17
41
SEC

Colgate
38
44
Patriot













Samford
#32
#49
6-5

Villanova
#30
#28
6-5


Central Ark
45
16
Southland

UConn
15
20
AAC


Florida A&M
58
21
MEAC

Fordham
14
7
Patriot


Louisville
3
45
ACC

Penn
13
24
Ivy


Clark Atlantic
43
0
Div II


















Wofford
#41
#24
5-6

Towson
#40
#54
7-4


Clemson
10
49
ACC

ECU
20
28
AAC


Tenn Tech
34
14
OVC

St Francis
35
20
Northeast


Idaho
38
41
Sun Belt

Holy Cross
29
26
Patriot


Gardner Webb
16
0
Big South


















Furman
#52
#20
4-7

NH
#49
#67
7-5


CCU
35
38
Big South

San Jose St
13
43
Mt West


Va Tech
3
42
ACC

Colgate
26
8
Patriot


UCF
16
15
AAC

Cent Conn
57
14
Northeast


SC St
17
3
MEAC

Colgate
20
27
Patriot













Mercer
#55
#76
5-6

Elon
#61
#40
4-7


Austin Peay
28
7
OVC

Wake Forest
3
41
ACC


Stetson
57
14
Pioneer

Gardner Webb
21
13
Big South


Tenn Tech
22
29
OVC

NC A&T
7
14
MEAC


ETSU
52
0
Ind


















VMI
#77
#29
2-9

Stoney Brook
#64
#80
5-5


Ball St
36
48
MAC

Cent Conn
38
9
Northeast


Morehead St
43
40
Pioneer

Howard
14
9
MEAC


Richmond
10
42
CAA







Bucknell
22
28
Patriot























Delaware
#70
#65
4-7







Jacksonville
14
20
Pioneer







Lafayette
19
9
Patriot







UNC
14
41
ACC


















Maine
#78
#48
3-8







BC
3
24
ACC







Tulane
7
38
AAC







Yale
10
21
Ivy


















Albany
#84
#43
3-8







Buffalo
14
51
MAC







Duquesne
17
14
Northest







Holy Cross
0
37
Patriot


















RI
#101
#41
1-10







Syracuse
0
47
ACC







Harvard
10
41
Ivy







Brown
31
41
Ivy





When I look for marquis wins by the CAA against other conferences, there is only one that stands out and that was the Richmond win against Ill St. JMU’s win over SMU, to a degree, but SMU is rated below a lot of FCS schools (they are #141, between Nova and Colgate), so not hugely impressive. On the other hand the marquis OOC wins for the SOCON were also a little bare but a couple stand out, I am happy to say, and that was The Citadel wins against USC and arguably CCU. I will not even argue the UCF win as they are actually ranked below Furman, who beat them. I suppose one could argue to include the Fordham wins as a good win for each but since both the CAA and SOCON each beat them, pretty much a wash, although UTC demolished them.

You can slice and dice these data points any way you like, but overall in regard to depth it is pretty easy to see that the CAA and SOCON are pretty much on par with each other. As I mentioned, the only conference currently standing above all others is obviously the MVFC. When looking at the depth of each conf I think the Big Sky, the SOCON, and CAA are all fairly matched. I would say the OVC is just a hair behind. The Big South has had a surge lately, but in overall depth, they are behind just a hair as well. Those two are probably on PAR with the Ivy but since they hardly play anybody else, it is hard to truly gage. The first big gap comes when you look at the Southland. They are going through some expansion pains lately so it is understandable. The SOCON will take a hit next year with ETSU. The Southland is probably on par with the Patriot. The next gaps comes with the Northeast and then the MEAC and SWAC, and then the Pioneer. There may be one, two or three teams in each conference that stand out depending on the year, but I am looking at each conference in its entirety.

If you want to look at how the Sagarin ratings for the SOCON and CAA match up, here they are. Looks fairly even to me. The SOS averages out to SOCON - 49.55 and CAA - 46.52, but unlike Massey, Sagarin does not compute Div II, III in its calculations, so it is probably closer.


RANK TEAM RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK)
96 Chattanooga AA = 61.85 9 4 0 51.93( 147)
102 Richmond AA = 60.42 10 4 0 49.72( 158)
113 James Madison AA = 58.00 9 3 0 44.99( 184)
115 The Citadel AA = 57.37 9 4 0 52.19( 143)
119 William & Mary AA = 56.38 9 4 0 47.70( 171)
125 Samford AA = 52.86 6 5 0 48.86( 163)
126 Villanova AA = 52.85 6 5 0 48.90( 162)
129 Western Carolina AA = 52.50 7 4 0 52.57( 141)
150 Towson AA = 49.77 7 4 0 46.04( 176)
155 Wofford AA = 48.86 5 6 0 48.39( 168)
165 New Hampshire AA = 47.48 7 5 0 43.69( 190)
178 Mercer AA = 43.17 5 6 0 41.42( 204)
179 Stony Brook AA = 42.80 5 5 0 40.13( 211)
182 Furman AA = 42.39 4 7 0 52.05( 146)
188 Maine AA = 40.77 3 8 0 47.02( 173)
194 Delaware AA = 39.56 4 7 0 45.20( 181)
199 Elon AA = 39.06 4 7 0 49.20( 160)
214 VMI AA = 34.91 2 9 0 48.98( 161)
217 Albany-NY AA = 34.78 3 8 0 47.21( 172)
224 Rhode Island AA = 31.41 1 10 0 4 8.46( 167)

Just for kicks and giggles I compared the Big Sky the SOCON, and the CAA as well. Disregarding the difference in the total number of teams in each conference, they again seem pretty close to me. Of the top 12 listed, each conference has 4 in.

96 Chattanooga AA = 61.85 9 4 0 51.93( 147)
101 Southern Utah AA = 60.49 8 4 0 52.08( 145)
102 Richmond AA = 60.42 10 4 0 49.72( 158)
108 Portland State AA = 58.97 9 3 0 52.16( 144)
111 Montana AA = 58.35 8 5 0 52.43( 142)
113 James Madison AA = 58.00 9 3 0 44.99( 184)
115 The Citadel AA = 57.37 9 4 0 52.19( 143)
119 William & Mary AA = 56.38 9 4 0 47.70( 171)
125 Samford AA = 52.86 6 5 0 48.86( 163)
126 Villanova AA = 52.85 6 5 0 48.90( 162)
129 Western Carolina AA = 52.50 7 4 0 52.57( 141)
131 Northern Arizona AA = 52.02 7 4 0 49.25( 159)
141 North Dakota AA = 50.60 7 4 0 48.25( 169)
143 Montana State AA = 50.46 5 6 0 48.46( 166)
146 Eastern Washington AA = 50.09 6 5 0 50.95( 149)
150 Towson AA = 49.77 7 4 0 46.04( 176)
152 Cal Poly-SLO AA = 49.72 4 7 0 53.21( 139)
155 Wofford AA = 48.86 5 6 0 48.39( 168)
160 Weber State AA = 47.97 6 5 0 50.50( 151)
165 New Hampshire AA = 47.48 7 5 0 43.69( 190)
178 Mercer AA = 43.17 5 6 0 41.42( 204)
179 Stony Brook AA = 42.80 5 5 0 40.13( 211)
182 Furman AA = 42.39 4 7 0 52.05( 146)
188 Maine AA = 40.77 3 8 0 47.02( 173)
192 Northern Colorado AA = 39.70 6 5 0 45.08( 182)
194 Delaware AA = 39.56 4 7 0 45.20( 181) 0
199 Elon AA = 39.06 4 7 0 49.20( 160)
201 UC Davis AA = 38.61 2 9 0 50.50( 152)
210 Sacramento State AA = 35.17 2 9 0 50.03( 153)
214 VMI AA = 34.91 2 9 0 48.98( 161)
217 Albany-NY AA = 34.78 3 8 0 47.21( 172)
219 Idaho State AA = 33.49 2 9 0 53.15( 140)
224 Rhode Island AA = 31.41 1 10 0 48.46( 167)


Now these are all objective ratings based upon this past year’s results. If you want to consider potential, or who you think is better, or who you want to be better, it may yield a different result. But that is pure speculation and the real result will always be in the final W/L tally and SOS each year.

[FUBeAR]

Now this whole argument is just silly. Apart from the obvious explanation as mentioned a couple times, that sheer number of teams and regionalization are probably more the reason for the Colonial having more teams in the playoffs, let’s see what the computers say this year. I will not even mention the choice of NH and leave that to your own opinions. You may not agree with the algorithms used by the computers, but all teams are treated the same. In other words, the results are at least subjective once the criteria are programmed in. In both of the primary computer ratings (Massey and Sagarin) the Colonial is behind the SOCON. Now, for the same reason why the Colonial may have had more teams in the playoffs, due to its having more teams overall (12), that may also be hurting their computer rating as well. Either way the SOCON and Colonial are fairly well matched. Obviously, the only Conf that has broken itself from the pack lately is the MVFC. A lot of data here, so hopefully I presented it well.

Massey (not composite) has it as (Rank-Conf/SOS Rank):
1-MVFC/1
2-Ivy/4
3-SOCON/2
4-Big Sky/3
5-Big South/8
6-Colonial/5
7-Patriot/7
8-Ohio Valley/6
9-Southland/9
10-Northeast/10
11-Pioneer/12
12-MEAC/11
13-SWAC/13

Here is Sagarin:
1-MVFC-58.74
2-Big Sky-48.67
3-SOCON-46.99
4- Colonial-45.90
5- Ohio Valley-44.89
6-Ivy-44.65
7-Big South-41.86
8-Southland-40.38
9-Patriot-40.15
10-Northeast-34.57
11-MEAC-32.51
12-SWAC-27.12
13-Pioneer-24.76

If we want to dig a little deeper, then let's look at the OOC schedule for each team to include the playoffs, but not include the conference foes in the playoffs. Why? Because we want to see how good these teams do against other conferences. The table below lists the team, its Massey FCS rank, SOS rank and record and each of its OOC games listed below that, with the score, and in green and red for wins and losses. Again, you may not like the computer but it is at least a neutral comparison. Massey takes ALL games into account including Div II, II, etc. What the results below show is that the bottom 6 CAA teams would be all behind the #7 SOCON team. The rest of the teams are matched up fairly well. There was only one head to head match all year (kind of surprising) and that was between the #1 CAA team (Richmond) and the last SOCON team (VMI) so it’s really not a good indicator. Overall I do think the SOCON benefitted in regard to the SOS due to a better FBS schedule than the CAA. The SOCON played 7 P5 teams. The CAA did play 6 but they were not the cream of the crop (e.g., Syracuse, WF, BC, Maryland, VA). They did have UNC who was pretty good. The SOCON had FSU, Tenn, A&M, Louisville, Clemson, Va Tech, USC (even bad, USC is rated above all but 2 FCS). Even Ga So was at 52 in Div I ahead of all FCS but NDSU at 47. But it might be offset a little by the fact that the SOCON did have 3 Div II and the CAA did not have any. I think the SOCON also benefitted from playing CSU and JSU twice (losing all 4 unfortunately). That really helped the SOS regardless.



Team
Massey FCS Rank
Massey SOS
Overall Record

Team
Massey FCS Rank
Massey SOS
Overall Record


The Citadel
#8
#11
9-4

Richmond
#11
#21
10-4


Davidson
69
0
Pioneer

Maryland
21
50
Big Ten


Ga So
13
48
Sun Belt

Hampton
31
28
MEAC


CSU
20
33
Big South

VMI
42
10
SOCON


USC
23
22
SEC

Ill St
39
27
MVFC


CCU
41
38
Big South

NDSU
7
33
MVFC


CSU
6
14
Big South


















UTC
#10
#13
9-4

W&M
#21
#34
9-4


JSU
20
23
OVC

Lafayette
34
7
Patriot


Mars Hill
44
34
Div II

Virginia
29
35
ACC


Presbyterian
21
0
Big South

Hampton
40
7
MEAC


FSU
13
52
ACC

Duquesne
52
49
Notheast


Fordham
50
20
Patriot







JSU
35
41
OVC


















WCU
#20
#14
7-4

James Madison
#24
#51
9-3


Mars Hill
42
14
Div II

Morehead St
56
7
Pioneer


Tenn
10
55
SEC

Lehigh
55
17
Patriot


Presbyterian
33
21
Big South

SMU
48
45
AAC


Texas A&M
17
41
SEC

Colgate
38
44
Patriot













Samford
#32
#49
6-5

Villanova
#30
#28
6-5


Central Ark
45
16
Southland

UConn
15
20
AAC


Florida A&M
58
21
MEAC

Fordham
14
7
Patriot


Louisville
3
45
ACC

Penn
13
24
Ivy


Clark Atlantic
43
0
Div II


















Wofford
#41
#24
5-6

Towson
#40
#54
7-4


Clemson
10
49
ACC

ECU
20
28
AAC


Tenn Tech
34
14
OVC

St Francis
35
20
Northeast


Idaho
38
41
Sun Belt

Holy Cross
29
26
Patriot


Gardner Webb
16
0
Big South


















Furman
#52
#20
4-7

NH
#49
#67
7-5


CCU
35
38
Big South

San Jose St
13
43
Mt West


Va Tech
3
42
ACC

Colgate
26
8
Patriot


UCF
16
15
AAC

Cent Conn
57
14
Northeast


SC St
17
3
MEAC

Colgate
20
27
Patriot













Mercer
#55
#76
5-6

Elon
#61
#40
4-7


Austin Peay
28
7
OVC

Wake Forest
3
41
ACC


Stetson
57
14
Pioneer

Gardner Webb
21
13
Big South


Tenn Tech
22
29
OVC

NC A&T
7
14
MEAC


ETSU
52
0
Ind


















VMI
#77
#29
2-9

Stoney Brook
#64
#80
5-5


Ball St
36
48
MAC

Cent Conn
38
9
Northeast


Morehead St
43
40
Pioneer

Howard
14
9
MEAC


Richmond
10
42
CAA







Bucknell
22
28
Patriot























Delaware
#70
#65
4-7







Jacksonville
14
20
Pioneer







Lafayette
19
9
Patriot







UNC
14
41
ACC


















Maine
#78
#48
3-8







BC
3
24
ACC







Tulane
7
38
AAC







Yale
10
21
Ivy


















Albany
#84
#43
3-8







Buffalo
14
51
MAC







Duquesne
17
14
Northest







Holy Cross
0
37
Patriot


















RI
#101
#41
1-10







Syracuse
0
47
ACC







Harvard
10
41
Ivy







Brown
31
41
Ivy





When I look for marquis wins by the CAA against other conferences, there is only one that stands out and that was the Richmond win against Ill St. JMU’s win over SMU, to a degree, but SMU is rated below a lot of FCS schools (they are #141, between Nova and Colgate), so not hugely impressive. On the other hand the marquis OOC wins for the SOCON were also a little bare but a couple stand out, I am happy to say, and that was The Citadel wins against USC and arguably CCU. I will not even argue the UCF win as they are actually ranked below Furman, who beat them. I suppose one could argue to include the Fordham wins as a good win for each but since both the CAA and SOCON each beat them, pretty much a wash, although UTC demolished them.

You can slice and dice these data points any way you like, but overall in regard to depth it is pretty easy to see that the CAA and SOCON are pretty much on par with each other. As I mentioned, the only conference currently standing above all others is obviously the MVFC. When looking at the depth of each conf I think the Big Sky, the SOCON, and CAA are all fairly matched. I would say the OVC is just a hair behind. The Big South has had a surge lately, but in overall depth, they are behind just a hair as well. Those two are probably on PAR with the Ivy but since they hardly play anybody else, it is hard to truly gage. The first big gap comes when you look at the Southland. They are going through some expansion pains lately so it is understandable. The SOCON will take a hit next year with ETSU. The Southland is probably on par with the Patriot. The next gaps comes with the Northeast and then the MEAC and SWAC, and then the Pioneer. There may be one, two or three teams in each conference that stand out depending on the year, but I am looking at each conference in its entirety.

If you want to look at how the Sagarin ratings for the SOCON and CAA match up, here they are. Looks fairly even to me. The SOS averages out to SOCON - 49.55 and CAA - 46.52, but unlike Massey, Sagarin does not compute Div II, III in its calculations, so it is probably closer.


RANK TEAM RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK)
96 Chattanooga AA = 61.85 9 4 0 51.93( 147)
102 Richmond AA = 60.42 10 4 0 49.72( 158)
113 James Madison AA = 58.00 9 3 0 44.99( 184)
115 The Citadel AA = 57.37 9 4 0 52.19( 143)
119 William & Mary AA = 56.38 9 4 0 47.70( 171)
125 Samford AA = 52.86 6 5 0 48.86( 163)
126 Villanova AA = 52.85 6 5 0 48.90( 162)
129 Western Carolina AA = 52.50 7 4 0 52.57( 141)
150 Towson AA = 49.77 7 4 0 46.04( 176)
155 Wofford AA = 48.86 5 6 0 48.39( 168)
165 New Hampshire AA = 47.48 7 5 0 43.69( 190)
178 Mercer AA = 43.17 5 6 0 41.42( 204)
179 Stony Brook AA = 42.80 5 5 0 40.13( 211)
182 Furman AA = 42.39 4 7 0 52.05( 146)
188 Maine AA = 40.77 3 8 0 47.02( 173)
194 Delaware AA = 39.56 4 7 0 45.20( 181)
199 Elon AA = 39.06 4 7 0 49.20( 160)
214 VMI AA = 34.91 2 9 0 48.98( 161)
217 Albany-NY AA = 34.78 3 8 0 47.21( 172)
224 Rhode Island AA = 31.41 1 10 0 4 8.46( 167)

Just for kicks and giggles I compared the Big Sky the SOCON, and the CAA as well. Disregarding the difference in the total number of teams in each conference, they again seem pretty close to me. Of the top 12 listed, each conference has 4 in.

96 Chattanooga AA = 61.85 9 4 0 51.93( 147)
101 Southern Utah AA = 60.49 8 4 0 52.08( 145)
102 Richmond AA = 60.42 10 4 0 49.72( 158)
108 Portland State AA = 58.97 9 3 0 52.16( 144)
111 Montana AA = 58.35 8 5 0 52.43( 142)
113 James Madison AA = 58.00 9 3 0 44.99( 184)
115 The Citadel AA = 57.37 9 4 0 52.19( 143)
119 William & Mary AA = 56.38 9 4 0 47.70( 171)
125 Samford AA = 52.86 6 5 0 48.86( 163)
126 Villanova AA = 52.85 6 5 0 48.90( 162)
129 Western Carolina AA = 52.50 7 4 0 52.57( 141)
131 Northern Arizona AA = 52.02 7 4 0 49.25( 159)
141 North Dakota AA = 50.60 7 4 0 48.25( 169)
143 Montana State AA = 50.46 5 6 0 48.46( 166)
146 Eastern Washington AA = 50.09 6 5 0 50.95( 149)
150 Towson AA = 49.77 7 4 0 46.04( 176)
152 Cal Poly-SLO AA = 49.72 4 7 0 53.21( 139)
155 Wofford AA = 48.86 5 6 0 48.39( 168)
160 Weber State AA = 47.97 6 5 0 50.50( 151)
165 New Hampshire AA = 47.48 7 5 0 43.69( 190)
178 Mercer AA = 43.17 5 6 0 41.42( 204)
179 Stony Brook AA = 42.80 5 5 0 40.13( 211)
182 Furman AA = 42.39 4 7 0 52.05( 146)
188 Maine AA = 40.77 3 8 0 47.02( 173)
192 Northern Colorado AA = 39.70 6 5 0 45.08( 182)
194 Delaware AA = 39.56 4 7 0 45.20( 181) 0
199 Elon AA = 39.06 4 7 0 49.20( 160)
201 UC Davis AA = 38.61 2 9 0 50.50( 152)
210 Sacramento State AA = 35.17 2 9 0 50.03( 153)
214 VMI AA = 34.91 2 9 0 48.98( 161)
217 Albany-NY AA = 34.78 3 8 0 47.21( 172)
219 Idaho State AA = 33.49 2 9 0 53.15( 140)
224 Rhode Island AA = 31.41 1 10 0 48.46( 167)


Now these are all objective ratings based upon this past year’s results. If you want to consider potential, or who you think is better, or who you want to be better, it may yield a different result. But that is pure speculation and the real result will always be in the final W/L tally and SOS each year.

yeah...what he said.

[KPSUL]

I believe one answer to that question would be...exactly the same number of CAA Head Coaches who were considered for SoCon Head Coaching opportunities this year.

...and who does this Deming guy Coach for?

The must eminent statistician of the past 100 years. Founder of statistical process control and the father of the post war quality management movement.

Actually, I disagree with some of my CAA brethren, I'd say there is near parity between Socon, CAA and I'd throw in Big Sky and last's year's Big South. They are so close that I think all of the efforts to "statistically" prove otherwise lack statistical significance and objectivity. I also don't care one bit which FCS conference was second best last season, in fact I think it is impossible to prove or determine anyway, and made harder by the variations in conference size. But more importantly, parity between FCS conferences is a good thing for all of college football.

[UNIFanSince1983]

While I understand the premise of comparing strength of conferences by playoff winning percentage it is terribly short sided. All it really does is tell us what conferences had one or two strong teams. Sure the OVC had one great team and ended up with a really good winning percentage. That discredits the fact that there were some really really bad teams in the conference too. What doesn't show up in playoff winning percentage is the teams from a conference that didn't make the playoffs. There are more than just two or three teams in a conference. So if you want a true strength of a conference top to bottom using playoff winning percentage won't work.

Edit: And FWIW Massey has the SoCon rated 3rd with the CAA rated 6th.

[FUBeAR]

The must eminent statistician of the past 100 years. Founder of statistical process control and the father of the post war quality management movement.

All impressive, but what's his Won/Loss record? Oh yeah, I think I heard somewhere that it was 1,000,000 - 3.4

Agree with your 2nd paragraph almost entirely. The only variance I have with it, is that I don't think anyone is trying to "statistically prove" that the Conferences you mention ARE NOT comparable. Your CAA-brother(s) expressed OPINIONS (and just 1 fact (# of Playoff Teams) that happened as a result of others' OPINIONS) that the Conferences WERE NOT comparable, and the SoCon Fans have been providing EVIDENCE that they ARE.

[andthehomeofthe-BIZON-]

Such a slapfight has not been seen since the London Silly Nannies. To say there is a wide gap between the two is nonsense.