AGS Poll Results - WEEK 9 - 2019 SEASON

[AGSPoll]

10/28/2019



Rank
Team:
Total Points
First Place Votes


1
North Dakota State Bison
2198
87


2
James Madison Dukes
2104
1


3
South Dakota State Jackrabbits
1958



4
Weber State Wildcats
1939



5
Sac State Hornets
1894



6
Montana Grizzlies
1675



7
Northern Iowa Panthers
1558



8
Illinois State Redbirds
1533



9
Kennesaw State Owls
1467



10
Central Arkansas Bears
1381



11
Villanova Wildcats
1311



12
Furman Paladins
1216



13
Stony Brook Seawolves
933



14T
Dartmouth Big Green
886



14T
Princeton Tigers
886



16
Montana State Bobcats
712



17
Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
660



18
Wofford Terriers
563



19
Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
538



20
North Carolina A&T Aggies
477



21
North Dakota Fighting Hawks
417



22
Florida A&M Rattlers
387



23
Towson Tigers
248



24
Austin Peay Governors
213



25
Albany Great Danes
202
















ORV:




26
Youngstown State Penguins
173



27
Sam Houston State Bearkats
162



28
Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks
154



29
Nicholls State Colonels
135



30
The Citadel Bulldogs
102



31
Southern Illinois Salukis
89



32
New Hampshire Wildcats
74



33
Jacksonville State Gamecocks
68



34
UC Davis Aggies
66



35
Elon Phoenix
55



36
San Diego Toreros
34



37
Southeastern Louisiana Lions
26



38
Yale Bulldogs
19



39
Chattanooga Mocs
15



40
Campbell Fighting Camels
14
















Most Significant Win:

Stony Brook Seawolves



Most Significant Loss:

Villanova Wildcats



https://i.imgur.com/3d2FVC9.png

[BEAR]

#10. Nice. Now if we could only FLIP our halves and instead hold on for a win for once. xlolx

[JMUNJ08]

Interesting SDSU doesn't drop at all. Great game, they really don't deserve to, but there are FCS undefeated teams behind them with some nice W's so far.

Would winner of Weber/ Sac St. jump them next week?

[Professor Chaos]

Here's this week's poll article: http://thefcswedge.com/ags-poll/ags-poll-week-9-top-25-results-2/

Some thoughts from me:

FAMU makes their first appearance in the top 25 since 2009. Nice work Rattlers!
I think voters need to take a closer look at Wofford. They seem to be this week's Towson as in the team that's moving up because voter's aren't giving other teams enough of a look.
Speaking of teams that deserve a look I'm very surprised Monmouth didn't even crack the top 40. I'm not sure what else they can do. They have a win over now #25 Albany and their only FCS loss is to #6 Montana in Missoula. There's not that many worthy teams that voters can ding them so hard for close wins.
The Southland went from looking like possibly a 4 bid league last week to maybe only a 1 bid league this week. What a mess it has been in the SLC so far this year.

[Professor Chaos]

Interesting SDSU doesn't drop at all. Great game, they really don't deserve to, but there are FCS undefeated teams behind them with some nice W's so far.

Would winner of Weber/ Sac St. jump them next week?
Yeah, SDSU is a tough one. Their best win is Southern Illinois or Youngstown St and neither of those teams are in the consensus top 25. They're getting a lot of mileage out of quality losses to Minnesota and NDSU. Having seen them in person last Saturday I can't say they don't deserve it but if they drop a game to say UNI or Illinois St it'll be interesting to see how far they would drop. They don't have a lot to fall back on for as highly ranked as they are.

[clenz]

Yeah, SDSU is a tough one. Their best win is Southern Illinois or Youngstown St and neither of those teams are in the consensus top 25. They're getting a lot of mileage out of quality losses to Minnesota and NDSU. Having seen them in person last Saturday I can't say they don't deserve it but if they drop a game to say UNI or Illinois St it'll be interesting to see how far they would drop. They don't have a lot to fall back on for as highly ranked as they are.
Without Gibbs they aren't #3

If he has to miss time - especially against UNI or ISUr they could be "upset"

[F'N Hawks]

Figured UND would still be behind Montana State due to some stupid reason.

Just didn't think it would be in this poll.

[BEAR]

Here's this week's poll article: http://thefcswedge.com/ags-poll/ags-poll-week-9-top-25-results-2/

Some thoughts from me:

The Southland went from looking like possibly a 4 bid league last week to maybe only a 1 bid league this week. What a mess it has been in the SLC so far this year.



Yep. The SLC is devouring itself. Couple of upsets this weekend threw a wrench in it all. Most teams have 4 games left so expect it to get worse! xlolx

[Professor Chaos]

Here's my shot at it this week:

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
4: Sacramento State Hornets
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Central Arkansas Bears
8: Northern Iowa Panthers
9: Kennesaw State Owls
10: Illinois State Redbirds
11: Stony Brook Seawolves
12: Villanova Wildcats
13: Furman Paladins
14: Dartmouth Big Green
15: Princeton Tigers
16: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
17: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
18: Montana State Bobcats
19: Sam Houston State Bearkats
20: New Hampshire Wildcats
21: Austin Peay Governors
22: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
23: Florida A&M Rattlers
24: Monmouth Hawks
25: Southern Illinois Salukis

[Professor Chaos]

Figured UND would still be behind Montana State due to some stupid reason.

Just didn't think it would be in this poll.
I had UND one spot above Montana St but I don't blame voters for having it different. When a blocked punt is the difference in the game it's hard to be too tough on the road team. And that's just one data point on the year. UND now accounts for half of the 4 combined D1 wins that Idaho St and Eastern Washington have on the year. I wrestled with the placement of UND with Montana St and SHSU for a quite bit... I don't feel great about having UND that high on my ballot considering their bad losses.

[clenz]

Figured UND would still be behind Montana State due to some stupid reason.

Just didn't think it would be in this poll.
Here' something to make you poo yourself

I had UND top 15 and a head of MSU.

[Silenoz]

Will be interesting to see what happens after the Sac Weber game. Does the winner jump one spot? Two? Three? Zero? Does Sac lose but gain distance on Montana?

[F'N Hawks]

I had UND one spot above Montana St but I don't blame voters for having it different. When a punt return is the difference in the game it's hard to be too tough on the road team. And that's just one data point on the year. UND now accounts for half of the 4 combined D1 wins that Idaho St and Eastern Washington have on the year. I wrestled with the placement of UND with Montana St and SHSU for a quite bit... I don't feel great about having UND that high on my ballot considering their bad losses.

What has Montana State done...not lose to a bad team?

[clenz]

What has Montana State done...not lose to a bad team?
I mean...that's a pretty big deal when comparing teams.

One team has shown a "propensity" to lose to bad teams. The other beats bad teams.

[Professor Chaos]

What has Montana State done...not lose to a bad team?
SEMO is a nice win for them. But not having any bad losses is a pretty rare thing to have for any team outside of the top 12 or so.

[WrenFGun]

I know Stony Brooks win was big, but UNH is 3-1 in the CAA and beat them at SBU..

[F'N Hawks]

I mean...that's a pretty big deal when comparing teams.

One team has shown a "propensity" to lose to bad teams. The other beats bad teams.

I mean.....do they ever need to beat a good team?

- - - Updated - - -


SEMO is a nice win for them. But not having any bad losses is a pretty rare thing to have for any team outside of the top 12 or so.

So is Davis, MSU and SHSU.

[Professor Chaos]

I know Stony Brooks win was big, but UNH is 3-1 in the CAA and beat them at SBU..
Kinda the same deal for me with UNH as it is for UND. Stony Brook was a great win but that loss to Holy Cross was just yuck (although I give them a bit of a pass considering what their head coach was going through) and the loss to Delaware is looking a lot worse this week as well.

[Professor Chaos]

So is Davis, MSU and SHSU.
I haven't had Davis ranked since week 5 because they have no SEMO-ish win to fall back on. SHSU should be ranked IMO. Hard to see how UCA is the consensus #10 if SHSU is outside of the top 25.

[F'N Hawks]

I haven't had Davis ranked since week 5 because they have no SEMO-ish win to fall back on. SHSU should be ranked IMO. Hard to see how UCA is the consensus #10 if SHSU is outside of the top 25.

Davis just isn't good enough to beat the top teams this year. Their losses are to some really good teams (minus UND)

Cal
NDSU
Montana
Weber State

That's some tough games right there.

[MSUBobcat]

What has Montana State done...not lose to a bad team?

Not true... we lost to UND. I'm not sure I'd put either of them or SHSU in the top 20 in a normal year, but it appears there's a whole lot of mediocrity in FCS.

[F'N Hawks]

Not true... we lost to UND. I'm not sure I'd put either of them or SHSU in the top 20 in a normal year, but it appears there's a whole lot of mediocrity in FCS.

At least you have your powerful rushing attack to fall back on. No worries in Bozeman.

[Professor Chaos]

Davis just isn't good enough to beat the top teams this year. Their losses are to some really good teams (minus UND)

Cal
NDSU
Montana
Weber State

That's some tough games right there.
Agreed. They're on my watch list for consideration in the top 25 with about 20 other teams. If they win their last 3 (which would include a season ending wins against Montana St and Sac St) they absolutely should be ranked and are probably playoff bound at 7-5.

[aceinthehole]

Towson is still ranked, but not UNH?

Tigers are just 1-3 in the CAA. Certainly, they have played a tougher league games than UNH (3-1 CAA) so far, but Wildcats also have the "better" league win (at SBU), right?

[IBleedYellow]

Here' something to make you poo yourself

I had UND top 15 and a head of MSU.

I had UND ahead of MSU as well.

[MSUBobcat]

At least you have your powerful rushing attack to fall back on. No worries in Bozeman.

If you say so. IMO, there's LOTS to be worried about. Just when Rovig looks like he might be figuring something out, he has a YUGE regression. And Choate's clock management at the end of halves and games is becoming infuriating. After the blocked punt TD, we were very lackadaisical with 4 and a half minutes to play. We burned thru 3:20 in 7 plays, an average of 28.5 seconds/play. Even pretending we convert the first down, we'd have have over 50 yards still to go in 1 minute. I'm okay with continuing to run the ball in that drive since it's the bread and butter of the offense. But to burn almost the entire play clock after each play was just mind boggling. Not to mention a delay of game on a 3rd and 13 to really squash on hope of converting on a game-deciding drive.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Sac State Hornets
4: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Dartmouth Big Green
7: Illinois State Redbirds
8: Kennesaw State Owls
9: Villanova Wildcats
10: Northern Iowa Panthers
11: Central Arkansas Bears
12: Montana Grizzlies
13: Princeton Tigers
14: Furman Paladins
15: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
16: Florida A&M Rattlers
17: Albany Great Danes
18: North Carolina A&T Aggies
19: Stony Brook Seawolves
20: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
21: Wofford Terriers
22: Alcorn State Braves
23: Montana State Bobcats
24: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
25: San Diego Toreros

Go Lehigh TU owl

The Most Significant Win: Stony Brook Seawolves
The Most Significant Loss: Nicholls State Colonels
Which Conference Does Your Team Play in?: Patriot League

[nodak651]

I'm not confident enough in UND to complain about where they are ranked. Especially with how many games have been played now. Head to head matchups should mean a little bit less as the season goes on, because the sample size is now becoming so much bigger. I still think MSU has some serious QB issues, as I've said all year, but I don't really care if they are ranked ahead of UND (at this moment). UND's loss at EWU was somewhat excusable, because it was EWU on the red carpet, in terrible playing conditions, and it was Studsruds first full game since last year, and he had like 5 of the 6 turnovers in the game. Idaho State was inexcusable, however. UND looked like a bottom 25 team in that game. 21 seems pretty fair for me, and as a UND fan, you (F'N Hawks) should want a team like MSU to drop 15 spots in the rankings just because we beat them in a tight game at home.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If you say so. IMO, there's LOTS to be worried about. Just when Rovig looks like he might be figuring something out, he has a YUGE regression. And Choate's clock management at the end of halves and games is becoming infuriating. After the blocked punt TD, we were very lackadaisical with 4 and a half minutes to play. We burned thru 3:20 in 7 plays, an average of 28.5 seconds/play. Even pretending we convert the first down, we'd have have over 50 yards still to go in 1 minute. I'm okay with continuing to run the ball in that drive since it's the bread and butter of the offense. But to burn almost the entire play clock after each play was just mind boggling. Not to mention a delay of game on a 3rd and 13 to really squash on hope of converting on a game-deciding drive.

I think this is the first MSU game I have not gotten to see this year but man that really does sound pretty bad.

[WileECoyote06]

No one is feeling SCSU or SE Louisiana huh? xcoffeex

[nodak651]

If you say so. IMO, there's LOTS to be worried about. Just when Rovig looks like he might be figuring something out, he has a YUGE regression. And Choate's clock management at the end of halves and games is becoming infuriating. After the blocked punt TD, we were very lackadaisical with 4 and a half minutes to play. We burned thru 3:20 in 7 plays, an average of 28.5 seconds/play. Even pretending we convert the first down, we'd have have over 50 yards still to go in 1 minute. I'm okay with continuing to run the ball in that drive since it's the bread and butter of the offense. But to burn almost the entire play clock after each play was just mind boggling. Not to mention a delay of game on a 3rd and 13 to really squash on hope of converting on a game-deciding drive.

The Alerus is kind of underrated with how loud it can get. Not comparing it to the more well known stadiums in fcs, but the place can get pretty loud when the fans get off their ass and actually cheer, even when there only like 8k people there. The ceiling in relatively low, and the walls are covered in corrigated steel - the sound bounces around in there, and it is pretty crazy how many false starts and delay of game penalties are called there in key situations.

[geaux_sioux]

I'm not confident enough in UND to complain about where they are ranked. Especially with how many games have been played now. Head to head matchups should mean a little bit less as the season goes on, because the sample size is now becoming so much bigger. I still think MSU has some serious QB issues, as I've said all year, but I don't really care if they are ranked ahead of UND (at this moment). UND's loss at EWU was somewhat excusable, because it was EWU on the red carpet, in terrible playing conditions, and it was Studsruds first full game since last year, and he had like 5 of the 6 turnovers in the game. Idaho State was inexcusable, however. UND looked like a bottom 25 team in that game. 21 seems pretty fair for me, and as a UND fan, you (F'N Hawks) should want a team like MSU to drop 15 spots in the rankings just because we beat them in a tight game at home.

I don’t really believe in this years team at this point. Haven’t all year. Some good spurts here and there but some extended periods of absolute garbage. I think we still have a lot to prove to be a playoff team.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Interesting SDSU doesn't drop at all. Great game, they really don't deserve to, but there are FCS undefeated teams behind them with some nice W's so far.

Would winner of Weber/ Sac St. jump them next week?

SDSU played both FCS #1 NDSU and FBS #13 Minnesota (8-0) very even; plus their FCS SOS ranks 7th and they avg margin in their 6 wins is 25 points ... they get the benefit of doubt. JMU lost to 3-4 West Virginia by 7 ... that game doesn't look as impressive 2 months later. And their FCS SOS only ranks 21st with 27 point avg margin. Sac St lost to lesser FBS teams by 12 and 14... but their FCS results have been very impressive to date ... #1 SOS and 27 point avg margin .. but SDSU has 2 better quality losses than Sac St 2 quality losses.

Montana and Weber St are very strong rounding out a very firm top 6 ... it's a roll of dice after the top 6.

I am surprised to see Villanova drop to 11. Now starting to believe my ISUr could be a top 12 .. just not willing to believe we are a top 8 seed at this point ... unless we beat UNI this weekend. But who on earth would want an 8th seed ... your reward, a trip to Fargo ???

[MSUBobcat]

I think this is the first MSU game I have not gotten to see this year but man that really does sound pretty bad.

We got the ball back (touchback) at 4:21 to play. Run for 4, run for 4, run for 3 (1st down at our 36). Pass for 5, 8 yard sack. Inexplicably, we took a delay of game on 3rd and 13 when the game clock was running. Rovig was screaming for the ball for the last 2-3 seconds, but why with only about a minute and a half left we were even letting 20 seconds run off, let alone not get the snap off, is beyond my comprehension. Incomplete pass on 3rd and 18, followed by 8 yards on some crazy hook and ladder attempt. They need some SERIOUS coaching up on situational awareness. It looked like they misread the score and were trying to salt the game away.

[TheKingpin28]

No one is feeling SCSU or SE Louisiana huh? xcoffeexI had them (SCSU) earlier but unfortunately there wasn't 26 spots available. I'll post my poll when I get home but this poll isn't easy when 7-10 teams want to win and the rest are good at being mediocre. (Not counting teams that abstain from the playoffs)

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

The Alerus is kind of underrated with how loud it can get. Not comparing it to the more well known stadiums in fcs, but the place can get pretty loud when the fans get off their ass and actually cheer, even when there only like 8k people there. The ceiling in relatively low, and the walls are covered in corrigated steel - the sound bounces around in there, and it is pretty crazy how many false starts and delay of game penalties are called there in key situations.

No offense to how loud Alerus is or isn't, when you have 67 yards to go with a minute and a half and the game clock running due to being tackled in bounds on the previous play, you shouldn't be using even 20 seconds of play clock, let alone not get the snap off. That's just an epic brain fart. If it was a false start with 10 seconds on the play clock, your loudness assertion would hold more water. When time is your enemy, a delay of game is hard to comprehend. xbangx

[caribbeanhen]

Here's my shot at it this week:

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
4: Sacramento State Hornets
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Central Arkansas Bears
8: Northern Iowa Panthers
9: Kennesaw State Owls
10: Illinois State Redbirds
11: Stony Brook Seawolves
12: Villanova Wildcats
13: Furman Paladins
14: Dartmouth Big Green
15: Princeton Tigers
16: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
17: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
18: Montana State Bobcats
19: Sam Houston State Bearkats
20: New Hampshire Wildcats
21: Austin Peay Governors
22: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
23: Florida A&M Rattlers
24: Monmouth Hawks
25: Southern Illinois Salukis

nice poll Professor, but Vegas says Dartmouth 3TDs better than Stoner Brook

[nodak651]

Glad SDSU didn't drop in this poll. If they were correctly ranked at number 3, losing to the number 1 team in such a tight game doesn't show in any way that the #4 and #5 teams are better. If anything, it should cement SDSU's spot at #3, because that's exactly how the game should have played out if the teams were ranked correctly to begin with. The voters who moved them down in the STATS and Coaches poll would have kept them at number #3 if they played a bottom of the barrel team like like UNA, who Kennesaw played, which is pretty stupid.

[caribbeanhen]

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Sac State Hornets
4: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Dartmouth Big Green
7: Illinois State Redbirds
8: Kennesaw State Owls
9: Villanova Wildcats
10: Northern Iowa Panthers
11: Central Arkansas Bears
12: Montana Grizzlies
13: Princeton Tigers
14: Furman Paladins
15: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
16: Florida A&M Rattlers
17: Albany Great Danes
18: North Carolina A&T Aggies
19: Stony Brook Seawolves
20: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
21: Wofford Terriers
22: Alcorn State Braves
23: Montana State Bobcats
24: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
25: San Diego Toreros

Go Lehigh TU owl

The Most Significant Win: Stony Brook Seawolves
The Most Significant Loss: Nicholls State Colonels
Which Conference Does Your Team Play in?: Patriot League

This is a good non biased poll

[nodak651]

No offense to how loud Alerus is or isn't, when you have 67 yards to go with a minute and a half and the game clock running due to being tackled in bounds on the previous play, you shouldn't be using even 20 seconds of play clock, let alone not get the snap off. That's just an epic brain fart. If it was a false start with 10 seconds on the play clock, your loudness assertion would hold more water. When time is your enemy, a delay of game is hard to comprehend. xbangx

Maybe a little of both (QB WAS calling for ball). But, you're right. Even if the whole MSU team was deaf, that shouldn't ever happen in that situation. Especially when coach can call a time out. Probably doesn't help that the place sounds like a morgue most of the game, so the center probably thought he'd be able to hear the QB.

[Professor Chaos]

nice poll Professor, but Vegas says Dartmouth 3TDs better than Stoner Brook
That casino would be taking a bath then I'd say if that game happened. Even the computer rankings that looooove the Ivies only have Dartmouth as a 10-13 point favorite on a neutral field. I'll trust the results on the field though where Stony Brook has shown that they can compete with and beat other top FCS teams like Nova and JMU. Whoever wins that Dartmouth/Princeton game probably makes a strong push for my top 10 ahead of Stony Brook but until then they're going to have a hard time getting traction from where they're at with me at least.

[clenz]

I am surprised to see Villanova drop to 11. Now starting to believe my ISUr could be a top 12 .. just not willing to believe we are a top 8 seed at this point ... unless we beat UNI this weekend. But who on earth would want an 8th seed ... your reward, a trip to Fargo ???
Give me a thanksgiving game against a NEC/PFL/SLC/SOCON team and then sent to a 5 or 7 seed.

[F'N Hawks]

No offense to how loud Alerus is or isn't, when you have 67 yards to go with a minute and a half and the game clock running due to being tackled in bounds on the previous play, you shouldn't be using even 20 seconds of play clock, let alone not get the snap off. That's just an epic brain fart. If it was a false start with 10 seconds on the play clock, your loudness assertion would hold more water. When time is your enemy, a delay of game is hard to comprehend. xbangx

That drive did move awfully slow. Not MSU's forte to run two min drill I assume.
If UND could ever get more than 9K to show up with would be pretty loud. But unfortunately that's not the case lately.

[that guy]

At least you have your powerful rushing attack to fall back on. No worries in Bozeman.


Not true... we lost to UND. I'm not sure I'd put either of them or SHSU in the top 20 in a normal year, but it appears there's a whole lot of mediocrity in FCS.
I think both of these teams are a hot mess.

[KPSUL]

Kinda the same deal for me with UNH as it is for UND. Stony Brook was a great win but that loss to Holy Cross was just yuck (although I give them a bit of a pass considering what their head coach was going through) and the loss to Delaware is looking a lot worse this week as well.

At this point I'm giving Stony Brook more credit for the win over Villanova, than I'm giving UNH for its win over Stony Brook. I have them both ranked, Stony Brook higher. I have UNH and Albany both in the 20-25 range, Stony Brook middle teens. The CAA team that does not deserve to be ranked is Towson. Towson is 4 -4 overall, 1-3 in the CAA. Their only conference win is against Maine. Albany beat Towson. There are two reason voters are screwing up and voting for Towson; they started the season highly ranked, and they have a QB named Flacco.

[Professor Chaos]

At this point I'm giving Stony Brook more credit for the win over Villanova, than I'm giving UNH for its win over Stony Brook. I have them both ranked, Stony Brook higher. I have UNH and Albany both in the 20-25 range, Stony Brook middle teens. The CAA team that does not deserve to be ranked is Towson. Towson is 4 -4 overall, 1-3 in the CAA. Their only conference win is against Maine. Albany beat Towson. There are two reason voters are screwing up and voting for Towson; they started the season highly ranked, and they have a QB named Flacco.
Agreed, I was perplexed what Towson did to move up to #17 last week except not lose (because they played Bucknell). I guess losing at JMU is to be expected but they have a pretty weak collection of wins as you point out and that 17 point home loss to Albany certainly doesn't look very good. For me they're on my radar for top 25 consideration but they're definitely not in it and probably not even in the first 5 out IMO.

[caribbeanhen]

That casino would be taking a bath then I'd say if that game happened. Even the computer rankings that looooove the Ivies only have Dartmouth as a 10-13 point favorite on a neutral field. I'll trust the results on the field though where Stony Brook has shown that they can compete with and beat other top FCS teams like Nova and JMU. Whoever wins that Dartmouth/Princeton game probably makes a strong push for my top 10 ahead of Stony Brook but until then they're going to have a hard time getting traction from where they're at with me at least.

Did you watch any of the Dartmouth game Friday night?

[Bisonator]

After the top 6-8 it's just a bunch of garbage anyway.

[MSUBobcat]

That drive did move awfully slow. Not MSU's forte to run two min drill I assume.
If UND could ever get more than 9K to show up with would be pretty loud. But unfortunately that's not the case lately.

As a run-first team, we aren't built for a 2 minute drill. But with almost 4.5 minutes, the clock really wasn't our enemy. That is, until they fiddle****ed after every play. Next thing I knew, we'd burned almost 3 minutes to go 16 yards. I was flabbergasted. It's like they thought there was another quarter to go or we had the lead. Even before the sack, taking every second of the play clock pretty much put us in a pass-only offense, which isn't good, especially against UND with their pass D. I give UND credit for the W, but I'd sure like to have a chat with the offense, OC Matt Miller and HC Jeff Choate. Somewhere in that mix, our situational awareness sucked a massive dick, which is ultimately a coaching failure, IMO. I said many not very nice things about the coaching those last few minutes.

The end of the first half was bad clock management also, but not nearly as bad. We burned 2 time outs following incompletions, which then had an effect on our play selection. I understand the gravity of the situation, but when you're QB is struggling if you're going to call a pass on 2nd and short, I'd hope at least one of those you'd have a contingency plan for such a likely outcome. Both times they were like, "Oh incomplete?! Well, come over here boys. We gotta figure out how we're going to get the first now." Head scratching to say the least and it's becoming a regular occurrence. Somebody can't do math or something.

Also.... we burned thru those 3.5 minutes AND had a delay of game WHEN WE HAD 2 TIMEOUTS IN OUR ****ING POCKET......

[MSUBobcat]

I think both of these teams are a hot mess.

Yup... the only reason to consider these teams top 20 is because FCS itself is down this year and you gotta rank someone.

[Professor Chaos]

Did you watch any of the Dartmouth game Friday night?
Negative, commander.

Look, I know they're a good team. They've got the #1 scoring offense and #1 scoring defense in the FCS. But if they want to be ranked with the big boys of the subdivision they need to play the big boys of the subdivision. There's not a single team outside of the Big South, NEC, Pioneer, MEAC, and SWAC that has played a weaker schedule than Dartmouth (other than Princeton). If you want to say my anti-Ivy bias is showing you're probably right but they make it easy to perpetuate that bias with their scheduling philosophies.

[aceinthehole]

The CAA team that does not deserve to be ranked is Towson. Towson is 4 -4 overall, 1-3 in the CAA. Their only conference win is against Maine. Albany beat Towson. There are two reason voters are screwing up and voting for Towson; they started the season highly ranked, and they have a QB named Flacco.

Agree. Which is why preseason bias hurts deserving teams early in the season and the negative effects can linger for weeks.

[mvemjsunpx]

(previous week in parentheses)


1. North Dakota St. (1)
2. James Madison (3)
3. Sacramento St. (4)
4. Weber St. (5)
5. South Dakota St. (2)
6. Dartmouth (8)
7. Kennesaw St. (6)
8. Northern Iowa (9)
9. Illinois St. (11)
10. Princeton (12)
11. Montana (13)
12. Central Arkansas (14)
13. Stony Brook (21)
14. Villanova (7)
15. Montana St. (10)
16. Southeast Missouri St. (NR)
17. Southern Illinois (NR)
18. Tennessee-Martin (15)
19. Albany (17)
20. Furman (16)
21. New Hampshire (20)
22. CCSU (22)
23. Florida A&M (24)
24. North Carolina A&T (25)
25. South Carolina St. (NR)

W - Stony Brook
L - Delaware


Dropped - Towson (18), Delaware (19), Nicholls St. (23)

[POD Knows]

Here was my poll

Your vote is listed below.


1: North Dakota State Bison (1)
2: James Madison Dukes (2)
3: South Dakota State Jackrabbits (3)
4: Weber State Wildcats (4)
5: Sac State Hornets (5)
6: Montana Grizzlies (6)
7: Northern Iowa Panthers (7)
8: Kennesaw State Owls (9)
9: Villanova Wildcats (11)
10: Illinois State Redbirds (8)
11: Central Arkansas Bears (10)
12: Furman Paladins (12)
13: Princeton Tigers (14)
14: Dartmouth Big Green (14)
15: Stony Brook Seawolves (13)
16: Wofford Terriers (18)
17: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks (19)
18: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils (17)
19: Youngstown State Penguins (26)
20: Austin Peay Governors (24)
21: Florida A&M Rattlers (22)
22: North Dakota Fighting Hawks (21)
23: Montana State Bobcats (16)
24: North Carolina A&T Aggies (20)
25: Albany Great Danes (25)

() are the current AGS poll rankings for each team

POD Knows

The Most Significant Win: Stony Brook Seawolves
The Most Significant Loss: Montana State Bobcats
Which Conference Does Your Team Play in?: Missouri Valley Football Conference

My biggest outlier is YSU, I had them 7 spots higher than the AGS pollsters did, I looked at the teams I placed behind them and asked myself if any of the 20 to 25 could beat them and I had my doubts, so flame away.

[BEAR]

After the top 6-8 it's just a bunch of garbage anyway.

xeyebrowx

[caribbeanhen]

Negative, commander.

Look, I know they're a good team. They've got the #1 scoring offense and #1 scoring defense in the FCS. But if they want to be ranked with the big boys of the subdivision they need to play the big boys of the subdivision. There's not a single team outside of the Big South, NEC, Pioneer, MEAC, and SWAC that has played a weaker schedule than Dartmouth (other than Princeton). If you want to say my anti-Ivy bias is showing you're probably right but they make it easy to perpetuate that bias with their scheduling philosophies.

I knew you didn’t, I didn’t think much of Ivies either until I watched Princeton last year

strength of schedule has nothing to do with how good they are

[Redbird 4th & short]

No one is feeling SCSU or SE Louisiana huh? xcoffeex

apparently not as much you would like ... but you get props for proper use of abbreviations with SE ... as in SELA !!!!

[Professor Chaos]

I knew you didn’t, I didn’t think much of Ivies either until I watched Princeton last year

strength of schedule has nothing to do with how good they are
I'll make an effort to watch the Princeton/Dartmouth game.... watching them blow out clearly overmatched competition doesn't interest me much. I've already said before I don't trust the eye test unless you're watching every team in consideration every week and I don't have time for that. I watch a fair amount of FCS games not involving my Bison but they're games that interest me and Dartmouth/Columbia just doesn't interest me right now.

[clenz]

I'll make an effort to watch the Princeton/Dartmouth game.... watching them blow out clearly overmatched competition doesn't interest me much. I've already said before I don't trust the eye test unless you're watching every team in consideration every week and I don't have time for that. I watch a fair amount of FCS games not involving my Bison but they're games that interest me and Dartmouth/Columbia just doesn't interest me right now.
This year I've made an effort to watch more Ivy than I have in the past. It's so hard to put on the eye test.

Most conferences I can see the test and go "Right, they are playing an over matched team but i see X, Y and Z"

With the Ivy I don't see it. Clearly there are a couple teams so much better than the rest of the conference but the eye test doesn't match the score like I see from other schools.

I don't know if that's because the top of the Ivy would be average in other conferences and the bottom of the Ivy is like PFL level bad so they eye test still doesn't look impressive or something else. I just really struggle to see Ivy teams play each other and nail something down with the eye test.

I have a couple ranked, but "bias" is keeping me from moving them up much higher than I have them because the eye test doesn't match the computer rankings.

[RootinFerDukes]

I know Stony Brooks win was big, but UNH is 3-1 in the CAA and beat them at SBU..

Other than KSU at 9, this is the second biggest joke of this poll. Tied for 2nd in the caa and no one ranks them? I ranked them.

[TheKingpin28]

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
3: James Madison Dukes
4: Sac State Hornets
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Kennesaw State Owls
8: Northern Iowa Panthers
9: Illinois State Redbirds
10: Central Arkansas Bears
11: Princeton Tigers
12: Dartmouth Big Green
13: Stony Brook Seawolves
14: Villanova Wildcats
15: Sam Houston State Bearkats
16: Furman Paladins
17: Florida A&M Rattlers
18: North Carolina A&T Aggies
19: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
20: Austin Peay Governors
21: Elon Phoenix
22: The Citadel Bulldogs
23: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
24: Wofford Terriers
25: Montana State Bobcats

I know SHSU is high and that one is on me. Hate on the SDSU pick if you want, but I saw the 2 best teams (as on now) play on Saturday and if you can put up that kind of a game with a 2nd and 3rd string QB, I'll buy that all day.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I knew you didn’t, I didn’t think much of Ivies either until I watched Princeton last year

strength of schedule has nothing to do with how good they are

It has everything to do with being able to judge the goodness though.

[Derby City Duke]

No Towson still. Biggest struggle for me was Villanova and Stony Brook. Everybody on the Villanova side knew that game was over except the clock management-challenged HC. Then the Nova D had to try to get a stop.

Very difficult to turn the switch back on once you’ve turned it off.

Hello Derby City Duke,

We have received your AGS Top 25 vote on 10/27/2019 19:41:05

Your vote is listed below.


1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
4: Sac State Hornets
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Central Arkansas Bears
7: Northern Iowa Panthers
8: Montana Grizzlies
9: Kennesaw State Owls
10: Dartmouth Big Green
11: Villanova Wildcats
12: Illinois State Redbirds
13: Furman Paladins
14: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
15: Sam Houston State Bearkats
16: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
17: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks
18: Princeton Tigers
19: Montana State Bobcats
20: Stony Brook Seawolves
21: Wofford Terriers
22: Florida A&M Rattlers
23: North Carolina A&T Aggies
24: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
25: San Diego Toreros

Derby City Duke

The Most Significant Win: North Dakota State Bison
The Most Significant Loss: Nicholls State Colonels

[Daytripper]

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
3: James Madison Dukes
4: Sac State Hornets
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Kennesaw State Owls
8: Northern Iowa Panthers
9: Illinois State Redbirds
10: Central Arkansas Bears
11: Princeton Tigers
12: Dartmouth Big Green
13: Stony Brook Seawolves
14: Villanova Wildcats
15: Sam Houston State Bearkats
16: Furman Paladins
17: Florida A&M Rattlers
18: North Carolina A&T Aggies
19: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
20: Austin Peay Governors
21: Elon Phoenix
22: The Citadel Bulldogs
23: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
24: Wofford Terriers
25: Montana State Bobcats

I know SHSU is high and that one is on me. Hate on the SDSU pick if you want, but I saw the 2 best teams (as on now) play on Saturday and if you can put up that kind of a game with a 2nd and 3rd string QB, I'll buy that all day.

I agree with both. The best teams are 1 and 2 and SHSU played a top ten team to the last play of the game.

[POD Knows]

I think both of these teams are a hot mess.I would love to have either one of these teams in the playoffs come to Fargo, it would be a repeat of the last time NDSU played these two.

[The Yo Show]

So maybe it is more appropriate to have a separate thread for this in the poll voters section, and don't anyone misunderstand my question, but if we don't let teams ineligible for FCS playoffs in the poll, should we talk about excluding the IVYs? Not that they don't deserve to be ranked, but they aren't playing in the postseason anyway.

[clenz]

We clearly do let teams ineligible for the playoffs in the poll

Also the Ivy is eligible. Technically

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[The Yo Show]

I was not specific enough Clenz. Yes we do, but what I meant was transitioning teams like UNA that are ineligible for FCS playoffs are in the poll.
But yeah like the celebration bowl teams could be playoff eligible if they turned down the celebration bowl, we vote for them and IVYs, but maybe we should as a group discuss this. I may be alone in this thinking, but while I feel IVYs are worthy of being ranked, I wonder what the point of my doing so is if they won't even compete in the postseason?

[Professor Chaos]

So maybe it is more appropriate to have a separate thread for this in the poll voters section, and don't anyone misunderstand my question, but if we don't let teams ineligible for FCS playoffs in the poll, should we talk about excluding the IVYs? Not that they don't deserve to be ranked, but they aren't playing in the postseason anyway.
It's not that teams ineligible for the playoffs are ineligible for the AGS Poll its teams that are transitioning to FCS from D2 are ineligible. So North Alabama is ineligible but FAMU (who has a postseason ban this year) is eligible. Certain voters will not rank Ivy League teams no matter what but that's a personal choice. I say leave it up to the voter but personally I still think Ivy League teams, along with SWAC and MEAC teams who wouldn't participate in the playoffs, should be considered since they're still classified as FCS teams.

[ngineer]

All FCS teams should be in the poll. The poll reflects our various opinions as to the relative strength of the FCS teams. Whether they will be in the playoffs is irrelevant. The championship will be decided on the field regardless as to what any poll says. People are free not to vote for the Ivies or any other team for whatever reason, but if you are talking about ranking the best teams in all of FCS land, then consideration for the Ivy, SWAC and MEAC teams should be given. There are plenty of games played among all the conferences that give a picture of some relative strength. I have seen many Ivy teams over the years who were clearly superior to many of the teams that reached the semifinals. Would they beat NDSU? Unlikely, but that applies to over 120 other schools.

[The Yo Show]

All FCS teams should be in the poll. The poll reflects our various opinions as to the relative strength of the FCS teams. Whether they will be in the playoffs is irrelevant. The championship will be decided on the field regardless as to what any poll says. People are free not to vote for the Ivies or any other team for whatever reason, but if you are talking about ranking the best teams in all of FCS land, then consideration for the Ivy, SWAC and MEAC teams should be given. There are plenty of games played among all the conferences that give a picture of some relative strength. I have seen many Ivy teams over the years who were clearly superior to many of the teams that reached the semifinals. Would they beat NDSU? Unlikely, but that applies to over 120 other schools.

Alright this is a fair point. It would make a big difference in determining SOS.

- - - Updated - - -


It's not that teams ineligible for the playoffs are ineligible for the AGS Poll its teams that are transitioning to FCS from D2 are ineligible. So North Alabama is ineligible but FAMU (who has a postseason ban this year) is eligible. Certain voters will not rank Ivy League teams no matter what but that's a personal choice. I say leave it up to the voter but personally I still think Ivy League teams, along with SWAC and MEAC teams who wouldn't participate in the playoffs, should be considered since they're still classified as FCS teams.

Yeah I misspoke corrected it in my reply to clenz's correction above lol.

[caribbeanhen]

It has everything to do with being able to judge the goodness though.

now that sounds like a taste test moreso than eye test.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

now that sounds like a taste test moreso than eye test.Well I am sure it is a little bit but you are telling me that I am looking at a half pound tasty burger. I might believe that I am looking at a quarter pound Burger. If we have them both sitting there side by side then the taste test is one measure but the eye test is also very evident at that point.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[grizband]

Below is my poll this week. The top 6-8 were fairly straight forward, while I considered about 12 teams for the final 8 spots, and probably missed a couple in the process.

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Weber State Wildcats
4: Sac State Hornets
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Northern Iowa Panthers
8: Illinois State Redbirds
9: Central Arkansas Bears
10: Kennesaw State Owls
11: Villanova Wildcats
12: Furman Paladins
13: Dartmouth Big Green
14: Princeton Tigers
15: North Carolina A&T Aggies
16: Wofford Terriers
17: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
18: Stony Brook Seawolves
19: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
20: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
21: Montana State Bobcats
22: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks
23: Albany Great Danes
24: Sam Houston State Bearkats
25: Austin Peay Governors

[caribbeanhen]

I'll make an effort to watch the Princeton/Dartmouth game.... watching them blow out clearly overmatched competition doesn't interest me much. I've already said before I don't trust the eye test unless you're watching every team in consideration every week and I don't have time for that. I watch a fair amount of FCS games not involving my Bison but they're games that interest me and Dartmouth/Columbia just doesn't interest me right now.

You Musta had a pretty hot date on Friday night with Mary Anne or Mrs. Chaos because the Dartmouth game was the only game on TV, would of been an excellent time to check out a ranked FCS team

look, The reason I’m hounding you every week about Dartmouth is out of respect to you, If you were to give me some feedback based on your own Eye test I can use that to evaluate my own eyes

People trust their eyes for all kind of things, I mean what did you use to evaluate your better half the first time you saw her or him? your eyes didn’t lie to you did they....

Nothing like tossing the stat sheet aside and just watching the game

[ejjones]

I need one, just one pollster to explain (without using the word bias) how does Wofford (0 wins over > .500 teams) get into the teens and SC State (5-2; bear Wofford & only FCS lost to FMAU late 4th) not even crack top 40.

Our resume isn’t great, but it’s on par if not better than Wofford’s.

[mvemjsunpx]

I need one, just one pollster to explain (without using the word bias) how does Wofford (0 wins over > .500 teams) get into the teens and SC State (5-2; bear Wofford & only FCS lost to FMAU late 4th) not even crack top 40.

Our resume isn’t great, but it’s on par if not better than Wofford’s.

My guess: a lot of voters are still treating the SoCon like a power conference when it really isn't. It's better than the MEAC, but not by the massive amount it used to be.

(I had SCSU #25 and Wofford unranked, incidentally)

[Professor Chaos]

You Musta had a pretty hot date on Friday night with Mary Anne or Mrs. Chaos because the Dartmouth game was the only game on TV, would of been an excellent time to check out a ranked FCS team

look, The reason I’m hounding you every week about Dartmouth is out of respect to you, If you were to give me some feedback based on your own Eye test I can use that to evaluate my own eyes

People trust their eyes for all kind of things, I mean what did you use to evaluate your better half the first time you saw her or him? your eyes didn’t lie to you did they....

Nothing like tossing the stat sheet aside and just watching the game
Was on the road Friday night driving to the in-laws place in South Dakota and then was getting ready for a super long Saturday. I watched a bit of the World Series but that was it.

I've watched pieces of Dartmouth games this year (mostly in the Penn game) but never have watched a whole game. My issue is your eyes see what they want to see. Nothing jumped off the screen to me about Dartmouth. They have an active defense but I didn't see an explosive offense that's #1 in scoring. That's why I rely on stats... they tell me what my eyes miss. I see the fallability of the eye test all the time from the armchair Belichicks on Bisonville who will argue until they're blue in the face that their eyes are more trustworthy than the numbers that totally refute them. My eyes see what they want to see also... I didn't see a top 10 team in Dartmouth but I acknowledge they might be because I don't watch enough games from Dartmouth and the rest of the teams I consider for my top ten to make a judgement based on that. Thus I rely on other more objective measures IMO.

[Professor Chaos]

Below is my poll this week. The top 6-8 were fairly straight forward, while I considered about 12 teams for the final 8 spots, and probably missed a couple in the process.

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Weber State Wildcats
4: Sac State Hornets
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Northern Iowa Panthers
8: Illinois State Redbirds
9: Central Arkansas Bears
10: Kennesaw State Owls
11: Villanova Wildcats
12: Furman Paladins
13: Dartmouth Big Green
14: Princeton Tigers
15: North Carolina A&T Aggies
16: Wofford Terriers
17: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
18: Stony Brook Seawolves
19: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
20: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
21: Montana State Bobcats
22: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks
23: Albany Great Danes
24: Sam Houston State Bearkats
25: Austin Peay Governors
I think you're way too high on NC A&T and Wofford.

[skinny_uncle]

Here's my shot at it this week:

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
4: Sacramento State Hornets
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Central Arkansas Bears
8: Northern Iowa Panthers
9: Kennesaw State Owls
10: Illinois State Redbirds
11: Stony Brook Seawolves
12: Villanova Wildcats
13: Furman Paladins
14: Dartmouth Big Green
15: Princeton Tigers
16: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
17: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
18: Montana State Bobcats
19: Sam Houston State Bearkats
20: New Hampshire Wildcats
21: Austin Peay Governors
22: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
23: Florida A&M Rattlers
24: Monmouth Hawks
25: Southern Illinois Salukis

Thank you, prof. I am disturbed by my Salukis getting less votes than YSU And UT-Martin that we have beat convincingly.

[grizband]

Below is my poll this week. The top 6-8 were fairly straight forward, while I considered about 12 teams for the final 8 spots, and probably missed a couple in the process.

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Weber State Wildcats
4: Sac State Hornets
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Northern Iowa Panthers
8: Illinois State Redbirds
9: Central Arkansas Bears
10: Kennesaw State Owls
11: Villanova Wildcats
12: Furman Paladins
13: Dartmouth Big Green
14: Princeton Tigers
15: North Carolina A&T Aggies
16: Wofford Terriers
17: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
18: Stony Brook Seawolves
19: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
20: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
21: Montana State Bobcats
22: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks
23: Albany Great Danes
24: Sam Houston State Bearkats
25: Austin Peay Governors


I think you're way too high on NC A&T and Wofford.
You may be correct with that assertion.

[Kemo]

So I started from scratch this week and assign a value to each game played (-5 through +5) on the resumes of over 40 teams that we're in consideration for the previous week's AGS poll. Still subjective, but it helped quantify and chart my subjectivity, which even led to a few surprises: Apparently I like Central Arkansas' resume more than I previously thought; Also, I value FAMU more than I ever did previously; And Montana State's consistency trumps North Dakota's sporadic play in my mind, even with Hawks recent head to head win.


Hello Kemo,

We have received your AGS Top 25 vote on 10/28/2019 1:27:40

Your vote is listed below.


1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Weber State Wildcats
4: Sac State Hornets
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
6: Central Arkansas Bears
7: Villanova Wildcats
8: Montana Grizzlies
9: Northern Iowa Panthers
10: Furman Paladins
11: Illinois State Redbirds
12: Montana State Bobcats
13: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
14: Stony Brook Seawolves
15: Florida A&M Rattlers
16: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
17: Dartmouth Big Green
18: Princeton Tigers
19: Kennesaw State Owls
20: Southern Illinois Salukis
21: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
22: North Carolina A&T Aggies
23: The Citadel Bulldogs
24: Towson Tigers
25: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks

Kemo

The Most Significant Win: Stony Brook Seawolves
The Most Significant Loss: Incarnate Word Cardinals
Which Conference Does Your Team Play in?: Missouri Valley Football Conference

[SpreadTheWord]

Hello SpreadTheWord,

We have received your AGS Top 25 vote on 10/28/2019 8:52:19

Your vote is listed below.


1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
4: Sac State Hornets
5: Weber State Wildcats
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Northern Iowa Panthers
8: Illinois State Redbirds
9: Princeton Tigers
10: Furman Paladins
11: Kennesaw State Owls
12: Dartmouth Big Green
13: Central Arkansas Bears
14: Stony Brook Seawolves
15: Villanova Wildcats
16: Wofford Terriers
17: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
18: North Carolina A&T Aggies
19: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
20: Montana State Bobcats
21: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
22: Florida A&M Rattlers
23: Austin Peay Governors
24: Towson Tigers
25: Sam Houston State Bearkats

SpreadTheWord

The Most Significant Win: Stony Brook Seawolves
The Most Significant Loss: Nicholls State Colonels
Which Conference Does Your Team Play in?: Southland Conference

[MTfan4life]

Tennessee-Martin got played dirty in this week's poll! They were #20 last week. They lost on the road by 7 to the now #19 ranked SEMO. Yet, they dropped 8 spots and fell out of the poll. To be fair, they have yet to prove themselves with a big win, I was just surprised by their drastic drop after losing a coin flip game on the road. If you want to make the "no big wins" argument, make sure to also include #18 Wofford in the same argument. They have similar wins to UTM and arguably worse losses.

[MTfan4life]

Below is my poll this week. The top 6-8 were fairly straight forward, while I considered about 12 teams for the final 8 spots, and probably missed a couple in the process.

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Weber State Wildcats
4: Sac State Hornets
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Northern Iowa Panthers
8: Illinois State Redbirds
9: Central Arkansas Bears
10: Kennesaw State Owls
11: Villanova Wildcats
12: Furman Paladins
13: Dartmouth Big Green
14: Princeton Tigers
15: North Carolina A&T Aggies
16: Wofford Terriers
17: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
18: Stony Brook Seawolves
19: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
20: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
21: Montana State Bobcats
22: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks
23: Albany Great Danes
24: Sam Houston State Bearkats
25: Austin Peay Governors

Florida A&M: 7-1 with best win over your #15 NC A&T. Only loss to UCF. Also beat a 5-2 SCSU who beat your #16 Wofford. Not ranked
North Carolina A&T: 5-2 with best win over 4-4 Elon. Next best win over 2-6 Charleston Southern. Lost to Florida A&M and Duke. Ranked #15.
Definite head scratcher. xdrunkyx xpeacex
(Your counsel might suggest you use the "A&M isn't eligible for the postseason this year, so that's why I'm not ranking them" argument.)

[Professor Chaos]

Tennessee-Martin got played dirty in this week's poll! They were #20 last week. They lost on the road by 7 to the now #19 ranked SEMO. Yet, they dropped 8 spots and fell out of the poll. To be fair, they have yet to prove themselves with a big win, I was just surprised by their drastic drop after losing a coin flip game on the road. If you want to make the "no big wins" argument, make sure to also include #18 Wofford in the same argument. They have similar wins to UTM and arguably worse losses.
I think UTM's drop was partly a re-balance from last week. They went from #26 in week 7 to #20 in week 8 for a two score home win over winless EIU. I didn't understand that so I felt that this week's drop was probably coming anyway for them even had then been on bye.

Agree on Wofford... very odd to see them climbing the rankings as quickly as they are with no good wins and a couple questionable losses.

[MTfan4life]

I think UTM's drop was partly a re-balance from last week. They went from #26 in week 7 to #20 in week 8 for a two score home win over winless EIU. I didn't understand that so I felt that this week's drop was probably coming anyway for them even had then been on bye.

Agree on Wofford... very odd to see them climbing the rankings as quickly as they are with no good wins and a couple questionable losses.

I usually don't tout ratings systems and I definitely don't look at them when putting together my rankings.  However, there is a specific one that seems to align with my rankings week after week. That system has been pretty high on Tennessee-Martin, as has I so far this season. Their dominating win over Tennessee Tech turned a lot of heads, as no one else had done that to that point of the season. With Austin Peay doing the same thing, that does change things. However, Peay did so at home, where Martin did so on the road.

[aceinthehole]

Through eight games this season, the Blue Devils lead the NEC in a number of defensive categories, taking the top spot in total defense (268.8 yards per game), scoring defense (17.2 points per game), rushing defense (75.0 ypg) and interceptions (12), while placing second in pass defensive efficiency (112.1 ) and third in sacks with 19.

Nationally, CCSU ranks second in the FCS, behind only No. 4 Kennesaw State, in total defense, while ranking fourth behind James Madison, Sam Houston State and Harvard in rushing defense.

The Blue Devils are tied for second with Mississippi Valley State for defensive touchdowns with four. CCSU has returned two interceptions and two fumbles for scores this season. Only Grambling has more with five defensive scores.

The Blue Devils are also tied for third in the nation in interceptions with Alcorn State and behind only University of the Incarnate Word (16) and North Carolina Central (13).
http://www.bristolpress.com/BP-CCSU/360752/ccsu-football-thriving-behind-elite-defense-with-national-recognition

[skinny_uncle]

Tennessee-Martin got played dirty in this week's poll! They were #20 last week. They lost on the road by 7 to the now #19 ranked SEMO. Yet, they dropped 8 spots and fell out of the poll. To be fair, they have yet to prove themselves with a big win, I was just surprised by their drastic drop after losing a coin flip game on the road. If you want to make the "no big wins" argument, make sure to also include #18 Wofford in the same argument. They have similar wins to UTM and arguably worse losses.
What are you complaining about? You are still getting more votes than a Saluki team that beat you by 2 TDs.

[Reign of Terrier]

I think UTM's drop was partly a re-balance from last week. They went from #26 in week 7 to #20 in week 8 for a two score home win over winless EIU. I didn't understand that so I felt that this week's drop was probably coming anyway for them even had then been on bye.

Agree on Wofford... very odd to see them climbing the rankings as quickly as they are with no good wins and a couple questionable losses.

It might be because they haven't lost a game since early September with four of those five wins seeing the Terriers have a 4 score lead in the second quarter, while the starters scoring on 70% of possessions. Yes, those teams are bad, but I expect any top 15-20 team to be up 48-24 on VMI with 6 minutes left, 49-3 on Gardner Webb in the fourth quarter, 28-3 at ETSU at half (heck, Furman didn't accomplish that), and beating Western Carolina 59-7.

Quality wins is a weird standard at this point in the season because we're just now seeing who is quality. Teams get better or worse throughout the year. I find it odd, yet not unsurprising that the "who have they beaten" standard is placed arbitrarily on teams outside of the MVFC/Big Sky/CAA. Who has Illinois State beaten to be top 10? What have they done in the last few years?

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8.

Bottom line: the FCS top 25 is usually a battle of attrition. Just looking at AGS's top 25, you can make the argument that the following teams either lack a quality win or have a questionable loss:

Illinois State (best team they've beaten is 4-4 and they haven't made the playoffs since 2016)
Kennesaw ( 'nuf said)
Stony Brook (UNH and close win to 1-7 URI)
Dartmouth
Princeton
Montana State
CCSU
Wofford
SEMO (manner they lost to Montana State)
A&T
North Dakota
Florida A&M (I don't think they deserve to be here but others do, so still listing them)
Towson
Austin Peay (lost to 2-6 ETSU)
Albany (to Richmond)

To be clear I'm not trying to say that my team and conference deserves deference here, just pointing out that the top 25 is a **** show and almost always will be.

[Professor Chaos]

It might be because they haven't lost a game since early September with four of those five wins seeing the Terriers have a 4 score lead in the second quarter, while the starters scoring on 70% of possessions. Yes, those teams are bad, but I expect any top 15-20 team to be up 48-24 on VMI with 6 minutes left, 49-3 on Gardner Webb in the fourth quarter, 28-3 at ETSU at half (heck, Furman didn't accomplish that), and beating Western Carolina 59-7.

Quality wins is a weird standard at this point in the season because we're just now seeing who is quality. Teams get better or worse throughout the year. I find it odd, yet not unsurprising that the "who have they beaten" standard is placed arbitrarily on teams outside of the MVFC/Big Sky/CAA. Who has Illinois State beaten to be top 10? What have they done in the last few years.

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8.
Wofford's winning streak can be attributed just as easily to an easy schedule as it can be to them truly being a top 20 team right now. I don't really care if they were up 10 scores in the 2nd quarter on Western Carolina, they haven't convinced me that their 0-2 start was an aberration because they haven't beaten anyone all that good. Comparative scores are pretty useless especially when you have plenty of material to make a judgement on just using wins and losses.

Quality wins are absolutely essential to me when I determine who deserves to be ranked where. Quality wins can change over the course of the season but there's no reason to ignore them at this or any point in the season. Do you think Campbell should be ranked at 6-1 because we don't know yet if the teams they beat are any good? I use the same criteria when evaluating MVFC, CAA, and Big Sky teams in terms of quality wins as well. Illinois St doesn't have much for quality wins but SIU is quite a bit better than anything Wofford has. Illinois St also has lost to NDSU and Northern Illinois... pretty tough to hold that against them. It's easy to hold Wofford's losses to South Carolina St and Samford against them.

You're right, there are a lot of teams outside the top 8 with questionable losses but show me one anywhere in the top 25 whose best win is worse than #57 (according to Massey) Chattanooga. You won't find one. Questionable losses can be more easily ignored in the presence of quality wins. Wofford doesn't have those so I can't ignore those losses.

[uni88]

It might be because they haven't lost a game since early September with four of those five wins seeing the Terriers have a 4 score lead in the second quarter, while the starters scoring on 70% of possessions. Yes, those teams are bad, but I expect any top 15-20 team to be up 48-24 on VMI with 6 minutes left, 49-3 on Gardner Webb in the fourth quarter, 28-3 at ETSU at half (heck, Furman didn't accomplish that), and beating Western Carolina 59-7.

Quality wins is a weird standard at this point in the season because we're just now seeing who is quality. Teams get better or worse throughout the year. I find it odd, yet not unsurprising that the "who have they beaten" standard is placed arbitrarily on teams outside of the MVFC/Big Sky/CAA. Who has Illinois State beaten to be top 10? What have they done in the last few years.

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8.

Maybe you need to read more threads. From the NCAA NEWS RELEASE: Division I Football Championship Committee To Reveal Top Ten thread ...


Well, in the case of UNI and ISUr I think it's very likely one of them drops 3-5 spots this week which would put them out of the seeds since neither has any particularly good wins to fall back on. Only way it doesn't happen is if it's very close regulation or OT game especially one that the home team Redbirds win or if the teams near them in the polls like Kennesaw, UCA, Nova, and Montana lose a bunch of games as well.

And I agree with the Professor, neither UNI or ISUr has a good win and the loser is going to justifiably drop. I don't think UNI should top 10 now.

[Reign of Terrier]

I will relist my additional edit here: I didn't even look at the ORV part of the AGS poll and you can make the case that the following teams either lack a significant victory or have a head-scratching loss to a mediocre opponent or a lopsided loss.

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8-10.

Illinois State (best team they've beaten is 4-4 and they haven't made the playoffs since 2016)

Kennesaw ( 'nuf said)

Stony Brook (UNH and close win to 1-7 URI)

Dartmouth

Princeton

Montana State

CCSU

Wofford

SEMO (manner they lost to Montana State)

A&T

North Dakota

Florida A&M (I don't think they deserve to be here but others do, so still listing them)

Towson

Austin Peay (lost to 2-6 ETSU)

Albany (to Richmond)

To be clear I'm not trying to say that my team and conference deserves deference here, just pointing out that the top 25 is a **** show and almost always will be.

The problem with saying "this team doesn't have a quality win" is that only a few teams at this point are unequivocally high quality....and they don't really have a loss yet (which is why we think they are high quality). We go through this every year. At the end of the year only a handful of playoff teams will have more than 2-3 wins over teams above 6-5.

Meanwhile, if you're in the top ~7 conferences you have an 85% chance of making the playoffs if you get 7 D1 wins. The big south is the outlier here, because their newcomers haven't proven themselves, but it's a dumb argument to compare Wofford (who has played more playoff games and won more playoff games in the last 3 years than all but like 5 teams) to Campbell or Monmouth.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[BEAR]

We're getting kind of thin with the backups...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EINgyeFWkAEM6hu?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

[Reign of Terrier]

Illinois St doesn't have much for quality wins but SIU is quite a bit better than anything Wofford has. Illinois St also has lost to NDSU and Northern Illinois... pretty tough to hold that against them. It's easy to hold Wofford's losses to South Carolina St and Samford against them.

You're right, there are a lot of teams outside the top 8 with questionable losses but show me one anywhere in the top 25 whose best win is worse than #57 (according to Massey) Chattanooga. You won't find one. Questionable losses can be more easily ignored in the presence of quality wins. Wofford doesn't have those so I can't ignore those losses.

When I say that MVFC fans like to hand out participation trophies, the first paragraph is what I mean. We can't hold the manner of Illinois State losses against them. At the same time, we don't look at the manner they win their games either. This logic is pretty helpful if you just want to look at computer rankings (which update every week and aren't completed until the end of the season) or just operate under the heuristic of "this conference is good and others are bad."

Don't look at the actual games, how they're played, won, controlled, and don't look at scores. Just look at the W/L binary and who the opponent is. That's not a predictive model.

Again, I'm not arguing Wofford should be ranked higher than 18th or so. It's just seems blatantly obvious to anyone outside of the Big Sky/MVFC/CAA that all losses seem to be seen as quality in those conferences, while with other conferences with playoff resumes it's not as easy.

And again, I have to warn against using Massey as scripture. It's a model/algorithm that updates week to week. Teams get credit for playing a supposed tough schedule even when they aren't good. My example here is Portland State. They've only played like one team with less than 5 losses but because one of them is an SEC team and another is Boise State, they're rewarded in the rankings in spite of having a meh win percentage because of their SOS. Same can go for teams like Richmond.

People don't understand that SOS, margin of victory, etc contribute to how Massey ranks teams. So if Wofford losing 49-0 to Clemson and gets outgained 700-100 yards, but their third string QB throws 3 pick sixes and Wofford only loses by 49-21, I'm pretty sure Massey will reward Wofford in a way that's unpredictive. You can see something like that with what Massey predicted Kennesaw to do in the playoffs last year.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

I will relist my additional edit here: I didn't even look at the ORV part of the AGS poll and you can make the case that the following teams either lack a significant victory or have a head-scratching loss to a mediocre opponent or a lopsided loss.

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8-10.

Illinois State (best team they've beaten is 4-4 and they haven't made the playoffs since 2016)

Kennesaw ( 'nuf said)

Stony Brook (UNH and close win to 1-7 URI)

Dartmouth

Princeton

Montana State

CCSU

Wofford

SEMO (manner they lost to Montana State)

A&T

North Dakota

Florida A&M (I don't think they deserve to be here but others do, so still listing them)

Towson

Austin Peay (lost to 2-6 ETSU)

Albany (to Richmond)

To be clear I'm not trying to say that my team and conference deserves deference here, just pointing out that the top 25 is a **** show and almost always will be.

The problem with saying "this team doesn't have a quality win" is that only a few teams at this point are unequivocally high quality....and they don't really have a loss yet (which is why we think they are high quality). We go through this every year. At the end of the year only a handful of playoff teams will have more than 2-3 wins over teams above 6-5.

Meanwhile, if you're in the top ~7 conferences you have an 85% chance of making the playoffs if you get 7 D1 wins. The big south is the outlier here, because their newcomers haven't proven themselves, but it's a dumb argument to compare Wofford (who has played more playoff games and won more playoff games in the last 3 years than all but like 5 teams) to Campbell or Monmouth.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
It doesn't have to be unequivocally high quality for me to consider a win a quality win. Not all quality wins are created equal, some are better than others. The only teams that get a pass for not having quality wins from me are teams that don't have any questionable losses either. So that would include teams like Kennesaw, Illinois St, Dartmouth, and Princeton. If one of those teams would lose a game they shouldn't they're going to get hammered hard in my poll because they haven't really done anything to prove that they might just not be that good. If a team like Sac St or Central Arkansas loses a game they shouldn't I'm a lot more lenient because they've picked up quality wins to show that the questionable loss they just took probably isn't as much a reflection on how good they or aren't.

This is all just my voting philosophy. Different people may vote different ways but I've found this approach of "who did you play and who did you beat?" to be the simplest way to (try to) put together an unbiased as possible poll ballot. There's certainly no perfect formula.

[Reign of Terrier]

It doesn't have to be unequivocally high quality for me to consider a win a quality win. Not all quality wins are created equal, some are better than others. The only teams that get a pass for not having quality wins from me are teams that don't have any questionable losses either. So that would include teams like Kennesaw, Illinois St, Dartmouth, and Princeton. If one of those teams would lose a game they shouldn't they're going to get hammered hard in my poll because they haven't really done anything to prove that they might just not be that good. If a team like Sac St or Central Arkansas loses a game they shouldn't I'm a lot more lenient because they've picked up quality wins to show that the questionable loss they just took probably isn't as much a reflection on how good they or aren't.

This is all just my voting philosophy. Different people may vote different ways but I've found this approach of "who did you play and who did you beat?" to be the simplest way to (try to) put together an unbiased as possible poll ballot. There's certainly no perfect formula.Eh, I think rankings are especially unreliable at this level (less OOC games that tell us anything, less cross pollination, teams get better, etc) before mid October or so. FBS teams get at least 2-3 "easy" games to pad their record OOC, while most of the FCS is assured at least one loss in conference and an even greater portion will have an FBS loss.

This is the time of year, after week 6, where we really learn how good teams are.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

When I say that MVFC fans like to hand out participation trophies, the first paragraph is what I mean. We can't hold the manner of Illinois State losses against them. At the same time, we don't look at the manner they win their games either. This logic is pretty helpful if you just want to look at computer rankings (which update every week and aren't completed until the end of the season) or just operate under the heuristic of "this conference is good and others are bad."

Don't look at the actual games, how they're played, won, controlled, and don't look at scores. Just look at the W/L binary and who the opponent is. That's not a predictive model.

Again, I'm not arguing Wofford should be ranked higher than 18th or so. It's just seems blatantly obvious to anyone outside of the Big Sky/MVFC/CAA that all losses seem to be seen as quality in those conferences, while with other conferences with playoff resumes it's not as easy.

And again, I have to warn against using Massey as scripture. It's a model/algorithm that updates week to week. Teams get credit for playing a supposed tough schedule even when they aren't good. My example here is Portland State. They've only played like one team with less than 5 losses but because one of them is an SEC team and another is Boise State, they're rewarded in the rankings in spite of having a meh win percentage because of their SOS. Same can go for teams like Richmond.

People don't understand that SOS, margin of victory, etc contribute to how Massey ranks teams. So if Wofford losing 49-0 to Clemson and gets outgained 700-100 yards, but their third string QB throws 3 pick sixes and Wofford only loses by 49-21, I'm pretty sure Massey will reward Wofford in a way that's unpredictive. You can see something like that with what Massey predicted Kennesaw to do in the playoffs last year.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
You're putting words in my mouth now. Me saying I don't care how much you beat a bad team by doesn't mean I don't care at all about how games are won or the scoring margin. Me saying Illinois St's win over SIU is a quality win doesn't mean I think every win in the MVFC is a quality win. Me using Massey/Sagarin as a tool to determine SOS and compare the quality of wins does not mean I take them "as scripture".

Bottom line is Wofford has two questionable losses and a fairly weak group of five wins. They are far from perfect as are all the teams around them but I believe most of teams around them, including a few behind them, have done more in terms of quality wins and/or less in terms of taking questionable losses to deserve to be ranked ahead of Wofford. I had no issues with Wofford at #29 two weeks ago or even #24 last week but I felt the need to call out the fact that another 6 spot rise this week to #18 looks like voters are blindly putting Wofford in front of others without doing much of a comparison.

[Redbird 4th & short]

It might be because they haven't lost a game since early September with four of those five wins seeing the Terriers have a 4 score lead in the second quarter, while the starters scoring on 70% of possessions. Yes, those teams are bad, but I expect any top 15-20 team to be up 48-24 on VMI with 6 minutes left, 49-3 on Gardner Webb in the fourth quarter, 28-3 at ETSU at half (heck, Furman didn't accomplish that), and beating Western Carolina 59-7.

Quality wins is a weird standard at this point in the season because we're just now seeing who is quality. Teams get better or worse throughout the year. I find it odd, yet not unsurprising that the "who have they beaten" standard is placed arbitrarily on teams outside of the MVFC/Big Sky/CAA. Who has Illinois State beaten to be top 10? What have they done in the last few years?

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8.

Bottom line: the FCS top 25 is usually a battle of attrition. Just looking at AGS's top 25, you can make the argument that the following teams either lack a quality win or have a questionable loss:

Illinois State (best team they've beaten is 4-4 and they haven't made the playoffs since 2016)
Kennesaw ( 'nuf said)
Stony Brook (UNH and close win to 1-7 URI)
Dartmouth
Princeton
Montana State
CCSU
Wofford
SEMO (manner they lost to Montana State)
A&T
North Dakota
Florida A&M (I don't think they deserve to be here but others do, so still listing them)
Towson
Austin Peay (lost to 2-6 ETSU)
Albany (to Richmond)

To be clear I'm not trying to say that my team and conference deserves deference here, just pointing out that the top 25 is a **** show and almost always will be.
I've said were a little too high in most polls ... mainly because I'm not happy with the quality of many of our wins or losses, though happy with our record.

But we are 6-1 in FCS games against 31st ranked SOS. Massey Composite (avg of 42 polls) has us 10th. Massey #10, Sagarin #10, FCP # 7, STATS #7, AGS #8. That is a pretty credible sampling of objective and subjective polls to be able to cite. I happen to think we are about 12th at this point with potential to be top 8 by end of year.

Wofford is 5-2 against the 90th ranked SOS (per Massey). They've played 3 teams with barely a pulse (ranked in the 50's), none of which has any chance to make playoffs, and gone 1-2

Wofford's only decent win was a 1 point win coming at home against 4-4 Chattanooga team who is currenrtly ranked #55 on Massey Composite.

ISUr has beaten Massey Composite #17 SIU by 14 and #45 NAU by 13 ... both currently 4-4 .. clearly some 4-4's are better than other 4-4's by virtue of better scores and/or playing tougher SOS.

Then there's the matter of Woffords 2 losses against Massey Composites #51 Samford and #56 SC St. ISUr losses were to an FBS and #1 NDSU.

So you have to look beneath Wofford's 5-2 record a bit .. that's why I tend to not dismiss the computer rankings .. they're way smarter than either of us.

[Reign of Terrier]

I've said were a little too high in most polls ... mainly because I'm not happy with the quality of many of our wins or losses, though happy with our record.

But we are 6-1 in FCS games against 31st ranked SOS. Massey Composite (avg of 42 polls) has us 10th. Massey #10, Sagarin #10, FCP # 7, STATS #7, AGS #8. That is a pretty credible sampling of objective and subjective polls to be able to cite. I happen to think we are about 12th at this point with potential to be top 8 by end of year.

Wofford is 5-2 against the 90th ranked SOS (per Massey). They've played 3 teams with barely a pulse (ranked in the 50's), none of which has any chance to make playoffs, and gone 1-2

Wofford's only decent win was a 1 point win coming at home against 4-4 Chattanooga team who is currenrtly ranked #55 on Massey Composite.

ISUr has beaten Massey Composite #17 SIU by 14 and #45 NAU by 13 ... both currently 4-4 .. clearly some 4-4's are better than other 4-4's by virtue of better scores and/or playing tougher SOS.

Then there's the matter of Woffords 2 losses against Massey Composites #51 Samford and #56 SC St. ISUr losses were to an FBS and #1 NDSU.

So you have to look beneath Wofford's 5-2 record a bit .. that's why I tend to not dismiss the computer rankings .. they're way smarter than either of us.You also don't understand how they work. You plug in variables and outputs come out. SOS updates week to week and is radically altered by playing FBS teams or good teams like NDSU.

Look at #12 UC Davis (4-5), #39 Delaware(4-4), Richmond, #19 Elon (4-4), #20 EWU (3-5, but only 2 D1 wins), #25 Portland State (3-2 against FCS), #30 Idaho (3-5), #37 Idaho (3-5). None of these have a more impressive record or quality win than a team like Wofford and the citadel, who are 41/42 and yet they do. In fact, some of these teams have much worse losses.

I'm not trying to make this about Wofford or the citadel or the socon, even though it certainly has consequences for them in terms of public perception. My point is, you have to understand how these computer models work and how they will spit out results that defy common sense. You need that sense to go with the data.

Massey has an absurd bias toward teams who play the top teams. Just to name one FBS example, I remember last year they had Missouri ranked top 20 or maybe even top 10 because they played Bama and Georgia.

Computer models like Massey are great for college basketball with multiple permutations of a dozen OOC games with more scores and data points, but at the FCS level most teams will get no more than 2 OOC opportunities (that may not vary in terms of quality of opponent year to year) to make this accurate data. Massey is at its most predictive deep in the playoffs and it's probably helpful at the end of the year, but it's an incomplete data set right now

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[clenz]

IOW

"ThE cOmPuTeRs DoN't PuNiSh TeAmS tHaT pLaY aNd LoSe To ThE bEsT tEaMs"

[Reign of Terrier]

IOW

"ThE cOmPuTeRs DoN't PuNiSh TeAmS tHaT pLaY aNd LoSe To ThE bEsT tEaMs"More like "they over-reward teams for playing a tougher schedule that raises the question of how bad they would need to lose to drop rankings."

I don't think #12 UC Davis is a top 15 team, Delaware is a top 40 team, EWU is a top 20 team or Portland State is a top 25 team, or the Idahos teams are top 40.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Redbird 4th & short]

You also don't understand how they work. You plug in variables and outputs come out. SOS updates week to week and is radically altered by playing FBS teams or good teams like NDSU.

Look at #12 UC Davis (4-5), #39 Delaware(4-4), Richmond, #19 Elon (4-4), #20 EWU (3-5, but only 2 D1 wins), #25 Portland State (3-2 against FCS), #30 Idaho (3-5), #37 Idaho (3-5). None of these have a more impressive record or quality win than a team like Wofford and the citadel, who are 41/42 and yet they do. In fact, some of these teams have much worse losses.

I'm not trying to make this about Wofford or the citadel or the socon, even though it certainly has consequences for them in terms of public perception. My point is, you have to understand how these computer models work and how they will spit out results that defy common sense. You need that sense to go with the data.

Massey has an absurd bias toward teams who play the top teams. Just to name one FBS example, I remember last year they had Missouri ranked top 20 or maybe even top 10 because they played Bama and Georgia.

Computer models like Massey are great for college basketball with multiple permutations of a dozen OOC games with more scores and data points, but at the FCS level most teams will get no more than 2 OOC opportunities (that may not vary in terms of quality of opponent year to year) to make this accurate data. Massey is at its most predictive deep in the playoffs and it's probably helpful at the end of the year, but it's an incomplete data set right now

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
seriously want you to answer just 1 question ... nothing else, no tangents allowed ... 1 question ... period.

Can you crunch all 60+ game seach week, relative to each teams record, strength, SOS, margin, home and away, better than a computer ? Not asking if computers rankings are perfect or not ... just asking if you can do it better in your head than a computer can do for EVERY SINGLE GAME, WEEK AFTER WEEK ???

One question ... nothing else.

p.s. and can you average 45 polls in your head, same as above ... Massey does and can.

[Redbird 4th & short]

When I say that MVFC fans like to hand out participation trophies, ... blah blah blah

.631 win % for MVFC against all other conferences in playoffs for MVFC excl NDSU in last 8 years .... repeating .631 win %.


Obvious logical conclusion from above, 4-4 in MVFC is better than 4-4 in Colonial, Big Sky, and Southland. Only Colonial can come close to matching our depth, but even they fall short. Remove EWU from Big Sky and SHSU from Southland ... and the quality of the depth is not even close.

Why is this so hard for you to understand and admit this.

But please disect this until you find something that shows otherwise... like with 4th place teams in even years, Colonial dominates. My stats disect nothing ... all MVFC games (excl NDSU .950 win %) against other conferences since 2011 .... and we still dominate with a .631 win % .. that's almost two-thirds of our playoff games. And I already documented how many more road games we play and how many less weak autobids we get in playin games compared to Colonial, the only conference even close to our depth.

And no rolling in 2010 & prior ... I'm not arguing for that period ... I 100% acknowledge Colonial dominated 2004-10 .... so no debate there.

[Reign of Terrier]

seriously want you to answer just 1 question ... nothing else, no tangents allowed ... 1 question ... period.

Can you crunch all 60+ game seach week, relative to each teams record, strength, SOS, margin, home and away, better than a computer ? Not asking if computers rankings are perfect or not ... just asking if you can do it better in your head than a computer can do for EVERY SINGLE GAME, WEEK AFTER WEEK ???

One question ... nothing else.

p.s. and can you average 45 polls in your head, same as above ... Massey does and can.

This is irrelevant and confuses computing capacity with computing accuracy.

.631 win % for MVFC against all other conferences in playoffs for MVFC excl NDSU in last 8 years .... repeating .631 win %.


Obvious logical conclusion from above, 4-4 in MVFC is better than 4-4 in Colonial, Big Sky, and Southland. Only Colonial can come close to matching our depth, but even they fall short. Remove EWU from Big Sky and SHSU from Southland ... and the quality of the depth is not even close.

Why is this so hard for you to understand and admit this.

But please disect this until you find something that shows otherwise... like with 4th place teams in even years, Colonial dominates. My stats disect nothing ... all MVFC games (excl NDSU .950 win %) against other conferences since 2011 .... and we still dominate with a .631 win % .. that's almost two-thirds of our playoff games. And I already documented how many more road games we play and how many less weak autobids we get in playin games compared to Colonial, the only conference even close to our depth.

And no rolling in 2010 & prior ... I'm not arguing for that period ... I 100% acknowledge Colonial dominated 2004-10 .... so no debate there.

I'm not taking your bait. There is a huge gap between Indiana State, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Missouri State, South Dakota, Western Illinois, Youngstown State and SDSU/UNI/NDSU and it's been that way since 2017.

You can brag about what happened in 2014 or 2015 all you'd like, but I'm not digressing this thread into that. The only FCS playoff-team win those 7 teams have outside of the Valley since 2017 is against 3rd place Nicholls in 2017 and against an overrated UNA team early in 2017. I'm not impressed.

[grizband]

Below is my poll this week. The top 6-8 were fairly straight forward, while I considered about 12 teams for the final 8 spots, and probably missed a couple in the process.

1: North Dakota State Bison
2: James Madison Dukes
3: Weber State Wildcats
4: Sac State Hornets
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits
6: Montana Grizzlies
7: Northern Iowa Panthers
8: Illinois State Redbirds
9: Central Arkansas Bears
10: Kennesaw State Owls
11: Villanova Wildcats
12: Furman Paladins
13: Dartmouth Big Green
14: Princeton Tigers
15: North Carolina A&T Aggies
16: Wofford Terriers
17: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils
18: Stony Brook Seawolves
19: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
20: North Dakota Fighting Hawks
21: Montana State Bobcats
22: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks
23: Albany Great Danes
24: Sam Houston State Bearkats
25: Austin Peay Governors


I think you're way too high on NC A&T and Wofford.


Florida A&M: 7-1 with best win over your #15 NC A&T. Only loss to UCF. Also beat a 5-2 SCSU who beat your #16 Wofford. Not ranked
North Carolina A&T: 5-2 with best win over 4-4 Elon. Next best win over 2-6 Charleston Southern. Lost to Florida A&M and Duke. Ranked #15.
Definite head scratcher. xdrunkyx xpeacex
(Your counsel might suggest you use the "A&M isn't eligible for the postseason this year, so that's why I'm not ranking them" argument.)
Yeah, that appears to be an omission on my part; I'll do better next week.

[semobison]

This is irrelevant and confuses computing capacity with computing accuracy.


I'm not taking your bait. There is a huge gap between Indiana State, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Missouri State, South Dakota, Western Illinois, Youngstown State and SDSU/UNI/NDSU and it's been that way since 2017.

You can brag about what happened in 2014 or 2015 all you'd like, but I'm not digressing this thread into that. The only FCS playoff-team win those 7 teams have outside of the Valley since 2017 is against 3rd place Nicholls in 2017. I'm not impressed.


So now you want to take away three teams and only count the last two seasons. I remember when you used to say besides NDSU the MVFC is just an average conference.
Ok, the MVFC has had one Team lose its first round game in those two years.
WIU lost at Weber by two in the first round in 2017. Weber lost by two to JMU in the quarters. JMU lost to NDSU in Frisco in a close game. Yep, WIU obviously was over ranked and shouldn't have been in the playoffs.
You do this BS every year around this time. Hey, it's not our fault the once powerful Southern conference hasn't had a team make the semi's since App and GSU!

[clenz]

So now you want to take away three teams and only count the last two seasons. I remember when you used to say besides NDSU the MVFC is just an average conference.
Ok, the MVFC has had one Team lose its first round game in those two years.
WIU lost at Weber by two in the first round in 2017. Weber lost by two to JMU in the quarters. JMU lost to NDSU in Frisco in a close game. Yep, WIU obviously was over ranked and shouldn't have been in the playoffs.
You do this BS every year around this time. Hey, it's not our fault the once powerful Southern conference hasn't had a team make the semi's since App and GSU!Go look at SoCin history outside of the teams that are now FBS. You'll find a lot of nothing other than Furman in 88. In 87 Furman last in round 1. In 89 they were out in the second round, same story in 90. After that they were basically dead on a national level.

The SoCon without their top 3 (once we now have to pull UNI and SDSU out) is a historically trash conference

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[uni88]

This is irrelevant and confuses computing capacity with computing accuracy.


I'm not taking your bait. There is a huge gap between Indiana State, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Missouri State, South Dakota, Western Illinois, Youngstown State and SDSU/UNI/NDSU and it's been that way since 2017.

You can brag about what happened in 2014 or 2015 all you'd like, but I'm not digressing this thread into that. The only FCS playoff-team win those 7 teams have outside of the Valley since 2017 is against 3rd place Nicholls in 2017 and against an overrated UNA team early in 2017. I'm not impressed.

Why did you pick 2017? That's only 2 seasons, hardly a large enough timeframe to demonstrate a trend and in only one of them did any of those 7 make the playoffs. Are you limiting your timeframe to bolster your argument?

As semobison pointed out, WIU lost a close one on the road to a Weber team that should have been seeded. USD's win over Nicholls isn't far from Furman's win over Elon and USD was 5th in the Valley while Furman tied for 2nd in the SoCon.

[Reign of Terrier]

So now you want to take away three teams and only count the last two seasons. I remember when you used to say besides NDSU the MVFC is just an average conference.
Ok, the MVFC has had one Team lose its first round game in those two years.
WIU lost at Weber by two in the first round in 2017. Weber lost by two to JMU in the quarters. JMU lost to NDSU in Frisco in a close game. Yep, WIU obviously was over ranked and shouldn't have been in the playoffs.
You do this BS every year around this time. Hey, it's not our fault the once powerful Southern conference hasn't had a team make the semi's since App and GSU!Citation needed. I never called the MVFC average. I just wait teams after third place aren't as intimidating. Because they aren't.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Why did you pick 2017? That's only 2 seasons, hardly a large enough timeframe to demonstrate a trend and in only one of them did any of those 7 make the playoffs. Are you limiting your timeframe to bolster your argument?

As semobison pointed out, WIU lost a close one on the road to a Weber team that should have been seeded. USD's win over Nicholls isn't far from Furman's win over Elon and USD was 5th in the Valley while Furman tied for 2nd in the SoCon.I picked 2017 because seniors on any roster of any team were freshmen in 2016. It was a different time. You could look at 2016 if you want, I don't care, Youngstown is the exception and pretty much everyone else in the conference is the same. But by this time next year, I wouldn't be surprised if that lone playoff win by SD is the only one outside of the power 3 of the MVFC.

I have low confidence in Youngstown State, Illinois State and Southern Illinois making noise in the playoffs this year, and the other 4 (MSU, ISU-B, WIU, SD) are pretty much out of it and unimpressive.

Sure, those 3 teams may get a win against a newb team with minimal playoff experience (it depends on the matchup), but it's just like Towson or Elon in the CAA or Cal Poly or NAU in the Big Sky: we remember the upset they pulled in conference play or that one time they went on a run, but these teams find a way to lose more consistently.

As far as I'm concerned, a better way to look at the FCS isn't conference affiliation but who the programs are. I like the top 15 programs against the rest of the FCS 90% of the time.

Because if we're talking about conference depth and the merits of giving special consideration in terms of ranking and seeding, we can't just be looking at conference records bc that will necessarily be circular. Show me your OOC and your playoff games!



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[uni88]

I picked 2017 because seniors on any roster of any team were freshmen in 2016. It was a different time. You could look at 2016 if you want, I don't care, Youngstown is the exception and pretty much everyone else in the conference is the same. But by this time next year, I wouldn't be surprised if that lone playoff win by SD is the only one outside of the power 3 of the MVFC.

I have low confidence in Youngstown State, Illinois State and Southern Illinois making noise in the playoffs this year, and the other 4 (MSU, ISU-B, WIU, SD) are pretty much out of it and unimpressive.

Sure, those 3 teams may get a win against a newb team with minimal playoff experience (it depends on the matchup), but it's just like Towson or Elon in the CAA or Cal Poly or NAU in the Big Sky: we remember the upset they pulled in conference play or that one time they went on a run, but these teams find a way to lose more consistently.

As far as I'm concerned, a better way to look at the FCS isn't conference affiliation but who the programs are. I like the top 15 programs against the rest of the FCS 90% of the time.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using TapatalkSo 4th and lower in the MVFC are kind of like 2nd and lower in the SoCon.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

So 4th and lower in the MVFC are kind of like 2nd and lower in the SoCon.

Sent from my XT1650 using TapatalkCheck your PMs, I don't want this thread to digress further.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[semobison]

So 4th and lower in the MVFC are kind of like 2nd and lower in the SoCon.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Youngstown 1-3 in MVFC beat Samford 3-2 in the SoCon earlier this year by 23. That's about right!

[Reign of Terrier]

Go look at SoCin history outside of the teams that are now FBS. You'll find a lot of nothing other than Furman in 88. In 87 Furman last in round 1. In 89 they were out in the second round, same story in 90. After that they were basically dead on a national level.

The SoCon without their top 3 (once we now have to pull UNI and SDSU out) is a historically trash conference

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TapatalkTry to troll harder, Furman was a finalist in 2001, Wofford was a semifinalist in 2003. Furman also in 2005.

By at any given point the top 2-3 in any conference is better than the bottom x number. If you look at playoff wins they function like a Pareto distribution.

My point is simply that the MVFC doesn't really defy this model. If anything, teams switch roles at different times throughout history and their place tracks pretty well with OOC. There's a murky transition period in any given year perhaps (SDSU is what Illinois State was in 2013-2014; NDSU is what YSU was in the 90s), but overall teams 4-6, though good and perhaps playoff worthy, are consistently inferior to the top and not as dominant OOC as those top teams.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Youngstown 1-3 in MVFC beat Samford 3-2 in the SoCon earlier this year by 23. That's about right!Liam Welch also played 3.5 quarters of that game, and Chris Oladokun only a few possessions.

The only Socon team similarly lucky with that personnel matchup at QB was Furman (Oladokun had a lower leg injury, they didn't play him until they were down 42-14 in the second half). Similar result.

Meanwhile, SEMO beat Southern Illinois and Houston Baptist beat South Dakota. If the MVFC was top to bottom spectacularly better than the rest of the FCS they would be consistent outside of the top 10. They aren't.














....What's funny is people think I'm an MVFC hater but this year I'm a much stronger CAA and Big Sky hater

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MTfan4life]

What are you complaining about? You are still getting more votes than a Saluki team that beat you by 2 TDs.

TIL I am a Tennessee-Martin fan or maybe even a Tennessee-Martin player/coach considering I was beaten by SIU. Interesting. FWIW, I had Southern Illinois at 19 and UTM at 20. xthumbsupx However, in the 8 years I've been on this site, I still have yet to encounter a time where a Valley team didn't have enough people talking about/defending their merit. I choose to stick up for the little guy.

Except for Wofford. They can go **** themselves. #NeverForget ;):D

[Redbird 4th & short]

Why did you pick 2017? That's only 2 seasons, hardly a large enough timeframe to demonstrate a trend and in only one of them did any of those 7 make the playoffs. Are you limiting your timeframe to bolster your argument?

As semobison pointed out, WIU lost a close one on the road to a Weber team that should have been seeded. USD's win over Nicholls isn't far from Furman's win over Elon and USD was 5th in the Valley while Furman tied for 2nd in the SoCon.
be careful what you ask for .. he refused to accept my aggregate stats since 2011 .. insisting we needed to go back to 2008, because only then could he cherry pick how Colonial's 4th place team has done better than MVFC's 4th place teams, but unly if we got all the way back to 2008 ... because going back to 2011 is "totally irrelevant" .. but now the goal post is to only go back to 2017 .. because it maybe helps his argument ??? Not even sure it does. But he can't possibly include 2016 when we got 4 teams and we had 3 teams in final 8, then 2 in final 4, and YSU lost in Natty. 4th team was my 6-5 ISUr who went on road and very nearly beat 9-2 Southland team .. we led entire game until Q4 and lost by 7 in final 2 minutes of game.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/carolinajournal.com/app/uploads/2016/01/29082456/screen_52bc6e6c4f4a3.gif
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi48trHk8nlAhUO1qwKHfh5BqEQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.carolinajournal.com%2Fcartoo n%2Fmoving-the-goalposts-again%2F&psig=AOvVaw3k7-Lo6GBTVixpNcm8hnwq&ust=1572702431379543)

[Redbird 4th & short]

Liam Welch also played 3.5 quarters of that game, and Chris Oladokun only a few possessions.

The only Socon team similarly lucky with that personnel matchup at QB was Furman (Oladokun had a lower leg injury, they didn't play him until they were down 42-14 in the second half). Similar result.

Meanwhile, SEMO beat Southern Illinois and Houston Baptist beat South Dakota. If the MVFC was top to bottom spectacularly better than the rest of the FCS they would be consistent outside of the top 10. They aren't.














....What's funny is people think I'm an MVFC hater but this year I'm a much stronger CAA and Big Sky hater

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

CAA hater ?? You went to considerable gymnastic efforts (aka goalpost shifting) to explain how their 4th place teams performed better than MVFC's 4th place teams .. totally ignoring that since 2011, Colonial and MVFC have each gotten 5 or more teams twice .. let's remember how each did: Colonial 2011 went 3-5 with 2 weak wins, 2019 went 3-6); and MVFC dominated both times it got 5 teams: 2014 went 10-4, 2015 went 8-4.

And since you made comment that I lean heavily on our results in 2014 and 2015 ... in 2016 we went 7-4, 2017 we went 8-4, and 2018 we went 7-2 ... so were a combined 22-10 since those 2 years we went 18-8 .. no other conference is even close.

As for this year, here's the thing .... many MVFC fans, including me, have already acknowledged the lower third of MVFC is weak this year, or in the case of some teams, very inconsistent .. definitely moreso than we've seen in last decade. This does nothing to diminish the strength of upper half of MVFC. So yes, this year the lower third is weaker and losing more OOC games than prior years. But take a team like YSU ... they went 4-0 in OOC and won every game decively. Then got into conference and struggled .... which is largely the point .. getting thru the MVFC grind.

This is why 4-4 in MVFC is almost always better than 4-4 in any other top conference.

[clenz]

So...I did some digging

We are removing the top 3, right?

Well, GSU didn't join the conference until 1993 - meaning the Big 3 in the 80s was ASU, Marshall and Furman. So for that time period we should pull Furman's results out. Meaning there was just 2 playoff wins from a "non Big 3" team in the SoCon between 1983 (WCU with 2) and Wofford with 2 in 2003. Hell, there were only 2 other total playoff wins over that period that didn't come from big 3 teams. 1 from Furman and 1 from ETSU, both in 1996

Taking those teams out The Southern Conference had 2 total playoff appearances between 1982 and 1993 that didn't come from the Big 3.

1993 and on there were no "big 3" playoff apperances in 93 94 95 97 and 98. Since 1998 the following teams have playoff appearances


Samford - 1
ETSU - 2
Cit - 2
Chatty - 3
Wofford - 9
Furman - 10

Over that time only 3 teams have won at least 2 games against on SoCon teams in the playoffs
Furman 01
Wofford 03
Furman 05

But it's 2019 and the Big 3 no longer exist so the SoCon needs a new big 3...well I Chatty


Pull those three of the results we are looking at zero playoff wins

The last time a current SoCon team not named Wofford, Furman or Chatty won a playoff game against a non-SoCon team was...

ETSU IN 1996


It's amazing how bad we can make things look when we start to do what you do with selecting specific time frames and shifting arguments to meet those time frames

Is this trolling harder enough for you?

Oh...and think I'm making it up - I pulled the games straight from the SoCon media guide



1982
FU 0-1




1983
WCU 2-1
FU 0-1



1984
UTC 0-1




1985
FU 2-1




1986
FU 0-1




1987
NONE




1988
FU 1-0




1989
FU 2-1




1990
FU 1-1




1991
NONE




1992
NONE




1993
NONE




1994
NONE




1995
NONE




1996
ETSU 1-1
FU 1-0



1997
NONE




1998
NONE




1999
FU 0-1




2000
FU 0-1




2001
FU 2-1




2002
FU 0-1




2003
WOF 2-1




2004
FU 1-1




2005
FU 2-0




2006
FU 0-1




2007
WOF 1-1




2008
WOF 0-1




2009
ELON 0-1




2010
WOF 1-0




2011
WOF 0-1




2012
WOF 1-1




2013
FU 1-1




2014
UTC 1-1




2015
UTC 1-1
CIT 0-1



2016
UTC 1-1
WOF 1-1
CIT 0-0


2017
FU 1-0
SAM 0-1
WOF 0-1


2018
WOF 1-1
ETSU 0-1





If you want to argue about me not letting Furman in the 80s count or the one off run to a semi final count because it didn't come from a team consistently

Remember

neither did yours. They were also one offs...and from teams that were/are actually far more inconsistent than the Valley's right now.

[kalm]

I will relist my additional edit here: I didn't even look at the ORV part of the AGS poll and you can make the case that the following teams either lack a significant victory or have a head-scratching loss to a mediocre opponent or a lopsided loss.

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8-10.

Illinois State (best team they've beaten is 4-4 and they haven't made the playoffs since 2016)

Kennesaw ( 'nuf said)

Stony Brook (UNH and close win to 1-7 URI)

Dartmouth

Princeton

Montana State

CCSU

Wofford

SEMO (manner they lost to Montana State)

A&T

North Dakota

Florida A&M (I don't think they deserve to be here but others do, so still listing them)

Towson

Austin Peay (lost to 2-6 ETSU)

Albany (to Richmond)

To be clear I'm not trying to say that my team and conference deserves deference here, just pointing out that the top 25 is a **** show and almost always will be.

The problem with saying "this team doesn't have a quality win" is that only a few teams at this point are unequivocally high quality....and they don't really have a loss yet (which is why we think they are high quality). We go through this every year. At the end of the year only a handful of playoff teams will have more than 2-3 wins over teams above 6-5.

Meanwhile, if you're in the top ~7 conferences you have an 85% chance of making the playoffs if you get 7 D1 wins. The big south is the outlier here, because their newcomers haven't proven themselves, but it's a dumb argument to compare Wofford (who has played more playoff games and won more playoff games in the last 3 years than all but like 5 teams) to Campbell or Monmouth.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

North Dakota beat SHSU and MSU. Define quality win.

[clenz]

North Dakota beat SHSU and MSU. Define quality win.
UND is going to be a Valley team NEXT year...so in his mind it doesn't count because it wasn't beating NDSU SDSU or UNI....apparently.

[ST_Lawson]

I'm not taking your bait. There is a huge gap between Indiana State, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Missouri State, South Dakota, Western Illinois, Youngstown State and SDSU/UNI/NDSU and it's been that way since 2017.

"Huge gap"...is that why we beat UNI by 20 points last year or by 9 at their place the year before (that was the year we lost by 2 at Weber State...which has been repeatedly mentioned as the best non-seeded playoff team that year). I'll fully admit we are absolutely horrible this season, but going by your "limitations" (only games within the last couple of years), there hasn't been a gap between WIU and UNI.

We haven't done great against NDSU in that timeframe...but really, only one team has beat the Bison in your timespan (and they only did it once), so it's not like we're "special" for losing to NDSU.

As for SDSU, we haven't played them since 2017...we did lose, but that was also the year they were seeded #5 in the playoffs and made it to the semifinal round.

[BEAR]

4th team was my 6-5 ISUr who went on road and very nearly beat 9-2 Southland team .. we led entire game until Q4 and lost by 7 in final 2 minutes of game.

Wait. A UCA team made a fourth quarter comeback? xeyebrowx xlolx How rare! xlolx

[clenz]

"Huge gap"...is that why we beat UNI by 20 points last year or by 9 at their place the year before (that was the year we lost by 2 at Weber State...which has been repeatedly mentioned as the best non-seeded playoff team that year). I'll fully admit we are absolutely horrible this season, but going by your "limitations" (only games within the last couple of years), there hasn't been a gap between WIU and UNI.

We haven't done great against NDSU in that timeframe...but really, only one team has beat the Bison in your timespan (and they only did it once), so it's not like we're "special" for losing to NDSU.

As for SDSU, we haven't played them since 2017...we did lose, but that was also the year they were seeded #5 in the playoffs and made it to the semifinal round.
You were losing to UNI by 5 with 7 seconds on the clock in 2017....and won by 9

make sure you actually represent that full **** of the ending of that game.

[Reign of Terrier]

North Dakota beat SHSU and MSU. Define quality win.My list was either no quality win or at least one questionable loss. North Dakota has at least one or two of those.

Namely: Idaho state and eastern Washington

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

be careful what you ask for .. he refused to accept my aggregate stats since 2011 .. insisting we needed to go back to 2008, because only then could he cherry pick how Colonial's 4th place team has done better than MVFC's 4th place teams, but unly if we got all the way back to 2008 ... because going back to 2011 is "totally irrelevant" .. but now the goal post is to only go back to 2017 .. because it maybe helps his argument ??? Not even sure it does. But he can't possibly include 2016 when we got 4 teams and we had 3 teams in final 8, then 2 in final 4, and YSU lost in Natty. 4th team was my 6-5 ISUr who went on road and very nearly beat 9-2 Southland team .. we led entire game until Q4 and lost by 7 in final 2 minutes of game.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/carolinajournal.com/app/uploads/2016/01/29082456/screen_52bc6e6c4f4a3.gif
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi48trHk8nlAhUO1qwKHfh5BqEQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.carolinajournal.com%2Fcartoo n%2Fmoving-the-goalposts-again%2F&psig=AOvVaw3k7-Lo6GBTVixpNcm8hnwq&ust=1572702431379543)Just because your reading comprehension is bad doesn't mean I'm moving the goal posts. In that long thread earlier this year, I pointed out how you made up positions that I didn't hold and attributed them to me. You had no rebuttal.

You're not a reliable point of view for my opinions.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Since 2016, the bottom 7 of the Valley is 6-58 against the top 3 (or at least they were 6-50 before this season and I think that's updated).

The big point I'm harping on is that when we look at depth, I don't really care about how close the anecdotal games are over the long term, losing them or winning them is important.

Take Wofford's playoff performances as an example of this principle: we are 9-9 all time, but only one of those losses was a blowout (2017 NDSU) and only 3 were by more than one score (UD 2003 and 2007 Richmond). I'm not giving my team a moral victory pat on the back for 7 point losses to good teams.

We shouldn't blindly look at the 9 wins as Wofford being head and shoulders better than every team they beat, but we also shouldn't give the teams that are beaten too much credit for losing. There's a weird pattern in the FCS, across all conferences, where the same teams find a way to lose and the same find a way to win.

The Valley is the best conference in FCS but at the same time we shouldn't rank these bottom 7 teams just because they exist in the conference.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Redbird 4th & short]

Just because your reading comprehension is bad doesn't mean I'm moving the goal posts. In that long thread earlier this year, I pointed out how you made up positions that I didn't hold and attributed them to me. You had no rebuttal.

You're not a reliable point of view for my opinions.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Give me just one specific example where I misrepresented you moving goalposts that you say you did not. I'll respond to that specifically. Then I'll find 5 instances in this exchange where you moved goalposts. You do it without realizing because instead of providing addition evidence, you "refine" your criteria to make it look less untrue. Like when you flippantly responded that no 4th or 5th MVFC team has ever won a playoff game ... we won 3 of 4 in 2014-15.

To which you said, yeah but we played a lot of weak autobids .. in fact, we only played one on road and Colonial had played at least 4 or 5 all at home.

That is just how you roll.

So give me just one specific instance where I wrongly accused you of moving goalpost ... aka changing your argument to win a point.

[Reign of Terrier]

Give me just one specific example where I misrepresented you moving goalposts that you say you did not. I'll respond to that specifically. Then I'll find 5 instances in this exchange where you moved goalposts. You do it without realizing because instead of providing addition evidence, you "refine" your criteria to make it look less untrue. Like when you flippantly responded that no 4th or 5th MVFC team has ever won a playoff game ... we won 3 of 4 in 2014-15.

To which you said, yeah but we played a lot of weak autobids .. in fact, we only played one on road and Colonial had played at least 4 or 5 all at home.

That is just how you roll.

So give me just one specific instance where I wrongly accused you of moving goalpost ... aka changing your argument to win a point.Refining your arguments to better fit the evidence and discarding positions that don't fit them isn't moving the goal posts. It's improving your theory. When you pointed out my mistakes I've acknowledged them and revised my arguments accordingly.

I'm not wasting time doing going over the play by play (I already did on my last interaction and got the "lol no one is going to read that" response so why bother).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

It might be because they haven't lost a game since early September with four of those five wins seeing the Terriers have a 4 score lead in the second quarter, while the starters scoring on 70% of possessions. Yes, those teams are bad, but I expect any top 15-20 team to be up 48-24 on VMI with 6 minutes left, 49-3 on Gardner Webb in the fourth quarter, 28-3 at ETSU at half (heck, Furman didn't accomplish that), and beating Western Carolina 59-7.

Quality wins is a weird standard at this point in the season because we're just now seeing who is quality. Teams get better or worse throughout the year. I find it odd, yet not unsurprising that the "who have they beaten" standard is placed arbitrarily on teams outside of the MVFC/Big Sky/CAA. Who has Illinois State beaten to be top 10? What have they done in the last few years?

Every team has a questionable loss at this point, except for a handful of teams in the top 8.

Bottom line: the FCS top 25 is usually a battle of attrition. Just looking at AGS's top 25, you can make the argument that the following teams either lack a quality win or have a questionable loss:

Illinois State (best team they've beaten is 4-4 and they haven't made the playoffs since 2016)
Kennesaw ( 'nuf said)
Stony Brook (UNH and close win to 1-7 URI)
Dartmouth
Princeton
Montana State
CCSU
Wofford
SEMO (manner they lost to Montana State)
A&T
North Dakota
Florida A&M (I don't think they deserve to be here but others do, so still listing them)
Towson
Austin Peay (lost to 2-6 ETSU)
Albany (to Richmond)

To be clear I'm not trying to say that my team and conference deserves deference here, just pointing out that the top 25 is a **** show and almost always will be.

Margin of victory can also be a deceiving stat. You obviously see it increase in weaker conferences. In 2010, the BSC got just two teams in the playoffs and EWU played a bunch of close games against mediocre to bad teams. You see middling 3-5 loss teams from power conferences pick off FBS from time to time. You can see that too from 2nd tier conferences like maybe the Citadel this year but it seems to happen less.

MOV should be viewed somewhat like FBS wins. It’s a strength when it’s there but shouldn’t deflate all that much, a team that plays many close games against a more challenging schedule.

[Reign of Terrier]

Margin of victory can also be a deceiving stat. You obviously see it increase in weaker conferences. In 2010, the BSC got just two teams in the playoffs and EWU played a bunch of close games against mediocre to bad teams. You see middling 3-5 loss teams from power conferences pick off FBS from time to time. You can see that too from 2nd tier conferences like maybe the Citadel this year but it seems to happen less.

MOV should be viewed somewhat like FBS wins. It’s a strength when it’s there but shouldn’t deflate all that much, a team that plays many close games against a more challenging schedule.It's tricky. I don't think we can come up with consistent rules for margin of victory. There's virtue in winning period. There's virtue in blowing teams out that you should, but it's also not predictive of success. Blowout games against bad opponents also screws with computer ratings because there's diminishing points of return in terms of how predictive it can be.

I think KSU was a 38-20 favorite against Wofford in Massey, for example.

When in doubt, attrition rules the FCS when it comes to rankings.

Also, I don't think you can look at Wofford outside of a void: we have won and played more playoff games in the last few years than other playoff programs and we didnt lose a lot of starters from last year (KSU and other teams can't say that)

I just think if you're going to assume conferences are of a certain quality given prior seasons' performances, you should apply that to Wofford too, even if they have a headscratching loss.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Since 2016, the bottom 7 of the Valley is 6-58 against the top 3 (or at least they were 6-50 before this season and I think that's updated).

The big point I'm harping on is that when we look at depth, I don't really care about how close the anecdotal games are over the long term, losing them or winning them is important.

Take Wofford's playoff performances as an example of this principle: we are 9-9 all time, but only one of those losses was a blowout (2017 NDSU) and only 3 were by more than one score (UD 2003 and 2007 Richmond). I'm not giving my team a moral victory pat on the back for 7 point losses to good teams.

We shouldn't blindly look at the 9 wins as being head and shoulders better than every team, but we also shouldn't give the teams that are beaten too much credit for losing. There's a weird pattern in the FCS, across all conferences, where the same teams find a way to lose and the same find a way to win.

The Valley is the best conference in FCS but at the same time we shouldn't rank these bottom 7 teams just because they exist in the conference.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Who were those 9 wins against?

[Reign of Terrier]

Who were those 9 wins against?

I edited that comment for clarity. I meant it didn't mean we were ludicrously better than the teams we beat, I wasn't comparing those 9 wins to other playoff programs' wins. But if you must know: NC A&T, WKU (defending national champ), Montana (undefeated and #3 seed), Jacksonville State (the year they beat Ole Miss), New Hampshire, Charleston Southern (the year they went to Fargo), #6 Seed Citadel, Furman, and Elon.

I don't see why this is relevant to the thread though, my point is about how we view wins.

[ST_Lawson]

You were losing to UNI by 5 with 7 seconds on the clock in 2017....and won by 9

make sure you actually represent that full **** of the ending of that game.

I didn't think I was misrepresenting that game. Yes, the ending was crazy to put us up by 9 in the last second and without it we would have only won by 3. But, it's not like UNI dominated the game and then we pulled out a miracle in the final seconds. It was a back-and-forth game pretty much the whole time.
First WIU led (for most of the first quarter and until about 5 left in the half)
Then UNI scored twice to go into halftime up 14-5
In the 3rd, WIU scored twice...pulling within 2, then taking the lead of 4 with about 4 minutes left in the third.
WIU scored in the 4th to open up the lead to 11 points, but UNI came back and scored twice, pulling within 3 with 7 1/2 minutes left then taking the lead by 4 with just over a minute left.
WIU scored on their final actual drive to go up by 3 again.

I'm not trying to say that WIU was somehow far and away better than UNI, just saying that the "huge gap" previously mentioned was not evident in that game (nor in the game last year).

[clenz]

I didn't think I was misrepresenting that game. Yes, the ending was crazy to put us up by 9 in the last second and without it we would have only won by 3. But, it's not like UNI dominated the game and then we pulled out a miracle in the final seconds. It was a back-and-forth game pretty much the whole time.
First WIU led (for most of the first quarter and until about 5 left in the half)
Then UNI scored twice to go into halftime up 14-5
In the 3rd, WIU scored twice...pulling within 2, then taking the lead of 4 with about 4 minutes left in the third.
WIU scored in the 4th to open up the lead to 11 points, but UNI came back and scored twice, pulling within 3 with 7 1/2 minutes left then taking the lead by 4 with just over a minute left.
WIU scored on their final actual drive to go up by 3 again.

I'm not trying to say that WIU was somehow far and away better than UNI, just saying that the "huge gap" previously mentioned was not evident in that game (nor in the game last year).
Nah - i wasn't taking that path on it.

I just need everyone to know that UNI led a game by 4 with 7 seconds left.....and lost by 7

[ST_Lawson]

Nah - i wasn't taking that path on it.

I just need everyone to know that UNI led a game by 4 with 7 seconds left.....and lost by 7

Understood.

And for the curious, WIU scored with 6 seconds left on their final drive, which was a fairly standard, 9-play drive covering 65 yards and taking 1:12 from the clock (did convert 4th and 15 midway through though). The crazy part was then on the kickoff following with a few seconds left, the UNI returner fumbled the ball around the 20 yard line, WIU guy snagged it and took it in for a TD as time expired.

[MSUBobcat]

Refining your arguments to better fit the evidence and discarding positions that don't fit them isn't moving the goal posts. It's improving your theory. When you pointed out my mistakes I've acknowledged them and revised my arguments accordingly.

I'm not wasting time doing going over the play by play (I already did on my last interaction and got the "lol no one is going to read that" response so why bother).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

That's not the EXACT definition of moving the goal posts??? Changing your "theory" or argument or whatever you want to call it once your original argument is shown to be flawed is absolutely "moving the goal posts".

[MSUBobcat]

I didn't think I was misrepresenting that game. Yes, the ending was crazy to put us up by 9 in the last second and without it we would have only won by 3. But, it's not like UNI dominated the game and then we pulled out a miracle in the final seconds. It was a back-and-forth game pretty much the whole time.
First WIU led (for most of the first quarter and until about 5 left in the half)
Then UNI scored twice to go into halftime up 14-5
In the 3rd, WIU scored twice...pulling within 2, then taking the lead of 4 with about 4 minutes left in the third.
WIU scored in the 4th to open up the lead to 11 points, but UNI came back and scored twice, pulling within 3 with 7 1/2 minutes left then taking the lead by 4 with just over a minute left.
WIU scored on their final actual drive to go up by 3 again.

I'm not trying to say that WIU was somehow far and away better than UNI, just saying that the "huge gap" previously mentioned was not evident in that game (nor in the game last year).

I had to go look that up as to how it happened. At first, it sounded very fluky, but looking at the drive chart, it was just a solid game-winning drive. The fumble return was just insult to injury.

[uni88]

I had to go look that up as to how it happened. At first, it sounded very fluky, but looking at the drive chart, it was just a solid game-winning drive. The fumble return was just insult to injury.

It wasn't fluky. WIU won that game with that drive and the final TD was a fluke that changed the final score but not the outcome. WIU has had some success against UNI and deserves credit for that success.

I've lost track of what Reign is arguing. Yes the bottom third or even half of the MVFC isn't as good this year but that is hardly a pattern. Yes, teams 4-7 in the MVFC aren't as good as teams 1-3. But teams 4 & 5 are similar to teams 2 & 3 in the SoCon. When you get into where 4-7 in the MVFC should be ranked you're entering a gray area where personal opinion plays a major role. Neither side is definitively "wrong."

[clenz]

It wasn't fluky. WIU won that game with that drive and the final TD was a fluke that changed the final score but not the outcome. WIU has had some success against UNI and deserves credit for that success.

I've lost track of what Reign is arguing. Yes the bottom third or even half of the MVFC isn't as good this year but that is hardly a pattern. Yes, teams 4-7 in the MVFC aren't as good as teams 1-3. But teams 4 & 5 are similar to teams 2 & 3 in the SoCon. When you get into where 4-7 in the MVFC should be ranked you're entering a gray area where personal opinion plays a major role. Neither side is definitively "wrong."
What's ironic about his argument is "DON'T RANK MVFC 4-7 BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GOOD...BUT RANKED 2-4 IN THE SOCON EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE SAME TYPE OF LEVEL OF TEAM...JUST IGNORE THAT THE 4-7 RANGE OF THE MVFC HAS MORE SUCCESS OOC AND IN THE PLAYOFFS."

Such a strange argument to make and then try to spin out of.

He digs these holes and doesn't realize when to stop. It's okay to admit being wrong.

[Reign of Terrier]

That's not the EXACT definition of moving the goal posts??? Changing your "theory" or argument or whatever you want to call it once your original argument is shown to be flawed is absolutely "moving the goal posts".The core of my theory (the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway) hasn't been rebutted. I've gotten little data points wrong that I've corrected, but the overall point stands. I haven't moved the goal posts.

I advise you go back to the aforementioned thread. Redbird is a borderline liar when it comes to outlining my position.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

What's ironic about his argument is "DON'T RANK MVFC 4-7 BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GOOD...BUT RANKED 2-4 IN THE SOCON EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE SAME TYPE OF LEVEL OF TEAM...JUST IGNORE THAT THE 4-7 RANGE OF THE MVFC HAS MORE SUCCESS OOC AND IN THE PLAYOFFS."

Such a strange argument to make and then try to spin out of.

He digs these holes and doesn't realize when to stop. It's okay to admit being wrong.I have admitted being wrong, plenty of times, you guys just won't acknowledge it xlolx

Keep in mind, my argument is not teams 4-7 for the MVFC shouldn't be ranked and that teams 2-3 for the socon should or should be ranked higher. I think it's all contingent on resume.


FWIW I don't think we even know what order teams 4-7 in the MVFC are yet. But it's absurd to me that Illinois State, who has not won a playoff game since 2015 is ranked in the top 10 when they haven't beaten anyone this year.

Crack on Wofford, the Socon, whoever you want right now, but it's pretty clear the success of that 4-5 place team in the MVFC depends more on who they don't play in conference slate (remember, 6-50) than anything.

And it's much worse this year for the CAA and Big Sky this year. Y'all just brought up this old argument to roast me about the MVFC, but I really do think it's an atrocity that the CAA and Big Sky are grouped as "power" with the MVFC, given recent history.

I just don't like the double standard that's applied to other conferences in general and I won't not point out that it's dumb that Illinois State is top 10 while Towson, UC Davis and Delaware (and others) stuck around in the rankings well after being under .500. while other teams, not just Wofford actually win their games (and have more recent playoff success than those teams) and receive strict scrutiny.

I mean, Wofford is obviously my main motivator, but I see it with other teams too¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[uni88]

The core of my theory (the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway) hasn't been rebutted. I've gotten little data points wrong that I've corrected, but the overall point stands. I haven't moved the goal posts.

I advise you go back to the aforementioned thread. Redbird is a borderline liar when it comes to outlining my position.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Did you really prove this theory? You've focused on 2 years - 2017 & 2018. The MFVC only got 3 teams in in 2018 so you're really only using 2017. One year proves that the 4th & 5th place MVFC teams aren't impressive in the playoffs? In 2017, USD beat a Nicholls team they were supposed to beat but wasn't it on the road? Was Nicholls significantly different from Elon in 2017? Did USD get blown out the next week in a game against the 6 seed? WIU lost a close one on the road to a team that should have been the 8 seed. That WIU team could have played with any of the 15 other non-seeded teams. 2017 does not prove your theory.

[Reign of Terrier]

It wasn't fluky. WIU won that game with that drive and the final TD was a fluke that changed the final score but not the outcome. WIU has had some success against UNI and deserves credit for that success.

I've lost track of what Reign is arguing. Yes the bottom third or even half of the MVFC isn't as good this year but that is hardly a pattern. Yes, teams 4-7 in the MVFC aren't as good as teams 1-3. But teams 4 & 5 are similar to teams 2 & 3 in the SoCon. When you get into where 4-7 in the MVFC should be ranked you're entering a gray area where personal opinion plays a major role. Neither side is definitively "wrong."Do you think Illinois State has a top 10 resume this year? This is basically what I'm asking. Because I feel like you have to imagine a resume out of whole cloth to give it to them. There's not a quality win there yet. The best team is 4-4.

Granted, all of their losses are "quality" too, but the lack of scrutiny they've gotten relative to teams 12-20 is bonkers to me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Did you really prove this theory? You've focused on 2 years - 2017 & 2018. The MFVC only got 3 teams in in 2018 so you're really only using 2017. One year proves that the 4th & 5th place MVFC teams aren't impressive in the playoffs? In 2017, USD beat a Nicholls team they were supposed to beat but wasn't it on the road? Was Nicholls significantly different from Elon in 2017? Did USD get blown out the next week in a game against the 6 seed? WIU lost a close one on the road to a team that should have been the 8 seed. That WIU team could have played with any of the 15 other non-seeded teams. 2017 does not prove your theory.This is misunderstanding what I'm going for and that's probably my fault in communicating. It feels like I'm having 3 separate arguments. I could clarify this with a Long Post, but people don't want to read that.

I agree with Clenz and the other MVFC fans that if you go back to 2011 or so, the MVFC usurped the CAA. I typically went back to 2008-2010ish or so because 1) it's more data available via Wikipedia (and I favor more data!) and 2, the field was at 16 for the longest time up until 2009 and so teams getting more than two were rare. But the CAA got more than that plenty of times and they won lots of games.

As an all-time statistic, I keep the CAA's stats in mind, but in terms of recency (how this season has happened and what happened in the playoffs) it's proven to be irrelevant. It looked *kinda* that way before the season but now it's all but confirmed. And to Clenz and Redbird's credit, they pointed that out to me in the preseason, and I wasn't sold but now I am.

In general,I don't put much stock in what happened roughly before 2016 or so (and drifting toward 2017 as we get deeper in the year) because teams are ~80% different now from a personnel perspective. There's diminishing predictive power in how a team finished, the farther away we are. Illinois State was a power in 2014. Now they aren't.

That's why I'm talking about the MVFC in that light now.

I did a deep dive with fourth place teams all time at some point before the season to refine my arguments, and the reality is that the chance of any team with ~4 losses or finishing fourth in their league is pretty much 0 for a championship or getting to the semifinals. That includes the MVFC.

(As a sidenote: if Wofford finishes 7-4 and doesn't make the playoffs, I will only be bugged if a 7-4 Southland team gets in over us, either way I don't think any team finishing fourth in their conference and or having 4+ losses should complain about not making the playoffs)

So maybe I wasn't clear about this, maybe I'm full of ****, I'll let you guys decide: but part of the reason I'm skeptical of all fourth place teams is bc it's useless to argue over them relative to higher placing teams. They're not going to win it. So it's even dumber to put fifth and sixth place teams in. I'd rather see a more inclusive playoff (within reason) that shows us more about how these conferences measure up.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bisonator]

Do you think Illinois State has a top 10 resume this year? This is basically what I'm asking. Because I feel like you have to imagine a resume out of whole cloth to give it to them. There's not a quality win there yet. The best team is 4-4.

Granted, all of their losses are "quality" too, but the lack of scrutiny they've gotten relative to teams 12-20 is bonkers to me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You can pretty much put the 8-25 teams in a hat and draw them out and make a case for their placement that way. After the top 5-6 teams it's a jumbled mess right now but it'll sort itself out.

[uni88]

Do you think Illinois State has a top 10 resume this year? This is basically what I'm asking. Because I feel like you have to imagine a resume out of whole cloth to give it to them. There's not a quality win there yet. The best team is 4-4.

Granted, all of their losses are "quality" too, but the lack of scrutiny they've gotten relative to teams 12-20 is bonkers to me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

1) I'm not sure who should be ranked where after #5.

B) Second, I think a lot of voters feel that way so ISUr has gotten some scrutiny but the lack of clarity makes it a subjective decision.

* ISUr doesn't have a great win but their NAU & SIU wins are probably better than Wofford's win vs. Chatt and losing to NIU and NDSU is better than losing to SC State and Samford. Similar records but ISUr has better wins and their losses were to better teams. You might disagree with that but it doesn't mean it's not a reasonable interpretation and that a poll based on that logic is wrong.

IV) you want voters to give Wofford credit for more recent playoff success. IMO, one of the great things about the AGS poll is that the different methods voters use to evaluate teams blend together into what is a very accurate poll. Their method isn't invalid just because you disagree with it or it doesn't provide the outcome you want.

Fifth (and most importantly), this will all be cleared up on Saturday. The winner of the UNI/ISUr game will have a quality win and the loser will no longer be in the Top 10.

[Reign of Terrier]

Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You can pretty much put the 8-25 teams in a hat and draw them out and make a case for their placement that way. After the top 5-6 teams it's a jumbled mess right now but it'll sort itself out.I think it's no coincidence that
1) people tout the MVFC as a power conference
2) your post is correct
3) multiple teams ranked 10-25 have more playoffs wins than ISU-R

and yet they are so high ranked

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

1) I'm not sure who should be ranked where after #5.

B) Second, I think a lot of voters feel that way so ISUr has gotten some scrutiny but the lack of clarity makes it a subjective decision.

* ISUr doesn't have a great win but their NAU & SIU wins are probably better than Wofford's win vs. Chatt and losing to NIU and NDSU is better than losing to SC State and Samford. Similar records but ISUr has better wins and their losses were to better teams. You might disagree with that but it doesn't mean it's not a reasonable interpretation and that a poll based on that logic is wrong.

IV) you want voters to give Wofford credit for more recent playoff success. IMO, one of the great things about the AGS poll is that the different methods voters use to evaluate teams blend together into what is a very accurate poll. Their method isn't invalid just because you disagree with it or it doesn't provide the outcome you want.

Fifth (and most importantly), this will all be cleared up on Saturday. The winner of the UNI/ISUr game will have a quality win and the loser will no longer be in the Top 10.FWIW UNI winning proves me right so go Panthers

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Redbird 4th & short]

The core of my theory (the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway) hasn't been rebutted. I've gotten little data points wrong that I've corrected, but the overall point stands. I haven't moved the goal posts.

I advise you go back to the aforementioned thread. Redbird is a borderline liar when it comes to outlining my position.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

yes, I (and others) have rebutted your point about 4th and 5th place MVFC teams .... 100% no doubt, that we have rebutted it and provided mountain of evidence. Just because you say we haven't, doesn't make it so .... we clearly have. And I already made clear how many fewer weak autobids we've played compared to Colonial, not to mention how many more road games we've played than Colonial. And since Colonial is the only conference even close to MVFC in quality depth .. that says alot ... because we know what happens to Big Sky and Southland playoff records when you exclude EWU and SHSU .. their 2nd place an lower teams drop their win % to .360 and .250 ... compared to our .630 .... right ?? Obviously ?? Which 100% reveals how little depth those conference have since 2011. Plus I pointed to the only 2 conferences who got 5 (or more) bids since 2011 ... and Colonial tanked both times they did it, while MVFC dominated both times they did it.


Right ?? Obviously indisputable facts ?? Mountains of evidence ??

Now maybe you simply don't agree with the mountain of evidence, starnge as that would be, but clearly we have rebutted it extensively. Or maybe ....


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/S_RYIylWEp4/hqdefault.jpg
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjp1fjL6MnlAhUhT98KHapLA8oQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DS_ RYIylWEp4&psig=AOvVaw0V8jslkxoUO-WNN-0z8SCO&ust=1572725337717002)

[uni88]

So maybe I wasn't clear about this, maybe I'm full of ****, I'll let you guys decide: but part of the reason I'm skeptical of all fourth place teams is bc it's useless to argue over them relative to higher placing teams. They're not going to win it. So it's even dumber to put fifth and sixth place teams in. I'd rather see a more inclusive playoff (within reason) that shows us more about how these conferences measure up.

I have to highlight this little gem of hypocrisy. You want a more inclusive playoff but use the MFVC's success against lesser teams to show that they shouldn't get more teams in? UNI can't get credit for beating the snot out of Monmouth in 2017 but you want more teams like that in the playoffs all while criticizing the competitiveness of teams like WIU that actually beat UNI.

[Preferred Walk-On]

I am going to hide this right here...carry on. xdrunkyx

-----

Hello Preferred Walk-On,

We have received your AGS Top 25 vote on 10/27/2019 17:43:46

Your vote is listed below (previous week's rank in parentheses).

1: North Dakota State Bison (1)
2: James Madison Dukes (2)
3: Sac State Hornets (4)
4: Weber State Wildcats (5)
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits (3)
6: Montana Grizzlies (7)
7: Northern Iowa Panthers (8)
8: Furman Paladins (10)
9: Illinois State Redbirds (13)
10: Dartmouth Big Green (12)
11: Kennesaw State Owls (11)
12: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks (14)
13: Central Arkansas Bears (21)
14: Villanova Wildcats (9)
15: Princeton Tigers (19)
16: Stony Brook Seawolves (NR)
17: North Dakota Fighting Hawks (NR)
18: Montana State Bobcats (6)
19: Florida A&M Rattlers (16)
20: North Carolina A&T Aggies (18)
21: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks (15)
22: Sam Houston State Bearkats (17)
23: Wofford Terriers (23)
24: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils (24)
25: Nicholls State Colonels (20)

The most significant win: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
The most significant loss: Montana State Bobcats
Which conference does your team play in?: Missouri Valley Football Conference

Dropped from poll: Towson Tigers (22), Southeastern Louisiana Lions (25)

[Reign of Terrier]

I have to highlight this little gem of hypocrisy. You want a more inclusive playoff but use the MFVC's success against lesser teams to show that they shouldn't get more teams in? UNI can't get credit for beating the snot out of Monmouth in 2017 but you want more teams like that in the playoffs all while criticizing the competitiveness of teams like WIU that actually beat UNI.


In the grand scheme of things, I find arguing over fourth place teams a waste of time (a position I came to in September or so). I just like being an MVFC contrarian and for some reason I've been dragged into it here ;) the only reason I'm litigating this here is because I've been called out.

Before I've favored a cap on conferences on four teams and I still kind of support that, but nothing is really going to change the fact that these teams being argued over have little chance of getting past the quarterfinal anyway.

I'm not going to waste breath on who on the bubble gets in because the bubble is pretty irrelevant.

My personal, subjective value judgment you'll disagree with is that I like seeing teams interact in the playoffs who don't normally. Is the formula I'm sympathetic too right now going to field the 24 best teams? Probably not. We may have 15 of the top 15 and 9 of the next 25. I understand disagreement there, but I really don't think anyone outside of the top 12 or so has a shot anyway.





Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Redbird 4th & short]

I am going to hide this right here...carry on. xdrunkyx

-----

Hello Preferred Walk-On,

We have received your AGS Top 25 vote on 10/27/2019 17:43:46

Your vote is listed below (previous week's rank in parentheses).

1: North Dakota State Bison (1)
2: James Madison Dukes (2)
3: Sac State Hornets (4)
4: Weber State Wildcats (5)
5: South Dakota State Jackrabbits (3)
6: Montana Grizzlies (7)
7: Northern Iowa Panthers (8)
8: Furman Paladins (10)
9: Illinois State Redbirds (13)
10: Dartmouth Big Green (12)
11: Kennesaw State Owls (11)
12: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks (14)
13: Central Arkansas Bears (21)
14: Villanova Wildcats (9)
15: Princeton Tigers (19)
16: Stony Brook Seawolves (NR)
17: North Dakota Fighting Hawks (NR)
18: Montana State Bobcats (6)
19: Florida A&M Rattlers (16)
20: North Carolina A&T Aggies (18)
21: Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks (15)
22: Sam Houston State Bearkats (17)
23: Wofford Terriers (23)
24: Central Connecticut State Blue Devils (24)
25: Nicholls State Colonels (20)

The most significant win: Southeast Missouri State Redhawks
The most significant loss: Montana State Bobcats
Which conference does your team play in?: Missouri Valley Football Conference

Dropped from poll: Towson Tigers (22), Southeastern Louisiana Lions (25)

Damn it Preferred, can you please stay focused !!!! This thread drifted so badly, why would you ruin it all by trying to get it back on track !!!!

Fun sucker !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

[MSUBobcat]

The core of my theory (the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway) hasn't been rebutted. I've gotten little data points wrong that I've corrected, but the overall point stands. I haven't moved the goal posts.

I advise you go back to the aforementioned thread. Redbird is a borderline liar when it comes to outlining my position.


https://media.giphy.com/media/F3G8ymQkOkbII/giphy.gif

In 2018, you might be right about their 4th & 5th teams, cuz... they didn't make the playoffs. In 2017, WIU (4th) gave WSU all they could handle, as has been mentioned. USD (5th) BEAT the 3rd SLC team on the road and then had a decent performance against the 6th seeded SHSU. 2016, 4th and 5th again didn't get invites. 2015, SDSU (4th) lost by 7 in Missoula and WIU (5th) WON @ Dayton (seriously, how do you lose a bid to Dayton!?!), then fell to seeded conference-mate Ill State. In 2014, SDSU was again 4th and beat my Bobcats in Bozeman before falling to NDSU and ISU-b won on the road at EKU, before losing to 8th seeded Chatty. In 2013, 4th and 5th again got no bids.

By my count, their 4th and 5th place teams are 4-4 in the playoffs since expansion with literally all 8 games on the road (conference-mates excluded since they already proved in conference play who was better). 2 losses were to seeds, 1 was to BBQ that was nearly a seed and 1 was in Wa-Griz, a very tough place to play. IMO, if a conference's 4th and 5th best teams (when invited) go 4-4 in ROAD playoff games with ZERO bad/unexpected losses, that's fairly impressive. Sounds to me like your argument isn't so much that "the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway" as much as it is that you aren't a fan of the expansion and subsequent "watering down" of the first round playoff games. 1st round teams (regardless of conference) typically do what 1st round teams do when they play a top 8 seed in round 2... LOSE. So unless it's going to take the 4th or 5th best MVFC team knocking off a seed before they earn your respect, I think you're out on an island on this one.

[Reign of Terrier]

https://media.giphy.com/media/F3G8ymQkOkbII/giphy.gif

In 2018, you might be right about their 4th & 5th teams, cuz... they didn't make the playoffs. In 2017, WIU (4th) gave WSU all they could handle, as has been mentioned. USD (5th) BEAT the 3rd SLC team on the road and then had a decent performance against the 6th seeded SHSU. 2016, 4th and 5th again didn't get invites. 2015, SDSU (4th) lost by 7 in Missoula and WIU (5th) WON @ Dayton (seriously, how do you lose a bid to Dayton!?!), then fell to seeded conference-mate Ill State. In 2014, SDSU was again 4th and beat my Bobcats in Bozeman before falling to NDSU and ISU-b won on the road at EKU, before losing to 8th seeded Chatty. In 2013, 4th and 5th again got no bids.

By my count, their 4th and 5th place teams are 4-4 in the playoffs since expansion with literally all 8 games on the road (conference-mates excluded since they already proved in conference play who was better). 2 losses were to seeds, 1 was to BBQ that was nearly a seed and 1 was in Wa-Griz, a very tough place to play. IMO, if a conference's 4th and 5th best teams (when invited) go 4-4 in ROAD playoff games with ZERO bad/unexpected losses, that's fairly impressive. Sounds to me like your argument isn't so much that "the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway" as much as it is that you aren't a fan of the expansion and subsequent "watering down" of the first round playoff games. 1st round teams (regardless of conference) typically do what 1st round teams do when they play a top 8 seed in round 2... LOSE. So unless it's going to take the 4th or 5th best MVFC team knocking off a seed before they earn your respect, I think you're out on an island on this one.My argument has little to do with seeds and all to do with conference positioning and the counterfactual (what would we expect the other bubble teams to do? I like their chances against the aforementioned opponents). I advise you go back to that thread and read those arguments because I'm not rehashing it here.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Redbird 4th & short]

The core of my theory (the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway) hasn't been rebutted. I've gotten little data points wrong that I've corrected, but the overall point stands. I haven't moved the goal posts.

I advise you go back to the aforementioned thread. Redbird is a borderline liar when it comes to outlining my position.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I'm still waiting for specific example of my "borderline lying".


By the way, when make points and then draw conclusions, and then get told how those points were wrong ... like saying MVFC 4th and 5th place teams have never won a playoff game as being proof they don't belong in playoffs, as if that alone would be proof enough .. only to be told they won 3 of 4 in in 2014-15 ... well, its kind of a thing .... and not a good thing.

[Reign of Terrier]

I'm still waiting for specific example of my "borderline lying".


By the way, when make points and then draw conclusions, and then get told how those points were wrong ... like saying MVFC 4th and 5th place teams have never won a playoff game as being proof they don't belong in playoffs, as if that alone would be proof enough .. only to be told they won 3 of 4 in in 2014-15 ... well, its kind of a thing .... and not a good thing.Go back to the thread, you'll find a long post outlining it.

It's also hilarious that you fixate on this one specific point about 4th/5th place MVFC teams that was early in the thread and that's your only argument. You're just incapable of absorbing more information or understanding the actual argument.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

Do you think Illinois State has a top 10 resume this year? This is basically what I'm asking. Because I feel like you have to imagine a resume out of whole cloth to give it to them. There's not a quality win there yet. The best team is 4-4.

Granted, all of their losses are "quality" too, but the lack of scrutiny they've gotten relative to teams 12-20 is bonkers to me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

So now the goalpost is ISU-r isn't a top 10 team? It's hard to do research in this thread. By the time you post something, we're arguing a different point. xrotatehx As many have said, after about 6-8 there's a whole cluster**** of team's that lack quality wins but have no bad losses or teams with good wins but a head scratching loss, so it's a toss-up and hopefully some cream rises to the top over the last month or placing the field will get.... interesting.

[Reign of Terrier]

So now the goalpost is ISU-r isn't a top 10 team? It's hard to do research in this thread. By the time you post something, we're arguing a different point. xrotatehx As many have said, after about 6-8 there's a whole cluster**** of team's that lack quality wins but have no bad losses or teams with good wins but a head scratching loss, so it's a toss-up and hopefully some cream rises to the top over the last month or placing the field will get.... interesting.Who said that was the goal post? That's just one point among many. As human beings we are capable of arguing multiple things in one thread. It's not hard. Illinois State illustrates the problem I'm highlighting. It's not moving or changing the argument, it's illustrating it.

You guys are pretty much case studies that if you repeat something enough times people believe it.

As for your other point, I am among "as many have said."

Illinois State has been pretty irrelevant since 2016 and they fell up in the ranking with less scrutiny because of the patch on their jersey.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

My argument has little to do with seeds and all to do with conference positioning and the counterfactual (what would we expect the other bubble teams to do? I like their chances against the aforementioned opponents). I advise you go back to that thread and read those arguments because I'm not rehashing it here.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Bruh.... My whole post was literally in response to what you, at that second, said your "theory" was. I even quoted it. Here it is again, "The core of my theory (the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway) hasn't been rebutted.

Find me some other "bubble teams" that went 4-4, all on the road, with only 2 losses in the 1st round (and one against a team that probably should have been seeded over SUU, who got the seed then got thumped by the team they stole the seed from). If there's evidence since expansion of other "last 4 in" teams with that kind of success, I'd be interested in reading your argument.

[Reign of Terrier]

Bruh.... My whole post was literally in response to what you, at that second, said your "theory" was. I even quoted it. Here it is again, "The core of my theory (the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway) hasn't been rebutted.

Find me some other "bubble teams" that went 4-4, all on the road, with only 2 losses in the 1st round (and one against a team that probably should have been seeded over SUU, who got the seed then got thumped by the team they stole the seed from). If there's evidence since expansion of other "last 4 in" teams with that kind of success, I'd be interested in reading your argument.As I said, you can find my argument more in depth in that old thread.

I haven't changed my argument, you're just too lazy to find it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

Who said that was the goal post? That's just one point among many. As human beings we are capable of arguing multiple things in one thread. It's not hard. Illinois State illustrates the problem I'm highlighting. It's not moving or changing the argument, it's illustrating it.

You guys are pretty much case studies that if you repeat something enough times people believe it.

As for your other point, I am among "as many have said."

Illinois State has been pretty irrelevant since 2016 and they fell up in the ranking with less scrutiny because of the patch on their jersey.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

If you're using prior years as reward or punishment for ranking teams this far into the season.... you're doing it WRONG. See 2018 SUU, 2019 UCD or 2019 Sac State for positive and negative examples from just the BSC as to why this is flawed reasoning.

[MSUBobcat]

As I said, you can find my argument more in depth in that old thread.

I haven't changed my argument, you're just too lazy to find it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I don't have any ****ing idea what thread you're talking to, but I'm not going to go "find" some old thread and read the whole thing. This is a pointless argument because you DO move goalposts, even if you call it "multiple arguments". Have a good weekend, Scooter.

[Reign of Terrier]

If you're using prior years as reward or punishment for ranking teams this far into the season.... you're doing it WRONG. See 2018 SUU, 2019 UCD or 2019 Sac State for positive and negative examples from just the BSC as to why this is flawed reasoning. it's easier to climb/retain position if you're in certain conferences, while it's easier to fall if you're in others.

Even if you don't deserve it (UC Davis)

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

I don't have any ****ing idea what thread you're talking to, but I'm not going to go "find" some old thread and read the whole thing. This is a pointless argument because you DO move goalposts, even if you call it "multiple arguments". Have a good weekend, Scooter.Me: "I have these old arguments that I'm not going to rehash, but the shortest way of putting it is this"
You:< rebuts the incomplete argument summary>
Me: that's not my argument, if you want to find it go to the old thread
You: I don't have time for that you're moving the goal posts!


/Scene

I mean, this is too easy bud.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

Me: "I have these old arguments that I'm not going to rehash, but the shortest way of putting it is this"
You:< rebuts the incomplete argument summary>
Me: that's not my argument, if you want to find it go to the old thread
You: I don't have time for that you're moving the goal posts!


/Scene

I mean, this is too easy bud.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Me: Responded to what you detailed in writing was the core of your "theory" and gave historical evidence refuting it
You: Tell me to go read some thread (without even mentioning WTF it is) and you claim I'm not responding to your "theory".

/scene

Pretty sure you're the only one thinking you're winning any debate points.

[ST_Lawson]

WIU (5th) WON @ Dayton (seriously, how do you lose a bid to Dayton!?!)...

https://i.imgur.com/e4JMymA.jpg

[Preferred Walk-On]

As I said, you can find my argument more in depth in that old thread.

I haven't changed my argument, you're just too lazy to find it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

It might help if you put a link to that thread here. Search is not always straightforward, but direct link is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Preferred Walk-On]

Damn it Preferred, can you please stay focused !!!! This thread drifted so badly, why would you ruin it all by trying to get it back on track !!!!

Fun sucker !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

Ha! Wasn't trying to get thread back on track. Was using the late-in-the-day-on-a-Friday to post a poll that I have been second guessing a fair amount. The fact that it is right in the middle of this drift is just gravy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It might help if you put a link to that thread here. Search is not always straightforward, but direct link is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was thinking the same thing. We ain't all gonna go do a bunch of homework so if you want to cite it, you better link it. Otherwise, drop it as a defense of the position cuz it doesn't count.

[clenz]

https://media.giphy.com/media/F3G8ymQkOkbII/giphy.gif

In 2018, you might be right about their 4th & 5th teams, cuz... they didn't make the playoffs. In 2017, WIU (4th) gave WSU all they could handle, as has been mentioned. USD (5th) BEAT the 3rd SLC team on the road and then had a decent performance against the 6th seeded SHSU. 2016, 4th and 5th again didn't get invites. 2015, SDSU (4th) lost by 7 in Missoula and WIU (5th) WON @ Dayton (seriously, how do you lose a bid to Dayton!?!), then fell to seeded conference-mate Ill State. In 2014, SDSU was again 4th and beat my Bobcats in Bozeman before falling to NDSU and ISU-b won on the road at EKU, before losing to 8th seeded Chatty. In 2013, 4th and 5th again got no bids.

By my count, their 4th and 5th place teams are 4-4 in the playoffs since expansion with literally all 8 games on the road (conference-mates excluded since they already proved in conference play who was better). 2 losses were to seeds, 1 was to BBQ that was nearly a seed and 1 was in Wa-Griz, a very tough place to play. IMO, if a conference's 4th and 5th best teams (when invited) go 4-4 in ROAD playoff games with ZERO bad/unexpected losses, that's fairly impressive. Sounds to me like your argument isn't so much that "the fourth and fifth best MVFC team aren't really that much impressive in the playoffs because they get matched up with teams that are historically less likely to win in the playoffs anyway" as much as it is that you aren't a fan of the expansion and subsequent "watering down" of the first round playoff games. 1st round teams (regardless of conference) typically do what 1st round teams do when they play a top 8 seed in round 2... LOSE. So unless it's going to take the 4th or 5th best MVFC team knocking off a seed before they earn your respect, I think you're out on an island on this one.You'll also find he slyly over inflates his point by using this 6-60 or whatever it is record as proof against anyone not UNI SDSU NDSU

How does he do it? He includes 4-7 in that. He's including 6th and 7th places teams on that. 6th and 7th place teams that no one would argue are good or playoff worthy. He's using bottom third of the conference teams lumped in with the top half of the conference to inflate the loss total to make it seem worse

I noticed it from the start, but waited to see anyone else call it out.

His argument is a 4th place MVFC team is less deserving because our 7th place teams lose a **** ton of valley games.

Are 4th and 5th place Valley teams title contenders? Nah. Are they better teams that have a better chance of winning a game or two than a second Big South or 3rd (many times second) SoCon team or a 3rd SLC team? Almost always right now.

And that's what the playoffs is for. The best teams to play for a title.

You want inclusion? Fine. That's what the AQs are for. Beyond the AQ it should be the best teams with the best chance of winning. Those teams aren't from the Big South or outside of the top 2 from the SoCon or SLC.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[uni88]

Reign is taking a beating ...

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/01/14/12/briangriffin.jpg?w968

[kalm]

yes, I (and others) have rebutted your point about 4th and 5th place MVFC teams .... 100% no doubt, that we have rebutted it and provided mountain of evidence. Just because you say we haven't, doesn't make it so .... we clearly have. And I already made clear how many fewer weak autobids we've played compared to Colonial, not to mention how many more road games we've played than Colonial. And since Colonial is the only conference even close to MVFC in quality depth .. that says alot ... because we know what happens to Big Sky and Southland playoff records when you exclude EWU and SHSU .. their 2nd place an lower teams drop their win % to .360 and .250 ... compared to our .630 .... right ?? Obviously ?? Which 100% reveals how little depth those conference have since 2011. Plus I pointed to the only 2 conferences who got 5 (or more) bids since 2011 ... and Colonial tanked both times they did it, while MVFC dominated both times they did it.


Right ?? Obviously indisputable facts ?? Mountains of evidence ??

Now maybe you simply don't agree with the mountain of evidence, starnge as that would be, but clearly we have rebutted it extensively. Or maybe ....


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/S_RYIylWEp4/hqdefault.jpg
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjp1fjL6MnlAhUhT98KHapLA8oQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DS_ RYIylWEp4&psig=AOvVaw0V8jslkxoUO-WNN-0z8SCO&ust=1572725337717002)

The CAA'a playoff win percentage is skewed by the number of 1st round home games against the NEC and Patriot.

[Redbird 4th & short]

The CAA'a playoff win percentage is skewed by the number of 1st round home games against the NEC and Patriot.
yes, prior to 2018 when they wrongly got 6 teams and actually played 2 playin games on road losing both ... from 2011-17, they had 8 playin games against traditionally weak autobid conferences and all 8 were at home. MVFC in same period had 7 playin games, with 5 of 7 on road, and just 1 of 7 against weak autobid on the road no less (2015 WIU at Dayton). He completely ignored those facts as presented ... couldn't acknowledge the blatantly obvious. Instead, he ... goalpost shift coming ..... dialed the clock back to 2008 for first time and cherry picked 4th place Colonial teams to say they have done better than most MVFC 4th place teams .. of course, I had already acknowledged 100% that Colonial dominated 2004 to 2010, with 2008-10 being especially dominant for Colonial. More recently, he out of nowhere decides to roll the clock forward to 2017-18 only .... goal post shifted again ... he couldnt include 2016, because MVFC had 3 teams in final 8, 2 in final 4, and YSU in finals ... our 3rd place team, not named UNI.

Anyway, by his logic .. with 10 conferences and 24 bids .... 7 would get his max of 3 bids and the 3 worst conferences would get 1 bid ... totaling 24 bids. So traditional 1 and 2 bid conferences would get 3 bids. And as he himself said, his approach would include the "top 15 and then just 9 of the next 25". Meaning, he has no problem excluding the #20 team because they are only 4th best MVFC team and giving the #40 team from Big South their bid .. because neither will win the Natty and no conference should have more than 3 .. simply because their 4th and 5th place teams aren't as good as their 1st and 2nd place teams ... even if their 3 TDs better than some weak conference's 2nd or 3rd best team. The also argue we need to thrown 2014-15 out because those were especially dominant year for MVFC, when another team .. none named NDSU, SDSU, UNI .... made it to Natty in 2014 ... ahem, my ISUr .. but by all means, exclude NDSU from every arguement and throw out our 2 best years ... then argue the point ... I guess.

So to sum up his approach .... his brilliant idea is to punish the best conference for being the best conference .. yet amazingly also accuses MVFC advocates (like me) of being in favor of "participation awards" ... talk about ass-backwards ???

[Professor Chaos]

The CAA'a playoff win percentage is skewed by the number of 1st round home games against the NEC and Patriot.
I put it together in a Power BI report over the offseason to break it down conference by conference and records against playoff teams from all the other conferences:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48441738542_05e30aaf8e_o.jpg

So if you combine the Patriot, Big South, NEC, Pioneer, and MEAC together the CAA has gotten 37 playoff games against teams from those conferences compared to 20 for the MVFC and 7 for the Big Sky. In those games the CAA is 28-9 (75.8%), the MVFC is 17-3 (85%), and the Big Sky is 4-3 (57.1% - you can thank San Diego for that).

Note that these win/loss numbers for each conference include only teams currently in that conference but records against teams from other conferences reflect the conference of the opponents they played (for instance Georgia Southern's wins and losses aren't included in the SOCON's totals but teams who played Georgia Southern in the playoffs do have those games counted in their respective conference's record against SOCON or Independent teams).

[Redbird 4th & short]

I put it together in a Power BI report over the offseason to break it down conference by conference and records against playoff teams from all the other conferences:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48441738542_05e30aaf8e_o.jpg

So if you combine the Patriot, Big South, NEC, Pioneer, and MEAC together the CAA has gotten 37 playoff games against teams from those conferences compared to 20 for the MVFC and 7 for the Big Sky. In those games the CAA is 28-9 (75.8%), the MVFC is 17-3 (85%), and the Big Sky is 4-3 (57.1% - you can thank San Diego for that).

Note that these win/loss numbers for each conference include only teams currently in that conference but records against teams from other conferences reflect the conference of the opponents they played (for instance Georgia Southern's wins and losses aren't included in the SOCON's totals but teams who played Georgia Southern in the playoffs do have those games counted in their respective conference's record against SOCON or Independent teams).
nice crunching there .. if its' not too much work, can you redial the years to 2011-18, then if easy also roll up 2004-2010. I guessing that will highlight and illustrate the MVFC era versus the Colonial era.

[Professor Chaos]

nice crunching there .. if its' not too much work, can you redial the years to 2011-18, then if easy also roll up 2004-2010. I guessing that will highlight and illustrate the MVFC era versus the Colonial era.
Pretty easy to do... top is 2004-2010 and bottom is 2011-2018.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49001480746_bd258752b7_o.jpg