The Bubble (2019 edition)

[Professor Chaos]

So I made an attempt to put together a list of the bubble teams to get an idea of who is in, can get in with a win, and who needs help. For some of the conferences where the autobid is in flux I just included the auto in with the playoff locks for simplicity's sake.

Autos and locks
Note: Teams with the autobid clinched in ALL CAPS - at large bids locked up in parenthesis

Big Sky (3): Montana, Weber St, Sacramento St, Montana St
Big South (0): MONMOUTH
CAA (1): JAMES MADISON, Villanova*
MVFC (3): NORTH DAKOTA ST, Illinois St, South Dakota St, Northern Iowa**
NEC (0): CENTRAL CONNECTICUT ST
OVC (1): Austin Peay, Southeast Missouri St
Patriot (0): Holy Cross (or whoever would get the auto if they lose next week)
Pioneer (0): SAN DIEGO
SOCON (0): WOFFORD
Southland (1): NICHOLLS, Central Arkansas

*Villanova is the weakest of the potential "locks". I think they're probably ok even if they lose to Delaware but they wouldn't be as comfortable as the rest of these teams (outside of UNI) if they lost.
**Probably not completely accurate to call UNI a lock because if they lose to 1-10 WIU at home in week 13 they're asking to be left out but that's not happening


So that's 9 at-arge bids spoken for leaving only 5 up for grabs. This is how I see the bubble stacking up with 12 teams vying for those 5 spots:

Win and you should be in - lose and you'll need help
Albany (@ Stony Brook)
Towson (vs Elon)
Southern Illinois (vs NDSU)
UT Martin* (@ Kentucky)

In the clubhouse on the bubble
Southeastern Louisiana

Win and you've got a shot - lose and you're done
North Dakota (vs SUU)
South Carolian St** (@ Norfolk St)
Kennesaw St (vs Gardner-Webb)
Furman (vs Point(D2))
The Citadel (vs Wofford)

Win and hope for a lot of help from the above teams
Chattanooga (@ VMI)
Maine (@ UNH)


*UT Martin is in if they beat an SEC Kentucky team but I don't think they have any shot without it
**If South Carolina St wins and NC A&T loses then SCSU goes to the Celebration Bowl softening the bubble


So I see the two CAA teams with good shots to lock up 2 of those 5 available bids but if either lose it's pretty unlikely they're selected at 7-5. SIU is unlikely to beat NDSU but I think they're in decent shape probably lumped in with the winners in that 3rd group of 5 if they lose. I think SLU has a strong argument at 7-4. So if SIU loses and that 3rd group of 5 teams all win you've got 7 teams going for potentially only 3 spots.

EDIT: Made a few changes with Nicholls' win over SLU. Also moved The Citadel up a tier since I think wins over Georgia Tech and potentially Wofford would make them look pretty good at 7-5.

[Reign of Terrier]

I think people are too hard on Furman. They're 7-2 against the FCS, those FBS losses are somewhat quality and they're not dropping out of the top 20 in the coaches poll IMO, which the committee uses, so I think they're in.

>Insert my spiel about 7 D1 wins and the socon getting two in.

I just don't see a team getting dropped from seeding consideration to out after a single loss to a team that will make the playoffs. I think people are overthinking this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

I think people are too hard on Furman. They're 7-2 against the FCS, those FBS losses are somewhat quality and they're not dropping out of the top 20 in the coaches poll IMO, which the committee uses, so I think they're in.

>Insert my spiel about 7 D1 wins and the socon getting two in.

I just don't see a team getting dropped from seeding consideration to out after a single loss to a team that will make the playoffs. I think people are overthinking this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
IMO Furman was at the top of a massive jumble between 9 and roughly 30 so it doesn't take as much as you'd think for them to shuffle down to that low to mid 20s range bubble territory. Kennesaw was in that same spot in the polls, lost to a team that will make the playoffs, and I think they're squarely on the bubble as well even with a win next week. They're probably going to be 8-1 vs FCS teams.

And don't try to act like the committee uses the Coach's poll for any kind of a guideline. The proof is in the pudding and the AGS Poll (and STATS poll for that matter) have been better than the Coach's poll at predicting who the committee will select as seeds and at-large teams.

[katss07]

Furman fans, wya?

FU has lost to the two teams they needed to beat in conference. Wofford and The Citadel. Playing one of Kennesaw’s punching bags this weekend won’t do anything for them. They’re firmly on the bubble.

[ST_Lawson]

*Probably not completely accurate to call UNI a lock because if they lose to 1-10 WIU at home in week 13 they're asking to be left out but that's not happening

It's a lock.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Maine's been on a roll and were s preseason top 5 team. Definitely get a bit of a "new staff" break from me. How much that excuses the bad start? I have no clue...

[Reign of Terrier]

IMO Furman was at the top of a massive jumble between 9 and roughly 30 so it doesn't take as much as you'd think for them to shuffle down to that low to mid 20s range bubble territory. Kennesaw was in that same spot in the polls, lost to a team that will make the playoffs, and I think they're squarely on the bubble as well even with a win next week. They're probably going to be 8-1 vs FCS teams.

And don't try to act like the committee uses the Coach's poll for any kind of a guideline. The proof is in the pudding and the AGS Poll (and STATS poll for that matter) have been better than the Coach's poll at predicting who the committee will select as seeds and at-large teams.Kennesaw will get in xlolx

You can think they don't deserve (I don't), but the committee is not going to leave them out.

Conflating the socon and the big south is bonkers.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

Kennesaw will get in xlolx

You can think they don't deserve (I don't), but the committee is not going to leave them out.

Conflating the socon and the big south is bonkers.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
So what has Furman done that's so much more impressive than what Kennesaw has done? If it comes down to 8-4 Furman or 10-2 Kennesaw for that last spot flip a coin I say.

[Reign of Terrier]

FWIW this is mine. I'm pretty confident in A/B getting in (21 teams).

I have a very hard time thinking that the any of the OVC/Southland/Southern will get a third team in before the other gets their second in.

I hate the CAA but if Nova/Towson/Albany take care of business they will get 4.

I don't actually think Chattanooga is on the bubble, I just put them there because of their win today. If citadel pulls the upset next week they would have an interesting case for a bid, but I don't think it's going to happenhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191117/2fcef31422c6cdace1919f63c19f7a64.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[grizband]

Maine's been on a roll and were s preseason top 5 team. Definitely get a bit of a "new staff" break from me. How much that excuses the bad start? I have no clue...Preseason rank should have no bearing in current rankings, this late in the season.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

So what has Furman done that's so much more impressive than what Kennesaw has done? If it comes down to 8-4 Furman or 10-2 Kennesaw for that last spot flip a coin I say.Beat Chattanooga. Play Georgia State and Virginia Tech competitive.

We can look to 2017 Furman that made the field with more losses and just as many quality wins.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[gofurman]

Furman fans, wya?

FU has lost to the two teams they needed to beat in conference. Wofford and The Citadel. Playing one of Kennesaw’s punching bags this weekend won’t do anything for them. They’re firmly on the bubble.

im here. Chattanooga is a good win. Chatt Took Woff to OT at Woff. Chat just BEAT Citadel (the team you name that is a quality team). Furman put their backup QB in and beat Chatt 35-20. So that’s good. Then Furman has TWO FBS games of some quality. You know the VTech team that is going to a bowl and beat Georgia Tech by FORTY FIVE today? The VT that beat UNC Miami and Wake Forest. That team barely beat Furman 24-17 at VT. Georgia State beat Tennesse by 8 at UT. GSU then beat us by 6 at GSU.

[gofurman]

Beat Chattanooga. Play Georgia State and Virginia Tech competitive.

We can look to 2017 Furman that made the field with more losses and just as many quality wins.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

funny. We posted same thing same time. If you really know scores Furman and KSU aren’t close. KSU can’t claim ONE win like Furman beating Chatt ON ROAD. Wofford (came back just to get to OT w Chatt before winning 34-35) and Citadel (lost to Chatt) will tell you that’s a tough tough win.

KSU played one team. Monmouth. Lost

[R.A.]

Let's say there are four teams (Listed Below) in the South Carolina/ Georgia region that are competing for three playoff bracket spots. We know one of those spots are gone already because Wofford is the SoCon's Automatic Bid. So there are three teams competing for two spots... who gets in? Who gets the seed and the first round bye? Who travels to what school for the opening round, and who gets left out of the 2019 FCS Playoffs?



(SoCon) Wofford

-Wofford is the SoCon's Automatic Bid playoff participant. The Terriers have one good win over in-conference rival Furman. The Terriers also have a decent loss, versus the MEAC's South Carolina State. Wofford also has a bad loss against their in-conference foe Samford.


(MEAC) SC State

-If SC State finishes 8-3 and doesn't earn the MEAC's Celebration Bowl bid, with SC State's win over SoCon Champ Wofford, the Bulldogs will have earned the most powerful victory out of these four schools listed. The SC State Bulldogs also have strong very close losses versus in-conference foes FAMU who is projected to finish with the best record in the MEAC although they are ineligible for Post-Season participation; and versus NC A&T who is projected to win the MEAC's post- season berth into the Celebration Bowl. SC State has no bad losses and is projected to finish with 7 FCS wins. But it's the MEAC, the FCS Conference that hasn't won a playoff game in two decades, and aside for the top three teams in the conference this season, the majority of the teams are mediocre to extremely weak.


(Big South) Kennesaw State

-As the Big South's second placed team, Kennesaw State has a decent résumé already built up this season. No one would say they have any strong wins, but the Owls beat most of the teams on their schedule convincingly. The Owls have a strong very close loss versus FBS Kent State. Kennesaw State has one bad loss, versus in- conference foe Monmouth who will probably earn the Big South's automatic bid into the playoffs.



(SoCon) Furman

-Furman will likely finish as the SoCon's second ranked team. The Paladins will finish with 7 FCS victories, but will have 0 strong wins. They have two very strong FBS losses versus Georgia State and Virginia Tech. They also have two bad losses, one versus in- conference foe Wofford, and the other versus in- conference foe The Citadel. Like Wofford, Furman has the advantage that Big South schools, and definitely MEAC Schools don't have... strength of conference. Furman and the SoCon also have the advantage of history, with FCS Titles and numerous playoff victories amongst their ranks.
---------------------------------
So out of these four schools;
-Who makes the playoffs?
-Who gets seeded, and what seed do they earn?
-What is the opening round match up? Who's the home team, who's the away team?
-And who gets left out?

[ming01]

SC State and Kennesaw better not get in

[gofurman]

Let's say there are four teams (Listed Below) in the South Carolina/ Georgia region that are competing for three playoff bracket spots. We know one of those spots are gone already because Wofford is the SoCon's Automatic Bid. So there are three teams competing for two spots... who gets in? Who gets the seed and the first round bye? Who travels to what school for the opening round, and who gets left out of the 2019 FCS Playoffs?

(SoCon) Wofford

-Wofford is the SoCon's Automatic Bid playoff participant. The Terriers have one good win over in-conference rival Furman. The Terriers also have a decent loss, versus the MEAC's South Carolina State. Wofford also has a bad loss against their in-conference foe Samford.


(MEAC) SC State

-If SC State finishes 8-3 and doesn't earn the MEAC's Celebration Bowl bid, with SC State's win over SoCon Champ Wofford, the Bulldogs will have earned the most powerful victory out of these four schools listed. The SC State Bulldogs also have strong very close losses versus in-conference foes FAMU who is projected to finish with the best record in the MEAC although they are ineligible for Post-Season participation; and versus NC A&T who is projected to win the MEAC's post- season berth into the Celebration Bowl. SC State has no bad losses and is projected to finish with 7 FCS wins. But it's the MEAC, the FCS Conference that hasn't won a playoff game in two decades, and aside for the top three teams in the conference this season, the majority of the teams are mediocre to extremely weak.


(Big South) Kennesaw State

-As the Big South's second placed team, Kennesaw State has a decent résumé already built up this season. No one would say they have any strong wins, but the Owls beat most of the teams on their schedule convincingly. The Owls have a strong very close loss versus FBS Kent State. Kennesaw State has one bad loss, versus in- conference foe Monmouth who will probably earn the Big South's automatic bid into the playoffs.



(SoCon) Furman

-Furman will likely finish as the SoCon's second ranked team. The Paladins will finish with 7 FCS victories, but will have 0 strong wins. They have two very strong FBS losses versus Georgia State and Virginia Tech. They also have two bad losses, one versus in- conference foe Wofford, and the other versus in- conference foe The Citadel. Like Wofford, Furman has the advantage that Big South schools, and definitely MEAC Schools don't have... strength of conference. Furman and the SoCon also have the advantage of history, with FCS Titles and numerous playoff victories amongst their ranks.
---------------------------------
So out of these four schools;
-Who makes the playoffs?
-Who gets seeded, and what seed do they earn?
-What is the opening round match up? Who's the home team, who's the away team?
-And who gets left out?


How is Furman beating Chattanooga on ROAD not a strong win? Chatt beat the very Citadel team you mention today. And Wofford was lucky to beat Chatt in OT. Woff had a last second drive to tie game and won 35-34 in OT on a failed two point conversion. So Chatt may well be tougher than Citadel. Furman was the only team of those you mention to win moderately easily. Down 9-0 ew put in backup QB And went on. A run of 35-11 to win 35-20. Much easier than Woff (OT) or Citadel (who LOST) to Chatt. Furman just went in (on road) and won.

And, as you say, Furman lost a nail biter to VTech who today beat GTech 45-0. FORTY FIVE to ZERO. Stop and think about that. This being the the same GTech team that beat the FBS USF team that crushed SC State. Furmans FBS losses are actually strengths of some sort vs the FCS teams you mention. Bowl bound VTech beat Furman 24-17 ... after trailing 14-3 at half. VTech had 3 points at half. GSU beat Tennessee and then hung on to hold off Furman 48-42 the next week. Furman again led at half against Georgia State who also may get in a bowl.

all that said we should finish 8-4. Take out TWO FBS losses - that’s a key that we played TWO FBS teams as most did not - that’s now Furman at 8-2. Take out POINT NAIA and ... Furman is 7-2 in a decent SoCon (5th or 6th conference) and will be a SoCon champion if Citadel were to beat Wofford

[R.A.]

How is Furman beating Chattanooga on ROAD not a strong win?
So The Citadel is Chattanooga strongest win? You're gonna ride that 2-7 Georgia Tech win The Citadel scored?



Chatt beat the very Citadel team you mention today. And Wofford was lucky to beat Chatt in OT. Woff had a last second drive to tie game and won 35-34 in OT on a failed two point conversion. So Chatt may well be tougher than Citadel. Furman was the only team of those you mention to win moderately easily. Down 9-0 ew put in backup QB And went on. A run of 35-11 to win 35-20. Much easier than Woff (OT) or Citadel (who LOST) to Chatt. Furman just went in (on road) and won.
The Citadel nor Chattanooga are making the Playoffs, neither is a contender for conference crown at this point. Neither of these schools are ranked. So, Furman is hanging their hats on beating non-contenders. Furman's best opportunities at having a solid victory was lost, repeatedly; whether it's your two FBS losses or your losses versus Wofford and The Citadel. Chattanooga isn't a strong win. How can it be?



And, as you say, Furman lost a nail biter to VTech who today beat GTech 45-0. FORTY FIVE to ZERO. Stop and think about that. This being the the same GTech team that beat the FBS USF team that crushed SC State. Furmans FBS losses are actually strengths of some sort vs the FCS teams you mention. Bowl bound VTech beat Furman 24-17 ... after trailing 14-3 at half. VTech had 3 points at half. GSU beat Tennessee and then hung on to hold off Furman 48-42 the next week. Furman again led at half against Georgia State who also may get in a bowl.
Furman has good losses, I have agree to that... they're still losses.



all that said we should finish 8-4. Take out TWO FBS losses - that’s a key that we played TWO FBS teams as most did not - that’s now Furman at 8-2. Take out POINT NAIA and ... Furman is 7-2 in a decent SoCon (5th or 6th conference) and will be a SoCon champion if Citadel were to beat Wofford

How's that better than SC State's potential 7-2 FCS record with a win over SoCon Automatic Bid Champ Wofford?

MEAC #3(SC State) beat SoCon #1 (Wofford) who SoCon #2 (Furman) lost to.

[bwbear]

I think the SLC analysis is pretty good. I worry about UCA's chances if we lay an egg next Friday at UIW. I think our resume is still pretty strong and a close loss on the road may not hurt us too much, but we need to win just to make sure there are no doubts.

Assuming UCA wins, it will be interesting to see how the committee handle the loser of SLU/Nicholls. Both teams beat UCA but have had losses that hurt their resume a bit. We had a 9-2 team get left at home a couple of years ago, so no telling what the committee will do regarding these teams.

[Professor Chaos]

funny. We posted same thing same time. If you really know scores Furman and KSU aren’t close. KSU can’t claim ONE win like Furman beating Chatt ON ROAD. Wofford (came back just to get to OT w Chatt before winning 34-35) and Citadel (lost to Chatt) will tell you that’s a tough tough win.

KSU played one team. Monmouth. Lost
I think you're really reaching if Chattanooga is your signature win. We'll see how much the committee values the close losses to those FBS teams. I think they do count for something but when it's that and beating Chattanooga as the top billed items on your resume it's pretty shaky IMO.

I think Furman is probably in at 8-4, I just think they're on the bubble with about 12 other teams.


I think the SLC analysis is pretty good. I worry about UCA's chances if we lay an egg next Friday at UIW. I think our resume is still pretty strong and a close loss on the road may not hurt us too much, but we need to win just to make sure there are no doubts.

Assuming UCA wins, it will be interesting to see how the committee handle the loser of SLU/Nicholls. Both teams beat UCA but have had losses that hurt their resume a bit. We had a 9-2 team get left at home a couple of years ago, so no telling what the committee will do regarding these teams.
And then they selected two 6-4 Southland teams last year. Your guess is as good as mine as to the fate of that SELA/Nicholls loser.

[Professor Chaos]

Just going through this exercise and putting together my poll ballot makes me think the bubble is going to be stronger this year than it was last year. Maybe that's just a product of an extra game on the regular season schedule for many teams but I think there's some teams that'll get left out this year that would've been in the field last year with a similar resume.

I may have overvalued Albany a bit too saying they're almost certainly in with a week 13 win at Stony Brook. I was looking at the fact that they'd be 2nd place all by themselves in the CAA with a head-to-head win over Towson but they've got some pretty "meh" losses against Richmond and Maine. They also missed both JMU and Nova on the CAA schedule this year so I don't know if you can give them credit for a 6-2 conference record over some of the 5-3 CAA teams that played both JMU and Nova. They might be more on the bubble, even with a win, than I initially thought.

[Reign of Terrier]

I think you're really reaching if Chattanooga is your signature win. We'll see how much the committee values the close losses to those FBS teams. I think they do count for something but when it's that and beating Chattanooga as the top billed items on your resume it's pretty shaky IMO.

I think Furman is probably in at 8-4, I just think they're on the bubble with about 12 other teams.


And then they selected two 6-4 Southland teams last year. Your guess is as good as mine as to the fate of that SELA/Nicholls loser.Here's the problem with the logic of UTC not being a good win:

Everyone here seems to be implying that a quality win has to be against a top 20ish team. The problem with that there are not going to be 24 teams with a top 25 win.

Just glancing at the AGS top 25, the top 10 pretty much all have losses to each other, while the next 10 have losses to teams not competing for playoff spots, if any at all.

The FCS playoffs are a battle of attrition. There's not a lot of teams, even in a 12 game season, that will get to the 7 division one win mark. I think there's 29 or so now.

I know I'm an obnoxious contrarian here, but I really do think a lot of poster either obsess over their own quality win standard, stretching it past its applicability OR they have a heavy bias against teams that are not in the purported power 3 conferences to where they make assessments that are on their face absurd in the sense that they're ignoring history.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

Here's the problem with the logic of UTC not being a good win:

Everyone here seems to be implying that a quality win has to be against a top 20ish team. The problem with that there are not going to be 24 teams with a top 25 win.

Just glancing at the AGS top 25, the top 10 pretty much all have losses to each other, while the next 10 have losses to teams not competing for playoff spots, if any at all.

The FCS playoffs are a battle of attrition. There's not a lot of teams, even in a 12 game season, that will get to the 7 division one win mark. I think there's 29 or so now.

I know I'm an obnoxious contrarian here, but I really do think a lot of poster either obsess over their own quality win standard, stretching it past its applicability OR they have a heavy bias against teams that are not in the purported power 3 conferences to where they make assessments that are on their face absurd in the sense that they're ignoring history.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
You've got a point about many teams in that range not having a top 20 win either but, for me at least, if a team doesn't have quality wins I look at who their losses are to and if they've got some questionable losses that lack of quality wins gets amplified. Take, for example, SIU (a team from a conference you think I'm biased in favor for - and maybe I am). They're 7-4 just like Furman and played two FBS games just like Furman. However they won one of those FBS games (against a really bad FBS team though), they have a win over 7-4 UT Martin who I think is a better win than Furman's win over Chattanooga, and they don't have a questionable loss like Furman does to The Citadel.

Some other teams from another if those big 3 conferences that I think are right in line with Furman right now are Albany and Towson. Albany has two questionable losses but they've also got a good win over Towson. Towson wins aren't great but they have a comparable win to Chattanooga with their win over Maine, they also beat The Citadel (who Furman of course lost to), and they don't any questionable losses.

In the end neither of us are on the committee and it's probably just as likely their consensus lines up with yours and Furman is in comfortable as they do with mine and they're firmly on the bubble. I mentioned earlier that if I had to choose one way or the other I think Furman is probably in at 8-4 but it wouldn't shock me to see them get snubbed again.

[Gangtackle11]

You've got a point about many teams in that range not having a top 20 win either but, for me at least, if a team doesn't have quality wins I look at who their losses are to and if they've got some questionable losses that lack of quality wins gets amplified. Take, for example, SIU (a team from a conference you think I'm biased in favor for - and maybe I am). They're 7-4 just like Furman and played two FBS games just like Furman. However they won one of those FBS games (against a really bad FBS team though), they have a win over 7-4 UT Martin who I think is a better win than Furman's win over Chattanooga, and they don't have a questionable loss like Furman does to The Citadel.

Some other teams from another if those big 3 conferences that I think are right in line with Furman right now are Albany and Towson. Albany has two questionable losses but they've also got a good win over Towson. Towson wins aren't great but they have a comparable win to Chattanooga with their win over Maine, they also beat The Citadel (who Furman of course lost to), and they don't any questionable losses.

In the end neither of us are on the committee and it's probably just as likely their consensus lines up with yours and Furman is in comfortable as they do with mine and they're firmly on the bubble. I mentioned earlier that if I had to choose one way or the other I think Furman is probably in at 8-4 but it wouldn't shock me to see them get snubbed again.

Villanova is a candidate of an 8-4 snub like Furman. 4-4 in the CAA & 3 wins over PL teams & a win over LIU. The dirty filthy birds have a chance to put Nova on the outside looking in. Best CAA wins are Towson & Maine.

I don’t get all these FCS pundits having Nova in, but I hope they are correct. xpeacex

[Professor Chaos]

Villanova is a candidate of an 8-4 snub like Furman. 4-4 in the CAA & 3 wins over PL teams & a win over LIU. The dirty filthy birds have a chance to put Nova on the outside looking in. Best CAA wins are Towson & Maine.

I don’t get all these FCS pundits having Nova in, but I hope they are correct. xpeacex
Yeah, I agree. I was probably wrong in making them a lock. I do think Nova is in a bit better spot than Furman at 8-4 because of that win over Towson but if the committee looks down on those Nova losses to UNH and SBU and/or if they give Furman more credit than I am for playing close in their FBS games it's completely plausible that they see it differently.

[walliver]

To save travel money, the committee will send Furman to SC State.
Wofford will make a bus trip to Kennesaw with the winner going to NDSU.

If Kennesaw doesn't get in, Wofford will travel to Orangeburg and Furman will go to the southernmost CAA team.

You can spend Furman's record anyway you want to, but the committee is much more political than we make it out to be and will find a way to get Furman into the field.

[katss07]

I think the SLC analysis is pretty good. I worry about UCA's chances if we lay an egg next Friday at UIW. I think our resume is still pretty strong and a close loss on the road may not hurt us too much, but we need to win just to make sure there are no doubts.

Assuming UCA wins, it will be interesting to see how the committee handle the loser of SLU/Nicholls. Both teams beat UCA but have had losses that hurt their resume a bit. We had a 9-2 team get left at home a couple of years ago, so no telling what the committee will do regarding these teams.
All I know is I CAN’T WAIT to see the reactions from these SoCon posters when the Nicholls/SELA loser gets in and the mighty Paladins are enjoying thanksgiving at home like last year!

SELA is probably a better bet to lose and still get in. Convincing win over UCA. Committee likes JSU win I’m sure.

[Mocs123]

The Citadel nor Chattanooga are making the Playoffs, neither is a contender for conference crown at this point.

Actually per Massey, Chattanooga currently holds a 32.2% chance of sharing the SoCon Championship. Is a 7-5 Chattanooga team going to get an at large bid? Probably not. We had our chance when we played JSU and JMU, and then we dropped a two point conversion in OT to lose to Wofford.

Wofford is going to the playoffs (AQ) and my guess is they will make a little noise (I don't think Wofford is a NC team or anything, but I bet they make the Semi's). I think Furman deserves a chance, but we'll have to leave that up to the committee. The Paladins certainly didn't do themselves any favors scheduling two FBS games and a non D1 (which they never do) this year.

Yes, SC State beat Wofford - that is a quality win no matter how you put it, but so did Samford when they were experimenting (or whatever the heck they were doing with their offense early in the season). Does that say that SC State is better than Furman? Since they don't play, I guess we'll never know, but I certainly don't think you can use the who beat who logic to state those things. I mean the #9 SoCon team beat the #1 OVC Team, does that mean that the entire SoCon is better than the OVC? That just tells us that on that particular Saturday ETSU outplayed Austin Peay. Georgia also lost to South Carolina, who lost to Tennessee, who lost to Georgia State - does that mean Georgia State is better than UGA?

[Gangtackle11]

Yeah, I agree. I was probably wrong in making them a lock. I do think Nova is in a bit better spot than Furman at 8-4 because of that win over Towson but if the committee looks down on those Nova losses to UNH and SBU and/or if they give Furman more credit than I am for playing close in their FBS games it's completely plausible that they see it differently.

The good thing about the UNH loss is the committee never looks down at UNH. Thankfully. xpeacex

[Mocs123]

To save travel money, the committee will send Furman to SC State.
Wofford will make a bus trip to Kennesaw with the winner going to NDSU.

If Kennesaw doesn't get in, Wofford will travel to Orangeburg and Furman will go to the southernmost CAA team.

You can spend Furman's record anyway you want to, but the committee is much more political than we make it out to be and will find a way to get Furman into the field.


It's sad that regionalization is that bad, but assuming those teams get in, you're probably spot on in your match ups. I'd take Furman over SC State and Wofford over KSU in those games.

[Herdistheword]

I personally think SIU should have a shot at one of the last spots even with a loss to NDSU. I’m not sure they will get it, but they have some quality wins.

[MR. CHICKEN]

The good thing about the UNH loss is the committee never looks down at UNH. Thankfully. xpeacex

......AN' COMMITTEE.....WELL AWARE.....UH YER STONY BROOK DEBACLE.....AN' KNOW DEEP DOWN........WAS UH DUBBYA....AN'......MAY EASE UP ON DUH PUNISHMENT......BRAWK!

[Professor Chaos]

......AN' COMMITTEE.....WELL AWARE.....UH YER STONY BROOK DEBACLE.....AN' KNOW DEEP DOWN........WAS UH DUBBYA....AN'......MAY EASE UP ON DUH PUNISHMENT......BRAWK!
So the committee should discount Nova's loss to Stony Brook because it happened due to an incredibly dumb holding penalty taken by a Nova player?


I personally think SIU should have a shot at one of the last spots even with a loss to NDSU. I’m not sure they will get it, but they have some quality wins.
I think they'll have a shot but their win against Youngstown is completely off the table as a quality win and their win over UTM is likely to get devalued a bit also if/when they get beat by Kentucky knocking them off the bubble. Does that win over awful FBS UMass hold enough water with the committee to ignore the 5 losses (none of which are bad losses in terms of who they were against) by SIU? That's the question we won't know the answer to until Sunday morning if SIU does lose to NDSU next Saturday.

[MR. CHICKEN]

So the committee should discount Nova's loss to Stony Brook because it happened due to an incredibly dumb holding penalty taken by a Nova player?


I think they'll have a shot but their win against Youngstown is completely off the table as a quality win and their win over UTM is likely to get devalued a bit also if/when they get beat by Kentucky knocking them off the bubble. Does that win over awful FBS UMass hold enough water with the committee to ignore the 5 losses (none of which are bad losses in terms of who they were against) by SIU? That's the question we won't know the answer to until Sunday morning if SIU does lose to NDSU next Saturday.


....DIDN'T SAY DISCOUNT...xsmhx....JES' MAYBE........LESS WEIGHT....xnodx.....BRAWK!

[UpstateBison]

Actually per Massey, Chattanooga currently holds a 32.2% chance of sharing the SoCon Championship. Is a 7-5 Chattanooga team going to get an at large bid? Probably not. We had our chance when we played JSU and JMU, and then we dropped a two point conversion in OT to lose to Wofford.

Wofford is going to the playoffs (AQ) and my guess is they will make a little noise (I don't think Wofford is a NC team or anything, but I bet they make the Semi's). I think Furman deserves a chance, but we'll have to leave that up to the committee. The Paladins certainly didn't do themselves any favors scheduling two FBS games and a non D1 (which they never do) this year.

Yes, SC State beat Wofford - that is a quality win no matter how you put it, but so did Samford when they were experimenting (or whatever the heck they were doing with their offense early in the season). Does that say that SC State is better than Furman? Since they don't play, I guess we'll never know, but I certainly don't think you can use the who beat who logic to state those things. I mean the #9 SoCon team beat the #1 OVC Team, does that mean that the entire SoCon is better than the OVC? That just tells us that on that particular Saturday ETSU outplayed Austin Peay. Georgia also lost to South Carolina, who lost to Tennessee, who lost to Georgia State - does that mean Georgia State is better than UGA?

What top 8 team is Wofford going to beat on the road to reach the semi’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gangtackle11]

UALBANY at 01:33


1st and 10 at UNH24
UALBANY drive start at 01:33.


1st and 10 at UNH24
Karl Mofor rush for no gain to the UNH24 (Lewis,Elijah).


2nd and 10 at UNH24
Timeout UNH, clock 01:26.


2nd and 10 at UNH24
Team rush for loss of 3 yards to the UNH27.


3rd and 13 at UNH27
Team rush for loss of 2 yards to the UNH29.


4th and 15 at UNH29
End of game, clock 00:00.


3 plays , -5 yards Time of Possession: 1:33







Villanova at 01:26


1st and 10 at SBU45
VILLANOVA drive start at 01:26.


1st and 10 at SBU45
Smith, Daniel sacked for loss of 13 yards to the VU42 (Elijah Duff), PENALTY VU holding declined.


2nd and 23 at VU42
Smith, Daniel sacked for loss of 9 yards to the VU33 (Jabari Reddock).


3rd and 32 at VU33
Timeout Stony Brook, clock 01:15.


3rd and 32 at VU33
Barlee, D. rush for 2 yards to the VU35 (Augie Contressa;Elijah Duff).


4th and 30 at VU35
Timeout Villanova, clock 00:28.


4th and 30 at VU35
Kerxton, Z. punt 29 yards to the SBU36, fair catch by Seba Nekhet.


3 plays , -20 yards Time of Possession: 1:05



Albany had same exact scenario as Nova had vs. SB. Albany had to kill 7 more seconds. They did it. Nova left 21 seconds on the clock for SB to get in range to kick winning football. The Nova staff elected to have their QB to take 22 yards of losses when a FG would beat them. Very poor strategy. I hope they learned from their mistake. May cost them a playoff berth if things go horribly wrong on Saturday. xpeacex

[FUBeAR]

Actually per Massey, Chattanooga currently holds a 32.2% chance of sharing the SoCon Championship. Is a 7-5 Chattanooga team going to get an at large bid? Probably not. We had our chance when we played JSU and JMU, and then we dropped a two point conversion in OT to lose to Wofford.

Wofford is going to the playoffs (AQ) and my guess is they will make a little noise (I don't think Wofford is a NC team or anything, but I bet they make the Semi's). I think Furman deserves a chance, but we'll have to leave that up to the committee. The Paladins certainly didn't do themselves any favors scheduling two FBS games and a non D1 (which they never do) this year.

Yes, SC State beat Wofford - that is a quality win no matter how you put it, but so did Samford when they were experimenting (or whatever the heck they were doing with their offense early in the season). Does that say that SC State is better than Furman? Since they don't play, I guess we'll never know, but I certainly don't think you can use the who beat who logic to state those things. I mean the #9 SoCon team beat the #1 OVC Team, does that mean that the entire SoCon is better than the OVC? That just tells us that on that particular Saturday ETSU outplayed Austin Peay. Georgia also lost to South Carolina, who lost to Tennessee, who lost to Georgia State - does that mean Georgia State is better than UGA?Just to keep the ‘record’ straight about Wofford for whatever it’s worth, their “experiment” with this new-fangled Forward Pass thing ended about halftime of the SCSt game. From counting ‘em up in the play-by-play, they attempted 18 passes in the 1st half of that game & 7 in the 2nd half (3 of which were intercepted), even though they were playing from 2 or 3 scores behind most of the 2nd half. Against Samford, they attempted 7 passes the entire game (3 completions for 6 yards). Since then, the Terriers have, typically thrown the ball 7 or 8 times/game, with Chatt being the only real outlier, as they were, again, playing from behind with the clock ticking away & threw 11 passes on their final possession to try to tie the game in regulation.

So...the ‘experimental’ Wofford Team lost the 1st half to SCSt 14-3 & the ‘regular’ Wofford Team lost the 2nd half to SCSt 14-10 and also lost to 5-6 / 4-4 SoCon, Samford, 21-14.

[ming01]

If Nova wins I see them getting a seed.

[Houndawg]

So the committee should discount Nova's loss to Stony Brook because it happened due to an incredibly dumb holding penalty taken by a Nova player?


I think they'll have a shot but their win against Youngstown is completely off the table as a quality win and their win over UTM is likely to get devalued a bit also if/when they get beat by Kentucky knocking them off the bubble. Does that win over awful FBS UMass hold enough water with the committee to ignore the 5 losses (none of which are bad losses in terms of who they were against) by SIU? That's the question we won't know the answer to until Sunday morning if SIU does lose to NDSU next Saturday.

SIU needs to make the game interesting to have a chance of getting in and even then I don't think the MVFC gets 5 if there are strong cases from other conferences. Too bad - SIU is a whole different team than started the year and with the exception of NDSU and Ark. St. could beat anybody on their schedule today.

[apaladin]

Everyone is given the committee way too much credit. In the past they have pretty much taken the coaches poll and eliminated the non-participants and filled out the bracket. To think they sit there for hours comparing scores etc is laughable. They simply don't do that. The only other qualifying factor is the politics that go on. See SLC last year. FU lost to a top 20 team yesterday and should fall 6-7 spots leaving them in the top 15 in the coaches poll. How does the committee leave a top 15 team out? Of course having said all that this will be the first year they do something different and leave FU out.

[Gil Dobie]

The good thing about the UNH loss is the committee never looks down at UNH. Thankfully. xpeacex

Because the committee never looks down at UNH, a UNH win next weekend puts them in the playoffs at 6-5. xeyebrowx

[Gangtackle11]

Because the committee never looks down at UNH, a UNH win next weekend puts them in the playoffs at 6-5. xeyebrowx

I wouldn’t bet against it myself. xpeacex

[kalm]

Everyone is given the committee way too much credit. In the past they have pretty much taken the coaches poll and eliminated the non-participants and filled out the bracket. To think they sit there for hours comparing scores etc is laughable. They simply don't do that. The only other qualifying factor is the politics that go on. See SLC last year. FU lost to a top 20 team yesterday and should fall 6-7 spots leaving them in the top 15 in the coaches poll. How does the committee leave a top 15 team out? Of course having said all that this will be the first year they do something different and leave FU out.

How many times have you been in the room? Or sat in on the multiple conference calls with the regional advisory committees and selection committee members that occur every week starting in October?

[apaladin]

Don't have to be. Just look at the coaches poll before selection the last few years. The teams selected vary very little from the coaches poll.

[Professor Chaos]

Everyone is given the committee way too much credit. In the past they have pretty much taken the coaches poll and eliminated the non-participants and filled out the bracket. To think they sit there for hours comparing scores etc is laughable. They simply don't do that. The only other qualifying factor is the politics that go on. See SLC last year. FU lost to a top 20 team yesterday and should fall 6-7 spots leaving them in the top 15 in the coaches poll. How does the committee leave a top 15 team out? Of course having said all that this will be the first year they do something different and leave FU out.
No they haven't. Historically they've been closer to the AGS Poll than they have to the Coaches or STATS Poll. And you obviously have never listened to or read any content about how they go about the selection process. Read ursus' sticky thread about the selection process, watch the video, and listen to the interview with Kent Haslam. You'd be surprised.

Or just keep your head in the sand about it and pulling things out of places where the sun don't shine.


Don't have to be. Just look at the coaches poll before selection the last few years. The teams selected vary very little from the coaches poll.
You're right go look at them.... then you'd realize you have no clue what you're talking about: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?216083-Which-poll-is-the-most-accurate-playoff-predictor

[kalm]

Here's my stab at it...

In:


Montana
Weber
SAC
Montana State
NDSU
ISUr
SDSU
UCA
APSU
SEMO
Wofford
JMU
Nova
Monmouth
CCSU
Patriot Champ
San Diago



Win and in (next opponent, SoS, best wins (.500 or better teams in Massey Top 60, or FBS)


Albany 7-4 @ 5-6 Stony Brook / 3 / UNH, Towson

Towson 7-4 vs 4-6 Elon / 12 / Maine, Citadel

Furman VS Point (DII) / 41 / Chattanooga

Tennessee Martin 7-4 @ 5-5 Kentucky / 47 /

UNI 7-4 VS 1-10 WIU / 4 / Illinois State

SIU 7-4 VS 11-0 NDSU / 28 / UTM, UMASS.

Nicholls 7-4 @ 7-3 SELA / 48 / McNeese, UCA,

SELA 7-3 VS Nicholls / 53 / Central Arkansas


Slim hopes but still alive:


Maine 6-5 @ 5-5 UNH / 20 / Albany

The Citadel 6-5 VS 7-3 Wofford / 55 / Georgia Tech, Furman

Kennesaw 9-2 VS 3-8 Gardner-Webb / 102 /

EKU 6-5 @ JSU 6-5 / 75 /

JSU VS 6-5 EKU / 61 / EWU, UTC

Tennesse Tech 6-5 @ 2-9 Tennessee State / 67 /

SHSU 6-5 @ 5-6 HBU / 72 / Nicholls, McNeese

McNeese 6-5 @ 4-7 / 43 / Lamar / Alcorn State, SELA

UND 6-4 VS 3-8 SUU / 15 / Montana State (Davis is 5-6 and 16th in Massey, and SHSU is 6-5 and 52 in Massey)

EWU 6-5 VS 5-6 PSU / 11 / UND



Seventeen locks right now but assuming Furman beats Point that's 18 locks. Assuming UT Martin loses to Kentucky, they are out. SELA VS NIcholls adds another to the locks, making it 19. UNI beating WIU is also a relatively safe bet so call it 20 locks.


Remaining Bubble of 8 teams for four spots based on probable outcomes from this week's games:


KSU 10-2 (close to being a lock but there's precedent for them being not).

SIU 7-5 (No bad losses, but how much does the committee value the UMASS win?)

Maine 7-5 (Would close on a 5 game win streak, strong SoS, no bad losses, only quality win is Albany)

The Citadel (Toss up game with Wofford so I kept them in here...GT better FBS win than UMASS but bad loss to VMI)

Loser of SELA-NIcholls 7-4 or 7-5 (lack of OOC quality wins although JSU might be viewed as one for SELA)

McNeese 7-5 (Lost h2h to Nicholls but beat SELA and has a slightly better SoS than both)

UND 7-4 (Solid SoS, but loss to EWU. How much does the committee value the Davis and SHSU wins?)

EWU 7-5 (4 game win streak, highest SoS of this group, bad loss to Idaho, only decent win UND)


Any upsets in the "win and in" group and it muddies things further but this last group of course may have an upset or two as well. I think the rest are more than likely already out.

[Schism55]

Because the committee never looks down at UNH, a UNH win next weekend puts them in the playoffs at 6-5. xeyebrowx
Not this season, 0% chance UNH gets in. Fightin Scaranos are toast

[Mocs123]

Here's my stab at it...

In:


Montana
Weber
SAC
Montana State
NDSU
ISUr
SDSU
UCA
APSU
SEMO
Wofford
JMU
Nova
Monmouth
CCSU
Patriot Champ
San Diago



Win and in (next opponent, SoS, best wins (.500 or better teams in Massey Top 60, or FBS)


Albany 7-4 @ 5-6 Stony Brook / 3 / UNH, Towson

Towson 7-4 vs 4-6 Elon / 12 / Maine, Citadel

Furman VS Point (DII) / 41 / Chattanooga

Tennessee Martin 7-4 @ 5-5 Kentucky / 47 /

UNI 7-4 VS 1-10 WIU / 4 / Illinois State

SIU 7-4 VS 11-0 NDSU / 28 / UTM, UMASS.

Nicholls 7-4 @ 7-3 SELA / 48 / McNeese, UCA,

SELA 7-3 VS Nicholls / 53 / Central Arkansas


Slim hopes but still alive:


Maine 6-5 @ 5-5 UNH / 20 / Albany

The Citadel 6-5 VS 7-3 Wofford / 55 / Georgia Tech, Furman

Kennesaw 9-2 VS 3-8 Gardner-Webb / 102 /

EKU 6-5 @ JSU 6-5 / 75 /

JSU VS 6-5 EKU / 61 / EWU, UTC

Tennesse Tech 6-5 @ 2-9 Tennessee State / 67 /

SHSU 6-5 @ 5-6 HBU / 72 / Nicholls, McNeese

McNeese 6-5 @ 4-7 / 43 / Lamar / Alcorn State, SELA

UND 6-4 VS 3-8 SUU / 15 / Montana State (Davis is 5-6 and 16th in Massey, and SHSU is 6-5 and 52 in Massey)

EWU 6-5 VS 5-6 PSU / 11 / UND



Seventeen locks right now but assuming Furman beats Point that's 18 locks. Assuming UT Martin loses to Kentucky, they are out. SELA VS NIcholls adds another to the locks, making it 19. UNI beating WIU is also a relatively safe bet so call it 20 locks.


Remaining Bubble of 8 teams for four spots based on probable outcomes from this week's games:


KSU 10-2 (close to being a lock but there's precedent for them being not).

SIU 7-5 (No bad losses, but how much does the committee value the UMASS win?)

Maine 7-5 (Would close on a 5 game win streak, strong SoS, no bad losses, only quality win is Albany)

The Citadel (Toss up game with Wofford so I kept them in here...GT better FBS win than UMASS but bad loss to VMI)

Loser of SELA-NIcholls 7-4 or 7-5 (lack of OOC quality wins although JSU might be viewed as one for SELA)

McNeese 7-5 (Lost h2h to Nicholls but beat SELA and has a slightly better SoS than both)

UND 7-4 (Solid SoS, but loss to EWU. How much does the committee value the Davis and SHSU wins?)

EWU 7-5 (4 game win streak, highest SoS of this group, bad loss to Idaho, only decent win UND)


Any upsets in the "win and in" group and it muddies things further but this last group of course may have an upset or two as well. I think the rest are more than likely already out.





Not that I think we'll get in (because I think chances are VERY slim) but I think if The Citadel is in the conversation, Chattanooga has to be too. That being said both have to win Saturday to even be uttered in the conversation.

[walliver]

The only thing we know with any certainty is that there will be one head-scratching inclusion and one head-scratching exclusion.

[kalm]

Not that I think we'll get in (because I think chances are VERY slim) but I think if The Citadel is in the conversation, Chattanooga has to be too. That being said both have to win Saturday to even be uttered in the conversation.

Fair enough. The deal breakers IMO are the GT win for Citadel and a one point road loss to you guys. If you won by 2+ scores and had one OOC resume builder I’d agree.

[gofurman]

The only thing we know with any certainty is that there will be one head-scratching inclusion and one head-scratching exclusion.

Walliver - you got that right.. I always feel for at least one team that is clearly top 20 and is left out and then UNH at 45th gets in :D

[PaladinFan]

Furman took a calculated risk this season. They scheduled two FBS games and struggled to fill a 12th spot on their schedule, eventually settling on a sub-D1 program. Maybe that decision sinks their playoff hopes.

They played incredibly well in those two FBS contests, but ultimately didn't win. Furman has lost two FCS game to incredibly similar teams - Wofford and the Citadel. They really don't have any big black eyes on their schedule - all of their losses have been to pretty good teams.

The program mantra this season was "leave no doubt." Last season's snub stung. Unfortunately, Furman left it up to the committee again.

[gofurman]

No they haven't. Historically they've been closer to the AGS Poll than they have to the Coaches or STATS Poll. And you obviously have never listened to or read any content about how they go about the selection process. Read ursus' sticky thread about the selection process, watch the video, and listen to the interview with Kent Haslam. You'd be surprised.

Or just keep your head in the sand about it and pulling things out of places where the sun don't shine.


You're right go look at them.... then you'd realize you have no clue what you're talking about: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?216083-Which-poll-is-the-most-accurate-playoff-predictor

Chaos, that is good data.
And supports my Paladins being in this year :D because I have to think we drop from 8th or whatever in AGS to maybe 15/16 at worst after losing to Wofford? I don't know.. something like that. It would take a pretty monumental crap to leave out a team ranked 15 or 16 especially when the IVY don't participate and one HBCU will go the bowl game. Essentially with the IVY and HBCU that means the top 20 AGS should be safely in playoffs

[gofurman]

Furman took a calculated risk this season. They scheduled two FBS games and struggled to fill a 12th spot on their schedule, eventually settling on a sub-D1 program. Maybe that decision sinks their playoff hopes.

They played incredibly well in those two FBS contests, but ultimately didn't win. Furman has lost two FCS game to incredibly similar teams - Wofford and the Citadel. They really don't have any big black eyes on their schedule - all of their losses have been to pretty good teams.

The program mantra this season was "leave no doubt." Last season's snub stung. Unfortunately, Furman left it up to the committee again.

PaladinFan, will you please reply to my PMs here? I respect your opinions and want some good discourse.

[Mocs123]

Pre-season we knew Furman was a solid team, the one concern was the youth at QB. Grainger played really well early, but I think he had a few "freshman" moments later in the year that cost the Paladins a game or two. I'll also say that I think Furman's schedule has bitten them a bit. This is unusual for a team that normally plays an solid OOC schedule, but I think Furman either had to win the SoCon autobid or they were destined to be on the bubble. I still think Furman deserves an at large bid but we will see how the committee sees it.

[Reign of Terrier]

Congrats to Chattanooga for winning 6 of their 8 last games if they beat VMI.

That team has come together and will compete for the socon next year. I have really nothing but good things to say about Chattanooga.

However, they will not get in the playoffs this season.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Also, here's a simple heuristic for determining who is hosting games:

If the teams are from different sides of the Mississippi River, the one west will host.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[PaladinFan]

Congrats to Chattanooga for winning 6 of their 8 last games if they beat VMI.

That team has come together and will compete for the socon next year. I have really nothing but good things to say about Chattanooga.

However, they will not get in the playoffs this season.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I think the SoCon next year will be a fun league to watch. Lot of teams return a lot of good players.

[gofurman]

Pre-season we knew Furman was a solid team, the one concern was the youth at QB. Grainger played really well early, but I think he had a few "freshman" moments later in the year that cost the Paladins a game or two. I'll also say that I think Furman's schedule has bitten them a bit. This is unusual for a team that normally plays an solid OOC schedule, but I think Furman either had to win the SoCon autobid or they were destined to be on the bubble. I still think Furman deserves an at large bid but we will see how the committee sees it.

Mocs, I agree . I HATE that Furman takes 12 game seasons and takes $ over success on field in a sense. Replace GSU with someone from Big South like Campbell or whomever and Furman isn't even on the bubble finishing 9-3. I personally think Furman is in at 8-4 since that is TWO FBS so really 8-2... (truly unbiased w AGS probably ranking us 15/16 at worst) but I do wish Furman would not ever schedule TWO FBS again. never ever. ANd yes, I discount POINT so we will be 7-2 in FCS with our best win vs you guys on road AT Chatt.

Congratrs on your program improving!

In 11 game years we are more like everyone else.. ONE FBS and ten FCS which is fine. And that is most years.

[R.A.]

Actually per Massey, Chattanooga currently holds a 32.2% chance of sharing the SoCon Championship. Is a 7-5 Chattanooga team going to get an at large bid? Probably not. We had our chance when we played JSU and JMU, and then we dropped a two point conversion in OT to lose to Wofford.

Come on man...


Wofford is going to the playoffs (AQ) and my guess is they will make a little noise (I don't think Wofford is a NC team or anything, but I bet they make the Semi's). I think Furman deserves a chance, but we'll have to leave that up to the committee. The Paladins certainly didn't do themselves any favors scheduling two FBS games and a non D1 (which they never do) this year.

Yes, SC State beat Wofford - that is a quality win no matter how you put it, but so did Samford when they were experimenting (or whatever the heck they were doing with their offense early in the season). Does that say that SC State is better than Furman? Since they don't play, I guess we'll never know, but I certainly don't think you can use the who beat who logic to state those things. I mean the #9 SoCon team beat the #1 OVC Team, does that mean that the entire SoCon is better than the OVC? That just tells us that on that particular Saturday ETSU outplayed Austin Peay. Georgia also lost to South Carolina, who lost to Tennessee, who lost to Georgia State - does that mean Georgia State is better than UGA?

We're using other factors in addition to head-to-head matches. We're looking at records, competitiveness in their contests, strength of schedule, etc, etc...

A lot of SC State detractors keep comparing SC State with teams that are no longer in competition for a FCS Playoff spot, although the Bulldogs currently are in competition for a playoff spot. Why not compare them to the other teams that are currently in competition as well?

[R.A.]

Chaos, that is good data.
And supports my Paladins being in this year :D because I have to think we drop from 8th or whatever in AGS to maybe 15/16 at worst after losing to Wofford? I don't know.. something like that. It would take a pretty monumental crap to leave out a team ranked 15 or 16 especially when the IVY don't participate and one HBCU will go the bowl game. Essentially with the IVY and HBCU that means the top 20 AGS should be safely in playoffs

Let me just ask a logical question.

After Week One, how did Wofford still receive a higher ranking than SC State after SC State beat Wofford?

How does that work?

I'm asking because it was week one, there was only one game to judge instead of a season's worth of games, and in that one game SC State won.

[kalm]

Also, here's a simple heuristic for determining who is hosting games:

If the teams are from different sides of the Mississippi River, the one west will host.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I know you’re smarter than this...therefore troll.

[that guy]

Because the committee never looks down at UNH, a UNH win next weekend puts them in the playoffs at 6-5. xeyebrowx
Maybe a seed too:D. But seriously after this weeks results quite a few teams will be in the hunt for the 7,8 seeds I think.

[PaladinFan]

I keep thinking the committee is going to find a way to justify putting Kennesaw State in over Furman.

[Reign of Terrier]

Also, I've been an advocate of SC State this year, but as of today, even though I think they deserve to get into the playoffs, I don't think they will.


I think the final bid (in the sense that it's harder for us folks at AGS to project, not that it's the last team in) will go to Kennesaw State.

[Reign of Terrier]

I know you’re smarter than this...therefore troll.

Not really, most of the seeds this year are west of the Mississippi, and those that aren't are big state schools like Montana State.


Wofford can spend that Jerry Richardson booster money to host the likes of UNH/Elon/Charleston Southern, but Montana/UNI/Montana State? Get outta here!


I don't see a lot of teams with strong playoff tradition east of the Mississippi this year, which means they probably don't know how competitive it is to bid or at the very least don't have the attendance numbers.

[Reign of Terrier]

Let me just ask a logical question.

After Week One, how did Wofford still receive a higher ranking than SC State after SC State beat Wofford?

How does that work?

I'm asking because it was week one, there was only one game to judge instead of a season's worth of games, and in that one game SC State won.

It's because you have to look at the aggregate performance of teams, not just one individual game. If we looked just at an individual game, the citadel would be in the playoffs like yesterday, no need to play a game Charleston.

I've said many times that I think South Carolina State deserves to be in the FCS playoffs if they end up going 8-3. However, they're not ranked high enough in enough polls and they're not going to get a "key" win this week. I think the committee will leave them out. I think their resume is comparable to Furman, Kennesaw state and others, but at the end of the day the rankings are going to anchor perception of them.

[katss07]

I keep thinking the committee is going to find a way to justify putting Kennesaw State in over Furman.
Well they justified putting in a 6-5 Incarnate Word team over Furman last year. Wouldn’t shock me if KSU is in.

[Reign of Terrier]

Well they justified putting in a 6-5 Incarnate Word team over Furman last year. Wouldn’t shock me if KSU is in.

I *think* Furman is safer than that Furman team. Being 7-2 against the FCS (compared to 6-3) and being a consensus top 20 team will do that

[R.A.]

It's because you have to look at the aggregate performance of teams, not just one individual game. If we looked just at an individual game, the citadel would be in the playoffs like yesterday, no need to play a game Charleston.

After Week One, the aggregate performance was just one game's worth of data... Week One.

Perhaps I should rephrase, after game one,
when SC State defeated Wofford, how could Wofford still be ranked ahead of SC State? After all, there's only one game's worth of data; and the data says SC State was better than Wofford.



I've said many times that I think South Carolina State deserves to be in the FCS playoffs if they end up going 8-3. However, they're not ranked high enough in enough polls and they're not going to get a "key" win this week. I think the committee will leave them out. I think their resume is comparable to Furman, Kennesaw state and others, but at the end of the day the rankings are going to anchor perception of them.

SC State already has a key win, Wofford.

How many "Key Wins" does SC State need? How many Key wins do other bubble teams have??

[kalm]

Not really, most of the seeds this year are west of the Mississippi, and those that aren't are big state schools like Montana State.


Wofford can spend that Jerry Richardson booster money to host the likes of UNH/Elon/Charleston Southern, but Montana/UNI/Montana State? Get outta here!


I don't see a lot of teams with strong playoff tradition east of the Mississippi this year, which means they probably don't know how competitive it is to bid or at the very least don't have the attendance numbers.

So you’re saying seeded teams tend to host? And that Montana (your example) is not one of these? And you were just pointing out a coincidence?

Ok.

[kalm]

After Week One, the aggregate performance was just one game's worth of data... Week One.

Perhaps I should rephrase, after game one,
when SC State defeated Wofford, how could Wofford still be ranked ahead of SC State? After all, there's only one game's worth of data; and the data says SC State was better than Wofford.



SC State already has a key win, Wofford.

How many "Key Wins" does SC State need? How many Key wins do other bubble teams have??

I’d say one more outside of the MEAC and SoCon.

[Mocs123]

After Week One, the aggregate performance was just one game's worth of data... Week One.

Perhaps I should rephrase, after game one,
when SC State defeated Wofford, how could Wofford still be ranked ahead of SC State? After all, there's only one game's worth of data; and the data says SC State was better than Wofford.



SC State already has a key win, Wofford.

How many "Key Wins" does SC State need? How many Key wins do other bubble teams have??

If it makes you feel any better (and you are obviously angry about the way the rankings were), I do believe there is a bias toward historically good teams. Wofford has been one of the most consistently good teams in FCS over the last decade or so, some voters (in the coaches, stats, and AGS) give historically good teams some slack, right or wrong. I believe this bias has helped some teams (like UNH make the playoffs on years they probably shouldn't, and some teams out when they should have been in -like my Mocs in 2013). It's also harder for teams to climb in the polls than drop in the polls, which is one reason Wofford was ranked higher than SC State - Wofford simply started higher in the polls. JSU and EWU are two teams that started high in the polls and it took them some time to drop out of the polls. For example The Citadel was "ranked" #28 on the AGS poll this past week, Chattanooga, which did not receive any votes in the AGS poll, beat them, but I would not be surprised if The Citadel still has more votes despite losing the head to head and having similar records.

I'm not sure what Wofford was doing against SC State - We've been playing Wofford every year since 1997 and I have NEVER seen them attempt 20 passes in a game, but despite that - Wofford is absolutely a quality win for SC State and should be viewed as such by the committee. The committee will look at the whole body of work to make their decision though (and I'm not saying you should be in our out). I will say that the MEAC doesn't have a good record in the playoffs so if you want to get more teams in, the teams that go need to win some playoff games. Conferences get more teams in by A) winning OOC games and B) winning playoff games.

[R.A.]

I’d say one more outside of the MEAC and SoCon.

How many Key wins do other bubble teams have??

What other Bubble teams have a victory over a conference winner and automatic bid recipient?

[Mocs123]

The SoCon's last place team has a victory over a conference winner and automatic bid recipient. That means they have one quality win, but somehow I don't think the selection committee is going to give a 3-9 team an at large bid.

The Citadel is a bubble team that (if they win this weekend) would have wins over Furman, Wofford, and Georgia Tech.

[kalm]

How many Key wins do other bubble teams have??

What other Bubble teams have a victory over a conference winner and automatic bid recipient?

Wofford is a good win. UND (for example) has a better win in Montana State. Conference winners and AQ recipients aren’t metrics. Cal Poly beat the Pioneer champ. The Patriot League champ may have lost its first 7.

SoS matters and the MEAC, while possibly improving, doesn’t provide a strongest enough resume for a 3 loss at-large team despite the Wofford win.

[R.A.]

The SoCon's... The Citadel is a bubble team that (if they win this weekend) would have wins over Furman, Wofford, and Georgia Tech.

True.

[WileECoyote06]

The SoCon's last place team has a victory over a conference winner and automatic bid recipient. That means they have one quality win, but somehow I don't think the selection committee is going to give a 3-9 team an at large bid.

The Citadel is a bubble team that (if they win this weekend) would have wins over Furman, Wofford, and Georgia Tech.

The Citadel has a strong case with a win. Depends on how the committee views the VMI loss.

Also, SCSU isn't 3-9. xdontknowx

[KSUFAN]

I keep thinking the committee is going to find a way to justify putting Kennesaw State in over Furman.

PaladinFan you don't seem as confident as you were a couple weeks ago when you said "If Furman beats VMI, they are almost certainly in the post season. You can wish it were different, but it won't be." You should know better than most not to leave it up to the committee! You can hope they don't dig deep into the teams Furman beat and just go on face value of 7 FCS wins. Not sure you get the credit people think for "close" losses. Should be interesting.

[Reign of Terrier]

After Week One, the aggregate performance was just one game's worth of data... Week One.

Perhaps I should rephrase, after game one,
when SC State defeated Wofford, how could Wofford still be ranked ahead of SC State? After all, there's only one game's worth of data; and the data says SC State was better than Wofford.



SC State already has a key win, Wofford.

How many "Key Wins" does SC State need? How many Key wins do other bubble teams have??

Look, I don't disagree with your reasoning at all. I just look at where rankings and stuff are right now and I don't see SC State getting in the field. I think they deserve it, I just don't think it will happen.


So you’re saying seeded teams tend to host? And that Montana (your example) is not one of these? And you were just pointing out a coincidence?

Ok.

(sigh), you're going to make me look up non-seeded East vs west games aren't you? Without showing my work too hard the only three games that I see that's defied that little rule of thumb is Western Illinois going to Coastal in 2010, Weber going to Chattanooga in 2016 and South Dakota going to Nicholls in 2017. But there's more instances of it being the other way.


If it makes you feel any better (and you are obviously angry about the way the rankings were), I do believe there is a bias toward historically good teams. Wofford has been one of the most consistently good teams in FCS over the last decade or so, some voters (in the coaches, stats, and AGS) give historically good teams some slack, right or wrong. I believe this bias has helped some teams (like UNH make the playoffs on years they probably shouldn't, and some teams out when they should have been in -like my Mocs in 2013). It's also harder for teams to climb in the polls than drop in the polls, which is one reason Wofford was ranked higher than SC State - Wofford simply started higher in the polls. JSU and EWU are two teams that started high in the polls and it took them some time to drop out of the polls. For example The Citadel was "ranked" #28 on the AGS poll this past week, Chattanooga, which did not receive any votes in the AGS poll, beat them, but I would not be surprised if The Citadel still has more votes despite losing the head to head and having similar records (Actually Chattanooga has 1 more D1 win).

I'm not sure what Wofford was doing against SC State - We've been playing Wofford every year since 1997 and I have NEVER seen them attempt 20 passes in a game, but despite that - Wofford is absolutely a quality win for SC State and should be viewed as such by the committee. The committee will look at the whole body of work to make their decision though (and I'm not saying you should be in our out). I will say that the MEAC doesn't have a good record in the playoffs so if you want to get more teams in, the teams that go need to win some playoff games. Conferences get more teams in by A) winning OOC games and B) winning playoff games.

This is basically the problem I have with the current FCS framework. I mean, the MVFC is the sole power conference in my opinion. The Big Sky may be good but they need another year of consistency IMO.

But it's a little frustrating for me, as a fan of a team in the southern conference, which is a top 6 conference, that we have to debate whether Furman is "in" or not because they're 7-2 against FCS teams, likely finishing 8-4 on the year, even though they were in the top 10 this week.

Meanwhile, you can have a team like Illinois State that has blown most of their big games since 2016 and fall up to be in the top 10 with a single good victory. I mean, we saw what Wofford did to Furman yesterday. What if we lost to Chattanooga on that two point attempt and all other games stood the same? The narrative becomes the socon is inconsistent and bad, but the Valley gets to say that it's "super competitive and good." It's all about framing.

It's a worse problem for the Big Sky right now IMO. People forget how much the Big Sky just totally eats in the playoffs, regardless of the seeding. Yes, Montana and EWU are traditionally powerhouses in the playoffs, but let's not forget some really bad Big Sky losses *and* the fact that most of the teams this year are below .500.

The problem is the public perception that all these teams are good, so any loss, by any margin, doesn't knock them down too far. It's not fair to up and coming programs in non-big 3 conferences.

And, ya know, I could be wrong, maybe Illinois State or the weakest link in the Big Sky isn't going to cave. But I wish we could test that by not giving them a seed and loading up all these conferences with seeds. It just doesn't feel right to me, but that's just my opinion.

[Reign of Terrier]

Wofford is a good win. UND (for example) has a better win in Montana State.


This is false at worst and debatable at best.

[WileECoyote06]

Wofford is a good win. UND (for example) has a better win in Montana State. Conference winners and AQ recipients aren’t metrics. Cal Poly beat the Pioneer champ. The Patriot League champ may have lost its first 7.

SoS matters and the MEAC, while possibly improving, doesn’t provide a strongest enough resume for a 3 loss at-large team despite the Wofford win.


Look, I don't disagree with your reasoning at all. I just look at where rankings and stuff are right now and I don't see SC State getting in the field. I think they deserve it, I just don't think it will happen.



(sigh), you're going to make me look up non-seeded East vs west games aren't you? Without showing my work too hard the only three games that I see that's defied that little rule of thumb is Western Illinois going to Coastal in 2010, Weber going to Chattanooga in 2016 and South Dakota going to Nicholls in 2017. But there's more instances of it being the other way.



This is basically the problem I have with the current FCS framework. I mean, the MVFC is the sole power conference in my opinion. The Big Sky may be good but they need another year of consistency IMO.

But it's a little frustrating for me, as a fan of a team in the southern conference, which is a top 6 conference, that we have to debate whether Furman is "in" or not because they're 7-2 against FCS teams, likely finishing 8-4 on the year, even though they were in the top 10 this week.

Meanwhile, you can have a team like Illinois State that has blown most of their big games since 2016 and fall up to be in the top 10 with a single good victory. I mean, we saw what Wofford did to Furman yesterday. What if we lost to Chattanooga on that two point attempt and all other games stood the same? The narrative becomes the socon is inconsistent and bad, but the Valley gets to say that it's "super competitive and good." It's all about framing.

It's a worse problem for the Big Sky right now IMO. People forget how much the Big Sky just totally eats in the playoffs, regardless of the seeding. Yes, Montana and EWU are traditionally powerhouses in the playoffs, but let's not forget some really bad Big Sky losses *and* the fact that most of the teams this year are below .500.

The problem is the public perception that all these teams are good, so any loss, by any margin, doesn't knock them down too far. It's not fair to up and coming programs in non-big 3 conferences.

And, ya know, I could be wrong, maybe Illinois State or the weakest link in the Big Sky isn't going to cave. But I wish we could test that by not giving them a seed and loading up all these conferences with seeds. It just doesn't feel right to me, but that's just my opinion.

Sidebar: I hate when posters call them 'big 3' conferences. We tend to forget we're in FCS. People try to draw comparison to the SEC, Big Ten and PAC-12 but no. .you're really not. xlolx

Spot on with much of your other comments though.

[Mocs123]

How many Key wins do other bubble teams have??

What other Bubble teams have a victory over a conference winner and automatic bid recipient?

Another historical example was the 2013 Chattanooga team that had 8 D1 wins including a win over an FBS school (Georgia State) and #15 Wofford. We were left at home for Thanksgiving. We had a 2 point loss to Georgia Southern and a 3 point double OT loss to Samford. Our only "bad" loss was a 10 point loss to UT Martin to start the season.

Does SC State get in? Does The Citadel get in? Does Chattanooga get in? I personally think no to all 3, but in reality it probably depends on how all of the other bubble teams do.

[Professor Chaos]

Sidebar: I hate when posters call them 'big 3' conferences. We tend to forget we're in FCS. People try to draw comparison to the SEC, Big Ten and PAC-12 but no. .you're really not. xlolx

Spot on with much of your other comments though.
Call them what you want but in the last 5 years those three conferences have gotten two thirds (46 of 69) of the available at larges bids in the playoffs.

[ElCid]

For example The Citadel was "ranked" #28 on the AGS poll this past week, Chattanooga, which did not receive any votes in the AGS poll, beat them, but I would not be surprised if The Citadel still has more votes despite losing the head to head and having similar records (Actually Chattanooga has 1 more D1 win).


You need to go the video tape on that one. We both have 6 Div I wins. Unfortunately, it really won't matter for either of us.

[nodak651]

Does the FCS Playoff committee look at rankings at the time the games were played? Or only end of year rankings? or both?

[kalm]

This is false at worst and debatable at best.

It’s really not even that close by almost any metric.

[Reign of Terrier]

Sidebar: I hate when posters call them 'big 3' conferences. We tend to forget we're in FCS. People try to draw comparison to the SEC, Big Ten and PAC-12 but no. .you're really not. xlolx

Spot on with much of your other comments though.

I don't either


Another historical example was the 2013 Chattanooga team that had 8 D1 wins including a win over an FBS school (Georgia State) and #15 Wofford. We were left at home for Thanksgiving. We had a 2 point loss to Georgia Southern and a 3 point double OT loss to Samford. Our only "bad" loss was a 10 point loss to UT Martin to start the season.

Does SC State get in? Does The Citadel get in? Does Chattanooga get in? I personally think no to all 3, but in reality it probably depends on how all of the other bubble teams do.

Wofford finished 5-6


It’s really not even that close by almost any metric.


They beat SEMO in week two and haven't beaten a team with a winning record since.

If we get to apply this logic to Wofford 2-3 weeks ago, we have to apply it Montana State nowxcoffeex

Montana State is the "falling up" team of this year.

[Mocs123]

You need to go the video tape on that one. We both have 6 Div I wins. Unfortunately, it really won't matter for either of us.


You're right ElCid - for some reason I thought you only had 5 D1 wins. I guess I was looking at FBS wins and didn't count Georgia Tech. In all honesty, despite the H2H, The Citadel probably has the better resume. Decent OOC losses, Wins over ranked Wofford and Furman, and a P5 team.

[Mocs123]

Wofford finished 5-6

Wofford was Ranked #15 (Chattanooga was #23) when we played on 11/9/13. Was that the year your all everything fullback Britenstein (sp) was injured or was 2013 after his time?

[Professor Chaos]

They beat SEMO in week two and haven't beaten a team with a winning record since.

If we get to apply this logic to Wofford 2-3 weeks ago, we have to apply it Montana State nowxcoffeex

Montana State is the "falling up" team of this year.
That logic wasn't really applied to Wofford at least not in the AGS consensus considering they were ranked 17th in last Monday's release. The big difference is Montana St didn't lose that week 1 game against a team they're ranked higher than.

[UNHWildcat18]

UNH wins to get to 6-5(5-3 CAA)and gets in, Marty magic time xdrunkyx

[kalm]

I don't either



Wofford finished 5-6




They beat SEMO in week two and haven't beaten a team with a winning record since.

If we get to apply this logic to Wofford 2-3 weeks ago, we have to apply it Montana State nowxcoffeex

Montana State is the "falling up" team of this year.

So Wofford has beat one more team with a winning record, UTC, who also only has one win against a team with a winning record in a conference that struggles despite feasting on Big South’s MEAC’s (well at least most of the time), and even worse DII’s?

Coffee indeed.

[Reign of Terrier]

Wofford was Ranked #15 (Chattanooga was #23) when we played on 11/9/13. Was that the year your all everything fullback Britenstein (sp) was injured or was 2013 after his time? He was injured in 2009 and graduated in 2012. That 2013 Wofford team was not good.


That logic wasn't really applied to Wofford at least not in the AGS consensus considering they were ranked 17th in last Monday's release. The big difference is Montana St didn't lose that week 1 game against a team they're ranked higher than.

Maybe not in the poll, but I've been dealing with AGS comments saying Wofford is overrated (etc.) because we hadn't beaten anybody (even after we beat chattanooga), and among the criteria was beating teams with a winning record (again, applicable to Chattanooga)xlolx

Looking back, this was a month ago, not 2-3 weeks (aftermath of Chatt). My point still stands, I don't think you can say beating Montana State is clearly a better win than Wofford. At best it's a draw.

It's worth mentioning that outside of that SEMO win, the combined record of teams Montana State's beaten is like 19-44 against FCS opponents. I couldn't tell you Wofford's opponents records on the top of my head, but right now SC State, Chattanooga, and Furman have 19 FCS wins by themselves.

[Reign of Terrier]

So Wofford has beat one more team with a winning record, UTC, who also only has one win against a team with a winning record in a conference that struggles despite feasting on Big South’s MEAC’s (well at least most of the time), and even worse DII’s?

Coffee indeed.

You're reaching here with so many degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon is jealous. It's pretty straight forward: You can make the argument that Wofford and Montana State are similar quality, but you can't conclusively say that Montana State is clearly the better win unless you have an overwhelming Big Sky bias that you think "yes, falling up is good"

[FU_Paladin08]

I wish the committee did more research but I just don’t think they do. Auto bid teams will be filled in, then they will look at a poll (doesn’t matter which one But they will find a favorite) to fill in the next chunk of teams. Maybe when they are down the the 4-8 bubble teams close losses and blowout wins are looked at. Maybe they apply the transitive property to begin justifying wins and losses. IDK, but I have a feeling it’s just looking at the strength of conference and any premier wins when comparing those last of the bubble teams.

I don’t think any of that helps Furman if they fall into that 4-8 group of bubble teams. They will be compared to teams in better conferences and a repeat of last year will happen. They will not look at close FBS losses. The committee only cares about FBS wins.

I’d argue Furman should get in based on their ranking and never fall to the bubble. They have been ranked all year, ranked in the Top 10, and ranked in the Committee’s top 10. I think all of that helps and is what Furman lacked last year. If I was trying to make a case for Furman, I think the committee will remove the non-FCS wins and losses from all the teams (except FBS wins) and look at that record. That will give Furman 7 wins on the year. That’s also 6 uncontested wins, with 1 win of 7 points. The two losses come from teams that appear to be on everyone’s list of “teams in the conversation.” Wofford with the Auto bid and Citadel being in the bubble. If a team is “in the conversation” it’s not a bad loss.

[kalm]

You're reaching here with so many degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon is jealous. It's pretty straight forward: You can make the argument that Wofford and Montana State are similar quality, but you can't conclusively say that Montana State is clearly the better win unless you have an overwhelming Big Sky bias that you think "yes, falling up is good"

You’re the one who brought up the lack of wins against teams with winning records thing. Lol.

You’re reaching with nothing other than the SoCon is under appreciated. SoS, opponents SoS, quality wins, computers, conference computer ranking, polls, playoff history among conferences (I know this is one you like to use when it’s favorable)...all say MSU is a better win than Wofford.

[Reign of Terrier]

You’re the one who brought up the lack of wins against teams with winning records thing. Lol.

You’re reaching with nothing other than the SoCon is under appreciated. SoS, opponents SoS, quality wins, computers, conference computer ranking, polls, playoff history among conferences (I know this is one you like to use when it’s favorable)...all say MSU is a better win than Wofford.

I was just pointing out that if you're going to hold it against team x when they've beaten few teams with a winning record that it should be applied consistently to team y (it isn't).

You renamed 1 thing 4 times (SOS, opponents SOS, computers, conference computer rankings) to bolster your argument. Really, what we're looking at is polling, conference affiliation in the playoffs and various measures of SOS. Polling is subjective by nature (that's what we're debating), conference affiliation isn't as predictive in the playoffs as certain teams, and the SOS seems like a wash to me. I mean, according to Massey (which I'm a skeptic of) both MSU and Wofford have beaten 2 top 45 teams. The problem is that one of those is UC Davis, which IMO is not a top 20 team as Massey implies (see: falling up)

Montana State has won 4 playoff games since the Reagan administration (Wofford matched that in 3 years, but I digress). They aren't Montana or Eastern Washington, they're closer to Northern Arizona or Cal Poly and they should be treated with similar skepticism.

AGS has Montana State and Wofford in the top 12, I don't see how you can say either is clearly better than the other at this point.

[Professor Chaos]

I wish the committee did more research but I just don’t think they do. Auto bid teams will be filled in, then they will look at a poll (doesn’t matter which one But they will find a favorite) to fill in the next chunk of teams. Maybe when they are down the the 4-8 bubble teams close losses and blowout wins are looked at. Maybe they apply the transitive property to begin justifying wins and losses. IDK, but I have a feeling it’s just looking at the strength of conference and any premier wins when comparing those last of the bubble teams.
I wish you would do more research on the committee's process because you clearly haven't done any to this point.

This thread would be a good place to start: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?238904-NCAA-FCS-Selection-Committee-NCAA-By-Laws-amp-the-SRS-Basics

[uni88]

I wish you would do more research on the committee's process because you clearly haven't done any to this point.

This thread would be a good place to start: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?238904-NCAA-FCS-Selection-Committee-NCAA-By-Laws-amp-the-SRS-Basics

Furman fans should also know that Furman Professors helped the NCAA with the SRS rating system (https://news.furman.edu/2013/12/13/furman-professors-help-ncaa-crunch-some-numbers/).

I picked up that little tidbit from the podcast and found it ironic.

[FU_Paladin08]

I wish you would do more research on the committee's process because you clearly haven't done any to this point.

This thread would be a good place to start: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?238904-NCAA-FCS-Selection-Committee-NCAA-By-Laws-amp-the-SRS-Basics
Ok I’ve read that and have a follow up question. How was Furman left out in favor of Incarnate Word last year. Be sure to use that link to show your work.

I haven’t seen any clear cut argument for it. Didn’t really see any evidence for UNH being ranked 10 by those same “standards.”

[Reign of Terrier]

Furman fans should also know that Furman Professors helped the NCAA with the SRS rating system (https://news.furman.edu/2013/12/13/furman-professors-help-ncaa-crunch-some-numbers/).

I picked up that little tidbit from the podcast and found it ironic.

oh my

[kalm]

I was just pointing out that if you're going to hold it against team x when they've beaten few teams with a winning record that it should be applied consistently to team y (it isn't).

You renamed 1 thing 4 times (SOS, opponents SOS, computers, conference computer rankings) to bolster your argument. Really, what we're looking at is polling, conference affiliation in the playoffs and various measures of SOS. Polling is subjective by nature (that's what we're debating), conference affiliation isn't as predictive in the playoffs as certain teams, and the SOS seems like a wash to me. I mean, according to Massey (which I'm a skeptic of) both MSU and Wofford have beaten 2 top 45 teams. The problem is that one of those is UC Davis, which IMO is not a top 20 team as Massey implies (see: falling up)

Montana State has won 4 playoff games since the Reagan administration (Wofford matched that in 3 years, but I digress). They aren't Montana or Eastern Washington, they're closer to Northern Arizona or Cal Poly and they should be treated with similar skepticism.

AGS has Montana State and Wofford in the top 12, I don't see how you can say either is clearly better than the other at this point.

That one win is still better than a win against Wofford, I was just showing my work. Polling is subjective but SoS is far less so which is why you don't like it. It's why you see Davis still in the top 20 and the Citadel not in the top 50 (which I'll admit is a bit puzzling haha).

The 2019 Montana State is undefeated in the playoffs. The 2016 unseeded Weber had to host a round 1 game against a very good WIU before losing a 10 point lead late against JMU. The 2018 Davis had never been to the playoffs and made it to the quarters. We don't know if MSU is Montana or Eastern yet. The 2010 EWU lost 30-7 to MSU in the regular season and was lucky to get a 5 seed. My point was that the Big Sky teams tend to play tougher opponents in both the regular season OOC and in the playoffs than the SoCon or for that matter the CAA with at least equal to if not better outcomes.

[Reign of Terrier]

That one win is still better than a win against Wofford, I was just showing my work. Polling is subjective but SoS is far less so which is why you don't like it. It's why you see Davis still in the top 20 and the Citadel not in the top 50 (which I'll admit is a bit puzzling haha).

The 2019 Montana State is undefeated in the playoffs. The 2016 unseeded Weber had to host a round 1 game against a very good WIU before losing a 10 point lead late against JMU. The 2018 Davis had never been to the playoffs and made it to the quarters. We don't know if MSU is Montana or Eastern yet. The 2010 EWU lost 30-7 to MSU in the regular season and was lucky to get a 5 seed. My point was that the Big Sky teams tend to play tougher opponents in both the regular season OOC and in the playoffs than the SoCon or for that matter the CAA with at least equal to if not better outcomes.

It really isn't. Your work isn't conclusive.

They have to *win* the games, not just play in them is my point! Looking at strength of schedule is supposed to help us parse through teams, but making a rank order of them is inherently flawed. Massey uses them to help craft their forecasts (which run into problems at points in the playoffs because of variation). It's not optimal for comparing SOS as many use them.

Yes, they played a tough schedule, but they aren't *that* hot in the playoffs recently. The SEMO win is good, I'm not trying to take away from that, but teams get better/worse over the course of the season.

And Wofford hasn't beaten the Citadel yet, but we've beaten top 50 Chattanooga and Furman, the latter of which is right where they need to be, given their SOS and accomplishments (and Davis likely right with them). I don't know if you were thinking I was referencing the Citadel or not, I just had to clear that up.

[kalm]

It really isn't. Your work isn't conclusive.

They have to *win* the games, not just play in them is my point! Looking at strength of schedule is supposed to help us parse through teams, but making a rank order of them is inherently flawed. Massey uses them to help craft their forecasts (which run into problems at points in the playoffs because of variation). It's not optimal for comparing SOS as many use them.

Yes, they played a tough schedule, but they aren't *that* hot in the playoffs recently. The SEMO win is good, I'm not trying to take away from that, but teams get better/worse over the course of the season.

And Wofford hasn't beaten the Citadel yet, but we've beaten top 50 Chattanooga and Furman, the latter of which is right where they need to be, given their SOS and accomplishments (and Davis likely right with them). I don't know if you were thinking I was referencing the Citadel or not, I just had to clear that up.

Speaking of which, how many wins against teams with winning records does Furman have? xcoffeex

How many quality OOC does the entire SoCon have? Your best counter argument to that would be Sac who has no good OOC wins either except that two of the teams they beat decisively have wins against Conference Champions/playoff teams and then throw in the team Sac lost to and they have a win against possible seed. Heck even one of our worst teams took UNI to the wire and beat another possible playoff team...

[Redbird 4th & short]

You're reaching here with so many degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon is jealous. It's pretty straight forward: You can make the argument that Wofford and Montana State are similar quality, but you can't conclusively say that Montana State is clearly the better win unless you have an overwhelming Big Sky bias that you think "yes, falling up is good"
So Montana St plays 5 possible playoff teams plus a decent P5; while both Furman and Wofford can both only name each other as potential playoff teams ... so 1 each, but youre still trying to dismiss Massey (much less Massey Composite) credibility in judging SOS. As if your mind can process all this as comprehensively as a bunch fo computers .. all of which say similar things. Hence, the Massey Composite has Motn St at #9, actually #7 exlcuding the 2 Ivy's, while having Furman at #20 and Wofford at #21. I know Wofford just beat Furman, but computers don't over-react to the latest data point out of many ... you surely realize there re 1320 data points for THIS year alone, that is 120 teams x 11 games, to be more precise.

So again, Montana St plays against 5 viable playoff teams, while Furman and Wofford each play against 1 playoff team ... but you cant admit, Montana St clearly plays a much tougher SOS ... whether citing the 39 computer rankings or the subjective polls .. theyre all wrong. So it's not bias, it's very well justified opinions based on a lot of 3rd party data.

Can 39 computers and 3 subjective polls all be dead wrong .... and Reign be right ?? Seriously now ??

Pleas specifically dispute anything i said ... but please be specific and stay on point, and cite something mor credible/objective besides your hope/opinion as evidence.

[Redbird 4th & short]

It really isn't. Your work isn't conclusive.

They have to *win* the games, not just play in them is my point! Looking at strength of schedule is supposed to help us parse through teams, but making a rank order of them is inherently flawed. Massey uses them to help craft their forecasts (which run into problems at points in the playoffs because of variation). It's not optimal for comparing SOS as many use them.

Yes, they played a tough schedule, but they aren't *that* hot in the playoffs recently. The SEMO win is good, I'm not trying to take away from that, but teams get better/worse over the course of the season.

And Wofford hasn't beaten the Citadel yet, but we've beaten top 50 Chattanooga and Furman, the latter of which is right where they need to be, given their SOS and accomplishments (and Davis likely right with them). I don't know if you were thinking I was referencing the Citadel or not, I just had to clear that up.

Big Sky might have 3 or 4 top 8 seeds, MVFC might have 3 or 4 top 8 seed. Southern has none. And your argument for Wofford ... see above .... is that youve beaten 2 top 50 teams, and hope to beat a 3rd top 50 team ?????

That's your argument over Montana St ??

[Reign of Terrier]

Speaking of which, how many wins against teams with winning records does Furman have? xcoffeex

How many quality OOC does the entire SoCon have? Your best counter argument to that would be Sac who has no good OOC wins either except that two of the teams they beat decisively have wins against Conference Champions/playoff teams and then throw in the team Sac lost to and they have a win against possible seed. Heck even one of our worst teams took UNI to the wire and beat another possible playoff team...

Furman has just as many wins over teams with winning records as Montana State does. The difference is that I'm not claiming that Furman is a clearly better win than Montana State or Wofford, but you're making this claim without sufficient evidence IMO.

You're equivocating a rank-order of an aggregation of outcomes of a schedule and quality wins. Put another way, one team can have a much better OOC rank but a much worse record, but the way Massey works is you put in some variables involving the score and it spits out a rank order based on those expected outcomes (with a degree of uncertainty), so you have teams like UC Davis *way overrated*

All of this is fine in the land of abstract platonic forms and aggregation, but it's actually bad at quantifying stuff like a team's ability to execute (Youngstown State is traditionally a good example of this). If you embrace Massey without understanding how it works, you embrace the logic of "falling up" with Montana State, illinois State and others. That's what I'm criticizing.


So Montana St plays 5 possible playoff teams plus a decent P5; while both Furman and Wofford can both only name each other as potential playoff teams ... so 1 each, but youre still trying to dismiss Massey (much less Massey Composite) credibility in judging SOS. As if your mind can process all this as comprehensively as a bunch fo computers .. all of which say similar things. Hence, the Massey Composite has Motn St at #9, actually #7 exlcuding the 2 Ivy's, while having Furman at #20 and Wofford at #21. I know Wofford just beat Furman, but computers don't over-react to the latest data point out of many ... you surely realize there re 1320 data points for THIS year alone, that is 120 teams x 11 games, to be more precise.

So again, Montana St plays against 5 playoff teams, while Furman and Wofford each play against 1 playoff team ... but you cant admit, Montana St clearly plays a much tougher SOS ... whether citing the 39 computer rankings or the subjective polls .. theyre all wrong. So it's not bias, it's very well justified opinions based on a lot of 3rd party data.

Can 39 computers and 3 subjective polls all be dead wrong .... and Reign be right ?? Seriously now ??

Pleas specifically dispute anything i said ... but please be specific and stay on point, and cite something mor credible/objective besides your hope/opinion as evidence.

By your logic, Chattanooga, who played 3 playoff teams and two bubble-ish teams (Citadel and Jacksonville State) and a P5 team, goes 1-5, but should be treated as an elite team if they trade 5-6 of their wins, say Samford, VMI, and Mercer for the likes of wins against Northern Colorado, Portland State, Northern Arizona, and a couple other teams with only 2 FCS wins. The proximity these teams have to teams like Montana, Weber, etc boosts their ranking in Massey, which in effect boosts the ranking of teams like Montana State. Even though, when push comes to shove, the aforementioned bad teams are probably a wash between conferences.

Put simply, Montana State will get more credit in the computer rankings for beating comparable bad or mediocre teams, when we're really interest in how well they play good teams (a meh 1-2 right now). Furman is 1-2. Wofford is 2-1. The Massey and computer averages will say that Montana State is doing better in the aggregate. I don't think that's 100% illegitimate, but I think FCS observers don't understand how much uncertainty is built into Massey and how its really designed for more volatile sports seasons like basketball and FBS football (which have more OOC games, out of conference interaction, etc)

That's how Massey works. It takes the average of the entire schedule and then measures how well you did, given that standard. It's not a perfect science. It's somewhat circular because models are all a little circular, constantly referring to the same variables. It may be internally consistent, but it's not externally consistent.

Also, Massey is pretty reactive to how well you do against decent teams. Wofford went up a few spots for playing Clemson and went up 20 points just for beating Furman, who was 19th at the time, I think.

[Professor Chaos]

Ok I’ve read that and have a follow up question. How was Furman left out in favor of Incarnate Word last year. Be sure to use that link to show your work.

I haven’t seen any clear cut argument for it. Didn’t really see any evidence for UNH being ranked 10 by those same “standards.”
The short answer is more committee members thought Incarnate Word had a better playoff resume than Furman did.


The long answer is that after the autobids are selected the committee will create the at-large nomination pool. Every eligible non-autobid team in their final top 25 poll is automatically included in this pool. After that committee members will nominate additional teams for consideration and if those teams receive 30% or more of committee members' votes they are added to the at-large nomination pool. Both Furman and UIW were included in this pool last year.

Once the at-large pool is set the committee members will each submit a list of teams that they think are deserving of an at-large playoff spot. Teams that receive a vote from 70% or more of the committee members are added to the field as an at-large team with the caveat that they can never set more than half of the remaining at-large selections with a single vote. It's safe to say that UIW didn't make this first cut last year and obviously neither did Furman. After that they'll continue to vote excluding teams that have already been selected until all 14 spots are filled or until they can't come up with a 70% consensus for the remaining spots. IIRC they said on the selection show last year that UIW was one of the last teams selected so it's fairly safe to say that less than 70% of the committee members felt they were deserving.

So to fill the last few spots they call for a "poll vote" where only a simple majority (5 of 9 votes since the representative for a particular team's conference can't vote for that team) is needed to select a team as an at-large. This is one possibility as to how UIW got selected and Furman didn't. The other possibility is if both UIW and Furman received the simple majority then the decision goes to a direct ranking of those teams by each committee member and those votes are tabulated similar to how the AGS Poll is tabulated and that is how final selections/cuts are made. So the conclusion is either more committee members felt UIW was deserving than members who felt Furman was deserving or the committee consensus was that while both may be deserving UIW was more deserving.

[Reign of Terrier]

Big Sky might have 3 or 4 top 8 seeds, MVFC might have 3 or 4 top 8 seed. Southern has none. And your argument for Wofford ... see above .... is that youve beaten 2 top 50 teams, and hope to beat a 3rd top 50 team ?????

That's your argument over Montana St ??

I guarantee you that the Big Sky will eat it big time in at least two of their games. It may not be both in the first round, but it's going to happen.

The mere fact that you guys have zeroed in on massey rankings is missing the forest for the trees. You clearly don't understand how computer modeling works.

[cx500d]

I guarantee you that the Big Sky will eat it big time in at least two of their games. It may not be both in the first round, but it's going to happen.

The mere fact that you guys have zeroed in on massey rankings is missing the forest for the trees. You clearly don't understand how computer modeling works.
And you, RoT are smoking some of Klam’s dope

[Reign of Terrier]

And you, RoT are smoking some of Klam’s dope

Have you not paid attention to the Big Sky in the playoffs over the last 10 years? There are some head-scratchers and I see that repeating.

[fencer24]

I guarantee you that the Big Sky will eat it big time in at least two of their games. It may not be both in the first round, but it's going to happen.

The mere fact that you guys have zeroed in on massey rankings is missing the forest for the trees. You clearly don't understand how computer modeling works.

OMG - we are going to get rolled!


Or not. xcoffeex

[kalm]

Furman has just as many wins over teams with winning records as Montana State does. The difference is that I'm not claiming that Furman is a clearly better win than Montana State or Wofford, but you're making this claim without sufficient evidence IMO.

You're equivocating a rank-order of an aggregation of outcomes of a schedule and quality wins. Put another way, one team can have a much better OOC rank but a much worse record, but the way Massey works is you put in some variables involving the score and it spits out a rank order based on those expected outcomes (with a degree of uncertainty), so you have teams like UC Davis *way overrated*

All of this is fine in the land of abstract platonic forms and aggregation, but it's actually bad at quantifying stuff like a team's ability to execute (Youngstown State is traditionally a good example of this). If you embrace Massey without understanding how it works, you embrace the logic of "falling up" with Montana State, illinois State and others. That's what I'm criticizing.



By your logic, Chattanooga, who played 3 playoff teams and two bubble-ish teams (Citadel and Jacksonville State) and a P5 team, goes 1-5, but should be treated as an elite team if they trade 5-6 of their wins, say Samford, VMI, and Mercer for the likes of wins against Northern Colorado, Portland State, Northern Arizona, and a couple other teams with only 2 FCS wins. The proximity these teams have to teams like Montana, Weber, etc boosts their ranking in Massey, which in effect boosts the ranking of teams like Montana State. Even though, when push comes to shove, the aforementioned bad teams are probably a wash between conferences.

Put simply, Montana State will get more credit in the computer rankings for beating comparable bad or mediocre teams, when we're really interest in how well they play good teams (a meh 1-2 right now). Furman is 1-2. Wofford is 2-1. The Massey and computer averages will say that Montana State is doing better in the aggregate. I don't think that's 100% illegitimate, but I think FCS observers don't understand how much uncertainty is built into Massey and how its really designed for more volatile sports seasons like basketball and FBS football (which have more OOC games, out of conference interaction, etc)

That's how Massey works. It takes the average of the entire schedule and then measures how well you did, given that standard. It's not a perfect science. It's somewhat circular because models are all a little circular, constantly referring to the same variables. It may be internally consistent, but it's not externally consistent.

Also, Massey is pretty reactive to how well you do against decent teams. Wofford went up a few spots for playing Clemson and went up 20 points just for beating Furman, who was 19th at the time, I think.

I use Massey almost exclusively for SoS purposes and even then with a grain of salt so you're simply barking up the wrong tree. I've provided you with all of the necessary metrics and you have provided none. Teams "falling up" in a computer ranking is not really an argument much less something that's considered.

BTW, YSU is a good example of using your human brain and being wary of inconsistencies and SoS. That's why I have rarely over-ranked them.xcoffeex

[cx500d]

Have you not paid attention to the Big Sky in the playoffs over the last 10 years? There are some head-scratchers and I see that repeating.
And they have their nemesis San Diego to contend with again I am sure.

that said, I have thoroughly been unimpressed with the socon. Big fluffy plays a tougher fcs ooc and schedule than socon.

[Reign of Terrier]

OMG - we are going to get rolled!


Or not. xcoffeex

The Big Sky is 10-11 in the first round of the FCS playoffs since the field expanded to 24 teams in 2013. That's a worse winning percentage than the Big South, CAA, MVFC, OVC, Southern, and Southland.

Think about it, they went 4-0 in the first round last year, bringing their record up from 6-11.

I see right through it.


I use Massey almost exclusively for SoS purposes and even then with a grain of salt so you're simply barking up the wrong tree. I've provided you with all of the necessary metrics and you have provided none. Teams "falling up" in a computer ranking is not really an argument much less something that's considered.

BTW, YSU is a good example of using your human brain and being wary of inconsistencies and SoS. That's why I have rarely over-ranked them.xcoffeex

I've provided you metrics, you just don't recognize them as legitimate xlolx which is your perogative, but again, it's not as clear as you'd like it to be.


And they have their nemesis San Diego to contend with again I am sure.

that said, I have thoroughly been unimpressed with the socon. Big fluffy plays a tougher fcs ooc and schedule than socon.

I'm not going to defend the OOC of the Socon, we sucked this year.

I don't know why everyone brings up the socon as a rebuttal when I'm criticizing a conference. it could very well that the Socon sucks terrible but also the Big Sky/CAA are wayyyyyyyy overrated. Both can be true, so it's not a rebuttal.

[MSUBobcat]

The part you are missing about SOS and the record of the teams we've beaten (28-47 vs FCS) is that, thanks to the awesomeness of the Big Sky-MVFC Challenge Series (awesome in terms of quality football games, not conference chest thumping), our opponents have 22 losses to the current AGS top 8, with one more to #14 APSU, one to #22 SIU (SEMO also has a victory over the same) and 3 losses to #20 UND. So 27 of the 47 losses were to teams currently ranked #22 or better, with nearly HALF of their losses to the top 8 teams. Wofford's opponents have played exactly 1 team in the top 8, JMU. When nearly 30% of your FCS games are against the best 8 teams in the entire subdivision, you're going to pile up a lot of losses even if you're a decent team.

[Mocs123]

And they have their nemesis San Diego to contend with again I am sure.

that said, I have thoroughly been unimpressed with the socon. Big fluffy plays a tougher fcs ooc and schedule than socon.

You might can say that about a lot of the SoCon but Chattanooga played two pre-season top 10 teams in the OOC portion of the schedule and The Citadel played two top 25 teams in the OOC schedule. Not many teams played a tougher OOC schedule than either of those, especially Chattanooga. Of course not that playing a tough OOC helps a whole lot. It seems if you play FCS cupcakes and rack up wins, the selection committee rewards that more than actually playing someone.

[gofurman]

To save travel money, the committee will send Furman to SC State.
Wofford will make a bus trip to Kennesaw with the winner going to NDSU.

If Kennesaw doesn't get in, Wofford will travel to Orangeburg and Furman will go to the southernmost CAA team.

You can spend Furman's record anyway you want to, but the committee is much more political than we make it out to be and will find a way to get Furman into the field.

I would love to go to SC State. Two
Reasons - Furman in playoffs. And SC State got in playoffs as they should be ranked higher!

[gofurman]

Also here is an interesting point. Some say Furman isn’t in playoffs but we all acknowledge the AGS poll is really good at predicting playoff participants. Well Furman is ranked 16 this week in AGS poll. That would be a pretty big miss if the AGS number 16 team didn’t make the playoffs I think

[ejjones]

I would love to go to SC State. Two
Reasons - Furman in playoffs. And SC State got in playoffs as they should be ranked higher!

Can Furman host? Orangeburg ---> Greenville.

[cx500d]

The Big Sky is 10-11 in the first round of the FCS playoffs since the field expanded to 24 teams in 2013. That's a worse winning percentage than the Big South, CAA, MVFC, OVC, Southern, and Southland.

Think about it, they went 4-0 in the first round last year, bringing their record up from 6-11.

I see right through it.



I've provided you metrics, you just don't recognize them as legitimate xlolx which is your perogative, but again, it's not as clear as you'd like it to be.



I'm not going to defend the OOC of the Socon, we sucked this year.

I don't know why everyone brings up the socon as a rebuttal when I'm criticizing a conference. it could very well that the Socon sucks terrible but also the Big Sky/CAA are wayyyyyyyy overrated. Both can be true, so it's not a rebuttal.
Who was in the natty last year? When was the last time a socon team was there?

[fencer24]

Oh sure, hit him with facts, when he has metrics!

[Bisonoline]

Oh sure, hit him with facts, when he has metrics!

xlolx xthumbsupx

[UpstateBison]

You might can say that about a lot of the SoCon but Chattanooga played two pre-season top 10 teams in the OOC portion of the schedule and The Citadel played two top 25 teams in the OOC schedule. Not many teams played a tougher OOC schedule than either of those, especially Chattanooga. Of course not that playing a tough OOC helps a whole lot. It seems if you play FCS cupcakes and rack up wins, the selection committee rewards that more than actually playing someone.

Wofford played SC State and Gardner-Webb. Furman played Charleston Southern and Point.

Also, RoT needs to post his Big Sky post details. I think he is wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CopperCat]

As long as we are talking about irrelevant historical “metrics” and such, Ill point out that the Bobcats did beat Furman in a playoff game in 2006. I remember it well because Furman literally had to borrow cold weather jackets from USC for the game, as it was easily in the low 20s.

[apaladin]

Can Furman host? Orangeburg ---> Greenville.

That's possible. According Coach Hendrix on his show tonight FU has or will make a strong bid to host a first round game.

[FUBeAR]

As long as we are talking about irrelevant historical “metrics” and such, Ill point out that the Bobcats did beat Furman in a playoff game in 2006. I remember it well because Furman literally had to borrow cold weather jackets from USC for the game, as it was easily in the low 20s.
https://furman.prestosports.com//sports/m-footbl/stats/2006-2007/fur1125.htm

28 degrees w/winds up to 15 mph & overcast...which is a 16.5 degree wind chill. No bueno for we warm-blooded mammals...saps the #SouthernSpeed right out of us!

[Professor Chaos]

https://furman.prestosports.com//sports/m-footbl/stats/2006-2007/fur1125.htm

28 degrees w/winds up to 15 mph & overcast...which is a 16.5 degree wind chill. No bueno for we warm-blooded mammals...saps the #SouthernSpeed right out of us!
Air temps right around the goose egg at kickoff didn't bother these beach chickens: https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/333410149

[Mocs123]

Wofford played SC State and Gardner-Webb. Furman played Charleston Southern and Point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except I didn't mention Wofford or Furman, but you lumped all the SoCon together and I was pointing out that Chattanooga and The Citadel did play challenging OOC schedules. For what it's worth, Furman normally plays decently tough OOC schedule - for whatever reason they decided to play two FBS games and a non D-1. For reference in 2018 and 2017 Furman played Elon and Colgate as their two FCS OOC games, and in 2016 played Coastal Carolina and Kennesaw State. Wofford always plays a weak OOC schedule. I've brought up in the SoCon threads that the Terriers could help the SoCon out by playing a better OOC schedule, but it's been pointed out to me, that they make the playoffs and the committee seems to value wins no matter who you play OOC, and it's hard to argue that.

[PaladinFan]

Wofford played SC State and Gardner-Webb. Furman played Charleston Southern and Point.

Also, RoT needs to post his Big Sky post details. I think he is wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Furman also played VT and Georgia State. Charleston Southern beat Gardner Webb, too.

Incidentally - and this may have already been posted - but Furman looks like they've started a PR assault regarding their game against Point. That is, to me, they are trying to signal not for the national FCS landscape to hold scheduling this game against them - they had little choice.

https://twitter.com/PaladinFootball/status/1196507211129917441?s=20

Basically, Furman hasn't had a non-D1 game on their schedule since 2008. In that time, Samford has had 10 and Wofford has had 5. That is, scheduling a team like Point is a complete rarity for Furman.

As the Hendrix quote states, the SoCon schedule has to set their FBS "money games" first. Furman ended up "drawing" a bye week in Week 13. There were only two schools in the country with a bye week that week, and Point is a program headed by a former Furman player/coach. Furman also lost a home game last year, and has just really been screwed by scheduling.

Oh, and to the KSU poster who continuously posts about Furman moving the game against Kennesaw - Coach Hendrix pretty clearly states that Kennesaw, not Furman, requested to move this year's game. Oddly, KSU and Furman both ended up scheduling Point.

[FUBeAR]

Air temps right around the goose egg at kickoff didn't bother these beach chickens: https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/333410149

* axiom only applies to warm-blooded southern mammals with SAT scores > 450

[Mocs123]

It's nice you brought that up PaladinFan because talk about crappy OOC schedules - KSU played 2 non D1's in Point and Reinhart as well as Missouri State and Alabama State (not that the last two are terrible they are D1, but not exactly a quality OOC schedule for a team that's been ranked as high as #4).

- - - Updated - - -

[Reign of Terrier]

Wofford played SC State and Gardner-Webb. Furman played Charleston Southern and Point.

Also, RoT needs to post his Big Sky post details. I think he is wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which one? To clarify, I said "first round" when I meant "first game they played" because it's shorter. So seeded Big Sky teams, in spite of home field advantage, the bye, and the weather are more likely to lose their first game, as are Big Sky teams in the first round.


Who was in the natty last year? When was the last time a socon team was there?

Cool Cool, but I'm not giving deference to Missouri State because NDSU has a 3-peat. The same principle applies.

8 of the 13 Big Sky teams haven't won a playoff game since at least 2005, if at all. 11 of the 13 Big Sky teams combine for 3 playoff wins since 2015.

It's better to look at the FCS as a collection of programs that are good than a bunch of conferences. Pretending teams like Montana State and Sacramento State are elite programs hurts the field, not unlike how giving the CAA 6 bids last year did.

Heck, The Big Sky has won 79 playoff games all-time by current members. Eastern Washington and Montana account for for 53 of those wins (77%). That distribution isn't unheard of, heck it's the norm that 2-3 teams have about 70% of a conference's wins, but something like 15 of the remaining wins came no later than 2006. The Big Sky is a mile wide and an inch deep, and though last year was a good one, before we start throwing bids at the third and fourth teams in the standings, we need to keep this history in mind.

Heck, I think the Valley deserves 3 seeds and maybe 4 by virtue of attrition. So it's not the principle of getting 4 that bothers me. I just don't see any other FCS conference, looking at current performance as well as history, that deserves that degree of respect.

[semobison]

Which one? To clarify, I said "first round" when I meant "first game they played" because it's shorter. So seeded Big Sky teams, in spite of home field advantage, the bye, and the weather are more likely to lose their first game, as are Big Sky teams in the first round.



Cool Cool, but I'm not giving deference to Missouri State because NDSU has a 3-peat. The same principle applies.

8 of the 13 Big Sky teams haven't won a playoff game since at least 2005, if at all. 11 of the 13 Big Sky teams combine for 2 playoff wins since 2015.

It's better to look at the FCS as a collection of programs that are good than a bunch of conferences. Pretending teams like Montana State and Sacramento State are elite programs hurts the field, not unlike how giving the CAA 6 bids last year did.

Heck, The Big Sky has won 79 playoff games all-time by current members. Eastern Washington and Montana account for for 53 of those wins (77%). That distribution isn't unheard of, heck it's the norm that 2-3 teams have about 70% of a conference's wins, but something like 15 of the remaining wins came no later than 2006. The Big Sky is a mile wide and an inch deep, and though last year was a good one, before we start throwing bids at the third and fourth teams in the standings, we need to keep this history in mind.

Heck, I think the Valley deserves 3 seeds and maybe 4 by virtue of attrition. So it's not the principle of getting 4 that bothers me. I just don't see any other FCS conference, looking at current performance as well as history, that deserves that degree of respect.

The Big Sky has had some poor playoff showings in the last 10 years, hence the name Big Fluffy. They appear to have upped their game the last couple of years. The CAA seems to be going in the other direction.

[kalm]

Which one? To clarify, I said "first round" when I meant "first game they played" because it's shorter. So seeded Big Sky teams, in spite of home field advantage, the bye, and the weather are more likely to lose their first game, as are Big Sky teams in the first round.



Cool Cool, but I'm not giving deference to Missouri State because NDSU has a 3-peat. The same principle applies.

8 of the 13 Big Sky teams haven't won a playoff game since at least 2005, if at all. 11 of the 13 Big Sky teams combine for 2 playoff wins since 2015.

It's better to look at the FCS as a collection of programs that are good than a bunch of conferences. Pretending teams like Montana State and Sacramento State are elite programs hurts the field, not unlike how giving the CAA 6 bids last year did.

Heck, The Big Sky has won 79 playoff games all-time by current members. Eastern Washington and Montana account for for 53 of those wins (77%). That distribution isn't unheard of, heck it's the norm that 2-3 teams have about 70% of a conference's wins, but something like 15 of the remaining wins came no later than 2006. The Big Sky is a mile wide and an inch deep, and though last year was a good one, before we start throwing bids at the third and fourth teams in the standings, we need to keep this history in mind.

Heck, I think the Valley deserves 3 seeds and maybe 4 by virtue of attrition. So it's not the principle of getting 4 that bothers me. I just don't see any other FCS conference, looking at current performance as well as history, that deserves that degree of respect.

Neat! And 5 different Big Sky schools have made it at least to the quarters in the last decade. The Valley is the same, and the CAA has 6.

[maine612]

I could be wrong, but I believe Maine will finish second (given its earlier win over Albany) if the following teams win this weekend:

James Madison
William & Mary
Maine
Delaware
Elon
Stony Brook

This seems like a Lloyd Christmas moment.... but you go with what you got..

Go Maine!

612

[WrenFGun]

I could be wrong, but I believe Maine will finish second (given its earlier win over Albany) if the following teams win this weekend:

James Madison
William & Mary
Maine
Delaware
Elon
Stony Brook

This seems like a Lloyd Christmas moment.... but you go with what you got..

Go Maine!

612


By the same token, UNH would also finish 2nd under those circumstances if they beat Maine. Could be a real Furman of a situation there [finished outright 2nd in SoCON and didn't get in].

[Reign of Terrier]

The Big Sky has had some poor playoff showings in the last 10 years, hence the name Big Fluffy. They appear to have upped their game the last couple of years. The CAA seems to be going in the other direction.

Yeah, and I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not prepared to give them 4 seeds or whatever the heck the number is thrown around. 3 Seems appropriate (and I'm calling the Sac State upset).


Neat! And 5 different Big Sky schools have made it at least to the quarters in the last decade. The Valley is the same, and the CAA has 6.

Yeah and a decade ago we had App state and Georgia Southern in the socon, but we're not allowed to count them, for whatever reason (that elevates the socon numbers to 4).

[walliver]

Furman also played VT and Georgia State. Charleston Southern beat Gardner Webb, too.

Incidentally - and this may have already been posted - but Furman looks like they've started a PR assault regarding their game against Point. That is, to me, they are trying to signal not for the national FCS landscape to hold scheduling this game against them - they had little choice.

https://twitter.com/PaladinFootball/status/1196507211129917441?s=20

Basically, Furman hasn't had a non-D1 game on their schedule since 2008. In that time, Samford has had 10 and Wofford has had 5. That is, scheduling a team like Point is a complete rarity for Furman.

As the Hendrix quote states, the SoCon schedule has to set their FBS "money games" first. Furman ended up "drawing" a bye week in Week 13. There were only two schools in the country with a bye week that week, and Point is a program headed by a former Furman player/coach. Furman also lost a home game last year, and has just really been screwed by scheduling.

Oh, and to the KSU poster who continuously posts about Furman moving the game against Kennesaw - Coach Hendrix pretty clearly states that Kennesaw, not Furman, requested to move this year's game. Oddly, KSU and Furman both ended up scheduling Point.

SoCon scheduling is always difficult. Wofford has P5 games scheduled as far at 2027, with two scheduled for 2024. Since SEC teams like to schedule the penultimate game of the season, and the SoCon seems to schedule with a random number generator, there aren't a lot of options. Big South teams are plentiful early in the season, but generally booked solid the last 6 weeks of the year. I don't think Wofford has any sub-D1 teams scheduled anytime soon. We play SC State again next year and then Kennesaw with a home-and-home. Although I suspect Gardner Webb in on the schedule as far as the eye can see.

[kalm]

Yeah, and I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not prepared to give them 4 seeds or whatever the heck the number is thrown around. 3 Seems appropriate (and I'm calling the Sac State upset).



Yeah and a decade ago we had App state and Georgia Southern in the socon, but we're not allowed to count them, for whatever reason (that elevates the socon numbers to 4).

Well I’m sorry to point out the obvious but they’re no longer there.

[PaladinFan]

SoCon scheduling is always difficult. Wofford has P5 games scheduled as far at 2027, with two scheduled for 2024. Since SEC teams like to schedule the penultimate game of the season, and the SoCon seems to schedule with a random number generator, there aren't a lot of options. Big South teams are plentiful early in the season, but generally booked solid the last 6 weeks of the year. I don't think Wofford has any sub-D1 teams scheduled anytime soon. We play SC State again next year and then Kennesaw with a home-and-home. Although I suspect Gardner Webb in on the schedule as far as the eye can see.

I genuinely, though, don't see why they can't try and schedule the rivalry-type games later in the season. Why is Wofford/Furman in week 1 one year, and then week 12 another year? It would seem like the conference would want to put their big games at the end of the season. Rumors are Furman/Wofford will be near the beginning of next year's schedule.

Wofford, in my opinion, needs to get away from scheduling GWU every year. The Bulldogs used to be a scrappy FCS squad from a lower tier conference. Now they are just a bad team from a lower tier conference.

[walliver]

I genuinely, though, don't see why they can't try and schedule the rivalry-type games later in the season. Why is Wofford/Furman in week 1 one year, and then week 12 another year? It would seem like the conference would want to put their big games at the end of the season. Rumors are Furman/Wofford will be near the beginning of next year's schedule.

Wofford, in my opinion, needs to get away from scheduling GWU every year. The Bulldogs used to be a scrappy FCS squad from a lower tier conference. Now they are just a bad team from a lower tier conference.

The SoCon schedule was fairly uniform until they reorganized the schedule when ASU, GSU and the Malcontent left. There was a frequent complaint among some schools prior to that that they would have to play GSU, ASU and Wofford in consecutive weeks, and a few Wofford fans complained that just about everybody played GSU 2 weeks before playing us..

It makes no sense to play conference games in week 1 or 2 unless we are getting big TV money, and we know we ain't. Opening week games have so many unexpected factors that they are very difficult to prepare for.

The three oldest rivalries on our schedule this year were in the last 4 weeks (Clemson played both Furman and Wofford during their inaugural season). The SoCon needs to sit down and come up with a rational somewhat fixed schedule.

I'm afraid the GWU game isn't going anywhere. They are close by (actually a little closer than Furman) so travel is cheap. It pads the schedule with a D-1 scholarship win. The game is also poorly attended because few fans care about that game. And the reality is that Furman's scheduling last year kept them out of the playoffs with losses to Elon and Florence (although the Florence loss was completely unexpected, who knew Yankees were so afraid of a little wind?).

[MSUBobcat]

Yeah and a decade ago we had App state and Georgia Southern in the socon, but we're not allowed to count them, for whatever reason (that elevates the socon numbers to 4).

xlolx This ****ing guy.... Wants to use historical data as some kind of predictor for the current year, then to pump up his conference's own historical data tries to include the performance of 2 teams that haven't been in the conference for 6 seasons. xrotatehx

[Reign of Terrier]

Well I’m sorry to point out the obvious but they’re no longer there.

But if we're talking about the best teams in the conferences predictively getting that far, it's erasing history to say that the Socon doesn't get teams in the quarters at a similar frequency (in spite of being smaller than the aforementioned conferences) just because our formerly best teams got there as opposed to, say, Mercer.

[Reign of Terrier]

xlolx This ****ing guy.... Wants to use historical data as some kind of predictor for the current year, then to pump up his conference's own historical data tries to include the performance of 2 teams that haven't been in the conference for 6 seasons. xrotatehx

It's a pretty relevant omission. App State and Georgia Southern's success is just as predictive as Wofford or Furman's as Montana or EWU's is for Montana State or Sacramento State. That is to say, it's irrelevant.

You're equivocating between using programs as predictors and conference affiliation as predictors. I'm saying we should look solely on programs as predictors because it's actually more insightful and predictive than conference affiliation. In the last 10 years or so, betting on NDSU, JMU, EWU and SHSU is a lot more predictive than betting on the CAA, MVFC, or Big Sky in any given matchup.

The same could have been said about Georgia Southern and the Socon when they left, and App State in the late 2000s on their run. It's just not fair to use conference affiliation and the omit recent departures when postulating seeding and quality. Rank teams high for beating NDSU, EWU, etc not because they play them or in their conference.

Right now the Big Sky is a bubble about to burst because of this logic.

[PaladinFan]

The SoCon schedule was fairly uniform until they reorganized the schedule when ASU, GSU and the Malcontent left. There was a frequent complaint among some schools prior to that that they would have to play GSU, ASU and Wofford in consecutive weeks, and a few Wofford fans complained that just about everybody played GSU 2 weeks before playing us..

It makes no sense to play conference games in week 1 or 2 unless we are getting big TV money, and we know we ain't. Opening week games have so many unexpected factors that they are very difficult to prepare for.

The three oldest rivalries on our schedule this year were in the last 4 weeks (Clemson played both Furman and Wofford during their inaugural season). The SoCon needs to sit down and come up with a rational somewhat fixed schedule.

I'm afraid the GWU game isn't going anywhere. They are close by (actually a little closer than Furman) so travel is cheap. It pads the schedule with a D-1 scholarship win. The game is also poorly attended because few fans care about that game. And the reality is that Furman's scheduling last year kept them out of the playoffs with losses to Elon and Florence (although the Florence loss was completely unexpected, who knew Yankees were so afraid of a little wind?).

I get why Wofford plays Gardner Webb - it is close and a near guaranteed D1 win. I do think you'd be hard pressed to find any team in D1 football that schedules the same one or two teams for virtually every non-conference matchup that isn't a bona fide rivalry game (like GT/UGA or Clemson/USC).

Many SoCon fans lament that the conference has slipped in the national perception, but there are a number of teams in this conference that don't actually do anything to change those perceptions.

Wofford is one of those teams that really does nothing to stretch itself. You go back nearly 10 years and the Terrier's non conference schedule is mostly some combination of Garnder Webb, Presbyterian, and lower division teams. They scheduled SC State this year, but I just about guarantee Wofford didn't think they'd lose that game.

As a fan of a program that routinely tries to schedule intriguing matchups, that sort of thing bothers me. I would think as a Wofford fan it would bother me to. If Furman scheduled Gardner Webb every season from now until eternity, I'd be writing a letter to my athletic director. You can do better.

[kalm]

But if we're talking about the best teams in the conferences predictively getting that far, it's erasing history to say that the Socon doesn't get teams in the quarters at a similar frequency (in spite of being smaller than the aforementioned conferences) just because our formerly best teams got there as opposed to, say, Mercer.

I’ll point out again that Georgia Southern and App aren’t in the SoCon. Right?

[kalm]

SoCon scheduling is always difficult. Wofford has P5 games scheduled as far at 2027, with two scheduled for 2024. Since SEC teams like to schedule the penultimate game of the season, and the SoCon seems to schedule with a random number generator, there aren't a lot of options. Big South teams are plentiful early in the season, but generally booked solid the last 6 weeks of the year. I don't think Wofford has any sub-D1 teams scheduled anytime soon. We play SC State again next year and then Kennesaw with a home-and-home. Although I suspect Gardner Webb in on the schedule as far as the eye can see.

Wait...did someone just say SoCon scheduling is tough?

xlolx

[fencer24]

It's a pretty relevant omission. App State and Georgia Southern's success is just as predictive as Wofford or Furman's as Montana or EWU's is for Montana State or Sacramento State. That is to say, it's irrelevant.

You're equivocating between using programs as predictors and conference affiliation as predictors. I'm saying we should look solely on programs as predictors because it's actually more insightful and predictive than conference affiliation. In the last 10 years or so, betting on NDSU, JMU, EWU and SHSU is a lot more predictive than betting on the CAA, MVFC, or Big Sky in any given matchup.

The same could have been said about Georgia Southern and the Socon when they left, and App State in the late 2000s on their run. It's just not fair to use conference affiliation and the omit recent departures when postulating seeding and quality. Rank teams high for beating NDSU, EWU, etc not because they play them or in their conference.

Right now the Big Sky is a bubble about to burst because of this logic.

Yeah, um, we'll need to check back with you in the middle of December.

[MSUBobcat]

It's a pretty relevant omission. App State and Georgia Southern's success is just as predictive as Wofford or Furman's as Montana or EWU's is for Montana State or Sacramento State. That is to say, it's irrelevant.

You're equivocating between using programs as predictors and conference affiliation as predictors. I'm saying we should look solely on programs as predictors because it's actually more insightful and predictive than conference affiliation. In the last 10 years or so, betting on NDSU, JMU, EWU and SHSU is a lot more predictive than betting on the CAA, MVFC, or Big Sky in any given matchup.

The same could have been said about Georgia Southern and the Socon when they left, and App State in the late 2000s on their run. It's just not fair to use conference affiliation and the omit recent departures when postulating seeding and quality. Rank teams high for beating NDSU, EWU, etc not because they play them or in their conference.

Right now the Big Sky is a bubble about to burst because of this logic.

You're right about one thing: prior success, whether by a conference or a program, is IRRELEVANT to the current year. Anything that happened in the late 2000's, whether program or conference affiliation, has absolutely ZERO bearing on the current season. The guys on this year's teams were still in grade school. Who the **** cares? Other than a very few programs that year-in, year-out reLOAD not reBUILD, even the most storied programs fluctuate (Griz, Delaware, etc.). That's why you see wide swings every single year. In JUST THE BIG SKY in recent years, SUU went from 9-3 and seeded in 2017 (bounced by conference mate WSU) to 1-10 the very next year, Sac State went from 2-8 last year to a seed this year with a win over Davis, Davis went from 10-3 and seeded last year (bounced by conference mate EWU). Using the performance of teams that have no players on the current team as a predictor is pretty ridiculous. But you go ahead an put your money on EWU and SHSU this year, since in the last 10 years that's "more predictive". Bet the farm. You'll be retired at a young age, young pup.

[uni88]

Yeah, and I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not prepared to give them 4 seeds or whatever the heck the number is thrown around. 3 Seems appropriate (and I'm calling the Sac State upset).

Yeah and a decade ago we had App state and Georgia Southern in the socon, but we're not allowed to count them, for whatever reason (that elevates the socon numbers to 4).

I think the SoCon deserves credit for what App State and Georgia Southern accomplished while they were in the conference. That has no impact on how I would rank Wofford, Furman or any current SoCon team though. It also means that the SoCon only gets credit for I believe 2 of Georgia Southern's 6 national championships.

[PaladinFan]

I think the SoCon deserves credit for what App State and Georgia Southern accomplished while they were in the conference. That has no impact on how I would rank Wofford, Furman or any current SoCon team though. It also means that the SoCon only gets credit for I believe 2 of Georgia Southern's 6 national championships.

SoCon can claim 8 since the formation of 1AA.

Furman (1)
Marshall (2)
GSU (2)
App (3)

I will say that the difference in the SoCon's dominance of 10-15 years ago to the MVFCs of today is that the SoCon was deeper. Furman, App, and GSU were all legitimate title contenders. The MVFC has 1 legitimate title contender and a bunch of teams that can't beat that team, like everyone else.

[Reign of Terrier]

Yeah, um, we'll need to check back with you in the middle of December.
Deal.


I think the SoCon deserves credit for what App State and Georgia Southern accomplished while they were in the conference. That has no impact on how I would rank Wofford, Furman or any current SoCon team though. It also means that the SoCon only gets credit for I believe 2 of Georgia Southern's 6 national championships.

I agree. We aren't a conference right now that produces a good enough team to make the semis. Some of that is just how the bracket turned out and some of that is just not being good enough.

All I'm saying is that we're associating some teams in some conferences with the success of other teams in that conference and that's just not fair in my opinion. I will gladly admit I'm wrong about teams like Montana State, Sacramento State, and Illinois State if they prove me wrong. I wouldn't put it past them to get to the quarters but I would bet money they don't get to the semis.

All I'm pleading you guys to do is apply that logic consistently. If we're going to give Sac state, etc vicarious credit via conference affiliation, fine, but that means we have to do that with other conferences.

I personally approach this as looking at a handful of programs as likely getting deep in the playoffs regardless of how they get in, while applying skepticism to teams that haven't yet.

[MSUBobcat]

Deal.



I agree. We aren't a conference right now that produces a good enough team to make the semis. Some of that is just how the bracket turned out and some of that is just not being good enough.

All I'm saying is that we're associating some teams in some conferences with the success of other teams in that conference and that's just not fair in my opinion. I will gladly admit I'm wrong about teams like Montana State, Sacramento State, and Illinois State if they prove me wrong. I wouldn't put it past them to get to the quarters but I would bet money they don't get to the semis.

All I'm pleading you guys to do is apply that logic consistently. If we're going to give Sac state, etc vicarious credit via conference affiliation, fine, but that means we have to do that with other conferences.

I personally approach this as looking at a handful of programs as likely getting deep in the playoffs regardless of how they get in, while applying skepticism to teams that haven't yet.

So you would bet money that MSU, Sac State and ISU-r won't make the semis?? MSU is currently probably not a seed (unless you're assuming a win over UM this weekend) so making the semis would require a home 1st round W, and 2 road games against (most likely) seeded teams. Sac State (using current AGS ranking) would host WSU, who beat them in Sacramento soundly once already, in the quarterfinals. Ill State would face #2 seeded JMU in the quarterfinals. You're not exactly going out on a limb saying a non-seed, a #4 seed and a #7 seed don't make the final 4 teams of the year. In fact, if everything goes chalk, only Sac State SHOULD make the final 4.

I reserve the right to opine on the likelihood of any of these teams to make the semis until I see the results of this weekend and the placement of the teams, but given their current ranking, I also would not put money on any of them to make the semis. Doesn't diminish the quality of the teams to not be one of the final 4 at year's end, IMO

[semobison]

Neat! And 5 different Big Sky schools have made it at least to the quarters in the last decade. The Valley is the same, and the CAA has 6.

Not so fast...let's get this straight...in the last FIVE years 4 different Valley teams have made the semi's and 3 different teams have made the Natty! xbowx

[semobison]

Out of the MVFC this year ISUr and UNI both have defenses that can play with anybody. Their problems are both on offense. The Redbirds can't throw the ball at all!

[Grizzlies82]

Not so fast...let's get this straight...in the last FIVE years 4 different Valley teams have made the semi's and 3 different teams have made the Natty! xbowx


Did any of them win it?

[semobison]

Did any of them win it?

NDSU won 4.
ISUr lost to NDSU.
YSU lost to JMU.

[cx500d]

Which one? To clarify, I said "first round" when I meant "first game they played" because it's shorter. So seeded Big Sky teams, in spite of home field advantage, the bye, and the weather are more likely to lose their first game, as are Big Sky teams in the first round.



Cool Cool, but I'm not giving deference to Missouri State because NDSU has a 3-peat. The same principle applies.

8 of the 13 Big Sky teams haven't won a playoff game since at least 2005, if at all. 11 of the 13 Big Sky teams combine for 2 playoff wins since 2015.

It's better to look at the FCS as a collection of programs that are good than a bunch of conferences. Pretending teams like Montana State and Sacramento State are elite programs hurts the field, not unlike how giving the CAA 6 bids last year did.

Heck, The Big Sky has won 79 playoff games all-time by current members. Eastern Washington and Montana account for for 53 of those wins (77%). That distribution isn't unheard of, heck it's the norm that 2-3 teams have about 70% of a conference's wins, but something like 15 of the remaining wins came no later than 2006. The Big Sky is a mile wide and an inch deep, and though last year was a good one, before we start throwing bids at the third and fourth teams in the standings, we need to keep this history in mind.

Heck, I think the Valley deserves 3 seeds and maybe 4 by virtue of attrition. So it's not the principle of getting 4 that bothers me. I just don't see any other FCS conference, looking at current performance as well as history, that deserves that degree of respect.
That’s bulll**** because ewu alone had 3 playoff wins last year

[cx500d]

Yeah, and I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not prepared to give them 4 seeds or whatever the heck the number is thrown around. 3 Seems appropriate (and I'm calling the Sac State upset).



Yeah and a decade ago we had App state and Georgia Southern in the socon, but we're not allowed to count them, for whatever reason (that elevates the socon numbers to 4).
Yeah, and when was the last time gaso or app state made a final, and when was the last time a fluffy team made a final.. you might as well through Harvard, Yale and Princeton into the mix of best teams because they had epic teams in the 1870’s

[uofmman1122]

That’s bulll**** because ewu alone had 3 playoff wins last year
I'm assuming he's not including EWU or WSU in the 11 out of 13 teams he sighted, although he's still wrong because I count 3 wins since 2015: Montana over SDSU 2015, UC Davis over UNI 2018, Montana State over IWU 2018.

[cx500d]

I'm assuming he's not including EWU or WSU in the 11 out of 13 teams he sighted, although he's still wrong because I count 3 wins since 2015: Montana over SDSU 2015, UC Davis over UNI 2018, Montana State over IWU 2018.
I guess...for sure he didn’t count any games played by the fluffy against San Diego.

[uofmman1122]

I guess...for sure he didn’t count any games played by the fluffy against San Diego.
We don't talk about NAU and Cal Poly when it comes to the playoffs anymore.

[Reign of Terrier]

That’s bulll**** because ewu alone had 3 playoff wins last year

I've corrected the original claim as I was off by one game, but that doesn't really hurt my case. The Big Sky has like 11 playoff since since 2015, with something like 5 teams with playoff berths. The Socon, in our mediocrity has 4 teams (in a smaller conference) with 8 wins.


Yeah, and when was the last time gaso or app state made a final, and when was the last time a fluffy team made a final.. you might as well through Harvard, Yale and Princeton into the mix of best teams because they had epic teams in the 1870’s

Should we all view an 8-4 Montana State team who has 4 wins in the playoffs since the Reagan Administration as a seeded juggernaut because Eastern Washington has made the final two times since 2010?

If your answer is no, then you agree with me.

[fencer24]

If we were to build a time machine and go back in time, your argument would make more sense. But we don't have that ability. Your cherry picking of a start date of 2015 is meaningless. Why not go back to 1994 so you can count the Marshall victories?

[Reign of Terrier]

If we were to build a time machine and go back in time, your argument would make more sense. But we don't have that ability. Your cherry picking of a start date of 2015 is meaningless. Why not go back to 1994 so you can count the Marshall victories?

It's not cherry-picking to say that the Big Sky has a long history of choking in the playoffs to a degree that suggests they shouldn't be getting the love they are. Last year was the outlier, not the trend.

[Reign of Terrier]

I'm assuming he's not including EWU or WSU in the 11 out of 13 teams he sighted, although he's still wrong because I count 3 wins since 2015: Montana over SDSU 2015, UC Davis over UNI 2018, Montana State over IWU 2018.

Thanks for the correction, I will fix it.

[MacThor]

Neat! And 5 different Big Sky schools have made it at least to the quarters in the last decade. The Valley is the same, and the CAA has 6. In the last decade? Definitely more than 6 from the CAA. I think the CAA has had more than 6 in the semifinals.

[PaladinFan]

Realistically, we could all just watch the games. Usually good football teams will show you what they are.

[uofmman1122]

It's not cherry-picking to say that the Big Sky has a long history of choking in the playoffs to a degree that suggests they shouldn't be getting the love they are. Last year was the outlier, not the trend.
I mean, if you ignore last year as a good outlier, I'd say you're right that we have had a lot of disappointing showings in the playoffs (especially 2013-2017), but the Socon's "trend" doesn't even have a good outlier since 2011, so do you give more benefit of the doubt to the conference that went 6-4 in the playoffs last year and only had 1 loss to a team that wasn't NDSU or a conference mate, or the one that went 1-2 with 2 losses to Jax State and Kennesaw?

[F'N Hawks]

Probably been stated here before but how close has the AGS poll come to being "correct" when compared to the announced field?

[Professor Chaos]

Probably been stated here before but how close has the AGS poll come to being "correct" when compared to the announced field?
74 of 82 on at-larges in the 6 years since the field expanded to 24.

There's a summary table at the bottom of this post comparing the AGS, STATS, and Coaches Polls in term of projecting at-large selections and seeds: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?216083-Which-poll-is-the-most-accurate-playoff-predictor

The AGS Poll has been the best predictor of the three but it really becomes evident when comparing seed lines and bad misses (misses three or more spots off).

[Reign of Terrier]

I mean, if you ignore last year as a good outlier, I'd say you're right that we have had a lot of disappointing showings in the playoffs (especially 2013-2017), but the Socon's "trend" doesn't even have a good outlier since 2011, so do you give more benefit of the doubt to the conference that went 6-4 in the playoffs last year and only had 1 loss to a team that wasn't NDSU or a conference mate, or the one that went 1-2 with 2 losses to Jax State and Kennesaw?If you're piling on Samford, please for the love of God let me join you

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Not so fast...let's get this straight...in the last FIVE years 4 different Valley teams have made the semi's and 3 different teams have made the Natty! xbowx

Shut up!

At least I used a measure of time rather than pick a random year like Reign of Terrier to massage my stats. :)

[Reign of Terrier]

You guys are bending over backwards to ignore the Big Sky's long history of choking in the playoffs.

[Redbird 4th & short]

You guys are bending over backwards to ignore the Big Sky's long history of choking in the playoffs.
Choking? Or just losing to better teams. As I tried to illustrate to you with our little exchange.

Though the tide has turned in recent years ... they are on a nice run the last couple years and currently right up there with MVFC for the top 4 or 5 teams.

[MSUBobcat]

Choking? Or just losing to better teams. As I tried to illustrate to you with our little exchange.

Though the tide has turned in recent years ... they are on a nice run the last couple years and currently right up there with MVFC for the top 4 or 5 teams.

BINGO!!! NAU and Cal Poly have both **** the bed recently against San Diego. Other than that I can't really recall any shocking upsets (chokes). Terrier, perhaps you can help us out by listing the games you perceive as "chokes" by the Big Sky and we can evaluate them on a game by game basis? I'm quite curious to see this list of chokes.... Seems more like if we don't have an NDSU and send a representative to the chipper every year, he calls that "choking".

[Reign of Terrier]

Choking? Or just losing to better teams. As I tried to illustrate to you with our little exchange.

Though the tide has turned in recent years ... they are on a nice run the last couple years and currently right up there with MVFC for the top 4 or 5 teams.

Just going back until the field expanded to 22 teams:

2010: Montana State got whipped by NDSU at home. Yes, it's NDSU, but NDSU *then* is not the same as NDSU now. That Montana State team was seeded.
2012: seeded Montana State got whipped by SHSU at home 34-16 (SHSU beat 3 Big sky teams on their way to Frisco)
2013: Southern Utah got whipped by 31 to SHSU, UNA got whipped by SDSU (who got whipped in the round of 16 by EWU), seeded Montana got beaten by Coastal
2015: Autobid SUU lost to Sam Houston at home (they didn't get whipped but I expect better if the Big Sky is so much better than, say, the southland); seeded Portland State lost by 2 scores to UNI. I agree that UNI is good, but it's still kind of a choke.
2016: Seeded North Dakota got beaten by Richmond who lost 38-0 the next week, the 3rd best Big Sky team in Weber State got whipped by the third best Socon team in Chattanooga, San Diego beat Cal Poly
2017: NAU got worked by San Diego (and 8 seed SUU lost to Weber in spite of having a bye and home field)


All of the above are games where the teams met in the first round (and were whipped) or lost as a seed. I'm not listing all of the loss because many of them are respectable. I throw skepticism in the direction of the MVFC all the time, but at least they show up to their playoff games and win a lot of them. With the Big Sky, I don't really trust any team but EWU and Montana to win a game.

You may not agree with all of my characterizations of these games as bad losses, but plenty of them are. Where there's smoke, there's fire. There are lots of Big Sky and formerly Big Sky teams like UND that do well in conference play, many times to earn a seed, but they manage to bungle it up in a way that we should all be skeptical (MSU, Portland State, SUU, UND, UNA, Cal Poly),

[uofmman1122]

Just going back until the field expanded to 22 teams:

2010: Montana State got whipped by NDSU at home. Yes, it's NDSU, but NDSU *then* is not the same as NDSU now. That Montana State team was seeded.
2012: seeded Montana State got whipped by Eastern Washington at home 34-16 (SHSU beat 3 Big sky teams on their way to Frisco)
2013: Southern Utah got whipped by 31 to SHSU, UNA got whipped by SDSU (who got whipped in the round of 16 by EWU), seeded Montana got beaten by Coastal
2015: Autobid SUU lost to Sam Houston at home (they didn't get whipped but I expect better if the Big Sky is so much better than, say, the southland); seeded Portland State lost by 2 scores to UNI. I agree that UNI is good, but it's still kind of a choke.
2016: Seeded North Dakota got beaten by Richmond who lost 38-0 the next week, the 3rd best Big Sky team in Weber State got whipped by the third best Socon team in Chattanooga, San Diego beat Cal Poly
2017: UNA got worked by San Diego (and 8 seed SUU lost to Weber in spite of having a bye and home field)


All of the above are games where the teams met in the first round (and were whipped) or lost as a seed. I'm not listing all of the loss because many of them are respectable. I throw skepticism in the direction of the MVFC all the time, but at least they show up to their playoff games and win a lot of them. With the Big Sky, I don't really trust any team but EWU and Montana to win a game.

You may not agree with all of my characterizations of these games as bad losses, but plenty of them are. Where there's smoke, there's fire. There are lots of Big Sky and formerly Big Sky teams like UND that do well in conference play, many times to earn a seed, but they manage to bungle it up in a way that we should all be skeptical (MSU, Portland State, SUU, UND, UNA, Cal Poly),
...but we went 6-4 last year, which was almost as good as the MVFC did (7-2). The Southland went 1-3, and the SoCon went 1-2.

The CAA went 3-6, with 4 of those losses coming in the first round to teams that lost in the next round. The most recent history says trust the Big Sky more than any conference not named the MVFC.

[uni88]

Just going back until the field expanded to 22 teams:

2010: Montana State got whipped by NDSU at home. Yes, it's NDSU, but NDSU *then* is not the same as NDSU now. That Montana State team was seeded.
2012: seeded Montana State got whipped by Eastern Washington at home 34-16 (SHSU beat 3 Big sky teams on their way to Frisco)
2013: Southern Utah got whipped by 31 to SHSU, UNA got whipped by SDSU (who got whipped in the round of 16 by EWU), seeded Montana got beaten by Coastal
2015: Autobid SUU lost to Sam Houston at home (they didn't get whipped but I expect better if the Big Sky is so much better than, say, the southland); seeded Portland State lost by 2 scores to UNI. I agree that UNI is good, but it's still kind of a choke.
2016: Seeded North Dakota got beaten by Richmond who lost 38-0 the next week, the 3rd best Big Sky team in Weber State got whipped by the third best Socon team in Chattanooga, San Diego beat Cal Poly
2017: UNA got worked by San Diego (and 8 seed SUU lost to Weber in spite of having a bye and home field)


All of the above are games where the teams met in the first round (and were whipped) or lost as a seed. I'm not listing all of the loss because many of them are respectable. I throw skepticism in the direction of the MVFC all the time, but at least they show up to their playoff games and win a lot of them. With the Big Sky, I don't really trust any team but EWU and Montana to win a game.

You may not agree with all of my characterizations of these games as bad losses, but plenty of them are. Where there's smoke, there's fire. There are lots of Big Sky and formerly Big Sky teams like UND that do well in conference play, many times to earn a seed, but they manage to bungle it up in a way that we should all be skeptical (MSU, Portland State, SUU, UND, UNA, Cal Poly),

Are you typing UNA to be condescending? It's NAU.

[ejjones]

Choking? Or just losing to better teams. As I tried to illustrate to you with our little exchange.

Though the tide has turned in recent years ... they are on a nice run the last couple years and currently right up there with MVFC for the top 4 or 5 teams.

So here's the unexplained conundrum... SC State loses to App State (arguably top 1-3 team in the country) 2x in 16 team playoff field (and we were in both games)... and to a respectable Georgia Southern our playoff record is talked about like trash... when other teams lose, it's because the other team they played was just "better".

I'm trying to understand, before playoff expansion and MEAC teams were in the playoffs each year, did anyone expect us to win against thee perennial #1 seeds. Now folks throw our record out like it's terrible, but in all likelihood it should be terrible, because over 80% of the time we were in "no win" situations.

Kind of like the kid who got his first job trying to get credit..."hey, your credit application was denied". Why, "b/c you don't have a credit history".. but how do I get credit? Ask the NCAA.

[PaladinFan]

So here's the unexplained conundrum... SC State loses to App State (arguably top 1-3 team in the country) 2x in 16 team playoff field (and we were in both games)... and to a respectable Georgia Southern our playoff record is talked about like trash... when other teams lose, it's because the other team they played was just "better".

I'm trying to understand, before playoff expansion and MEAC teams were in the playoffs each year, did anyone expect us to win against thee perennial #1 seeds. Now folks throw our record out like it's terrible, but in all likelihood it should be terrible, because over 80% of the time we were in "no win" situations.

Kind of like the kid who got his first job trying to get credit..."hey, your credit application was denied". Why, "b/c you don't have a credit history".. but how do I get credit? Ask the NCAA.

I think a lot of this is silly.

There is one dominant team in the FCS. There's one pretty darn good team that beats everyone but the dominant team. Other than that, conference affiliation really doesn't matter. It's just a race to see who loses to those two teams.

[Reign of Terrier]

...but we went 6-4 last year, which was almost as good as the MVFC did (7-2). The Southland went 1-3, and the SoCon went 1-2.

The CAA went 3-6, with 4 of those losses coming in the first round to teams that lost in the next round. The most recent history says trust the Big Sky more than any conference not named the MVFC.

Correct! All I'm saying is, we have to be a little more vigilant before we jump on the "Big Sky is as good as the MVFC" gravy train. It could be the case! If it is, I will admit I'm wrong! But for now, let's keep this history in mind.


Are you typing UNA to be condescending? It's NAU.

It was a typo I swear. But even then, there's a difference between trolling and condescending :D

[Professor]

So here's the unexplained conundrum... SC State loses to App State (arguably top 1-3 team in the country) 2x in 16 team playoff field (and we were in both games)... and to a respectable Georgia Southern our playoff record is talked about like trash... when other teams lose, it's because the other team they played was just "better".

I'm trying to understand, before playoff expansion and MEAC teams were in the playoffs each year, did anyone expect us to win against thee perennial #1 seeds. Now folks throw our record out like it's terrible, but in all likelihood it should be terrible, because over 80% of the time we were in "no win" situations.

Kind of like the kid who got his first job trying to get credit..."hey, your credit application was denied". Why, "b/c you don't have a credit history".. but how do I get credit? Ask the NCAA.

Your absolutely right. It again goes to the bias against the MEAC / SWAC.

- - - Updated - - -


I think a lot of this is silly.

There is one dominant team in the FCS. There's one pretty darn good team that beats everyone but the dominant team. Other than that, conference affiliation really doesn't matter. It's just a race to see who loses to those two teams.

That pretty much sums this up. It's NDSU and the FCS

[Professor Chaos]

So here's the unexplained conundrum... SC State loses to App State (arguably top 1-3 team in the country) 2x in 16 team playoff field (and we were in both games)... and to a respectable Georgia Southern our playoff record is talked about like trash... when other teams lose, it's because the other team they played was just "better".

I'm trying to understand, before playoff expansion and MEAC teams were in the playoffs each year, did anyone expect us to win against thee perennial #1 seeds. Now folks throw our record out like it's terrible, but in all likelihood it should be terrible, because over 80% of the time we were in "no win" situations.

Kind of like the kid who got his first job trying to get credit..."hey, your credit application was denied". Why, "b/c you don't have a credit history".. but how do I get credit? Ask the NCAA.
No one should fault the MEAC teams for losing those kind of games but looking back through past year's brackets they haven't played a seeded team since 2008 and have lost 9 straight games to unseeded teams in that time:

2016: NC A&T (selected as an at-large) loses 39-10 to unseeded Richmond who would finish 10-4 and ranked 8th in the final STATS Poll
2014: Morgana St loses 46-24 to unseeded Richmond who would finish 9-4 and ranked 16th in the final STATS Poll
2013: Bethune-Cookman loses 48-24 to unseeded Coastal Carolina who would finish 12-3 and ranked 7th in the final STATS Poll
2013: South Carolina St (selected as an at-large) loses 30-20 to unseeded Furman who would finish 8-6 and ranked 22nd in the final STATS Poll
2012: Bethune-Cookman loses 30-20 to unseeded Coastal Carolina who would finish 8-4 and unranked in the final STATS Poll
2011: Norfolk St loses 35-18 to unseeded Old Dominion who would finish 10-3 and ranked 10th in the final STATS Poll
2010: South Carolina St (selected as at at-large) loses 41-16 to unseeded Georgia Southern who would finish 10-5 and ranked 4th in the final STATS Poll
2010: Bethune-Cookman loses 45-20 to unseeded New Hampshire who would finish 8-5 and ranked 7th in the final STATS Poll
2009: South Carolina St loses 20-13 to unseeded Appalachian St who would finish 11-3 and ranked 3rd in the final STATS Poll

So in those 9 games the average score was 37-18 and the average final STATS Poll ranking of the teams that beat them was about between 11 and 12 (11.4 to be exact). It's a pretty lazy argument to write those off as just unlucky draws in the bracket.

[ejjones]

[QUOTE=2009: South Carolina St loses 20-13 to unseeded Appalachian St who would finish 11-3 and ranked 3rd in the final STATS Poll
[/QUOTE]


Only 16 teams in the playoffs in 2009; App State was darn good. Don't let folks get confused and think that 8 teams got seeds in 2009. App state was one of top 4 teams in the playoffs that year.

[Professor Chaos]

Only 16 teams in the playoffs in 2009; App State was darn good. Don't let folks get confused and think that 8 teams got seeds in 2009. App state was one of top 4 teams in the playoffs that year.
No argument there. They gave Montana an epic game in Missoula in the semis that year and finished the season ranked 3rd.

[Reign of Terrier]

I'm curious of the last 20 years of the MEAC in the playoffs compares to the 1994-2013 OVC run (and by run, I mean stumble) through the playoffs.

I keep bringing it up because it's the same principle: by definition we don't see disruption of the conventional wisdom coming.

Question: does the NCAA have autobid rules? Could the MEAC accept an autobid if, say, a team ties for first place but loses the tiebreaker to the Celebration bowl (I know that won't apply this year, but I'm not sure how NCAA rules with autobids work)?

[Redbird 4th & short]

No one should fault the MEAC teams for losing those kind of games but looking back through past year's brackets they haven't played a seeded team since 2008 and have lost 9 straight games to unseeded teams in that time:

2016: NC A&T (selected as an at-large) loses 39-10 to unseeded Richmond who would finish 10-4 and ranked 8th in the final STATS Poll
2014: Morgana St loses 46-24 to unseeded Richmond who would finish 9-4 and ranked 16th in the final STATS Poll
2013: Bethune-Cookman loses 48-24 to unseeded Coastal Carolina who would finish 12-3 and ranked 7th in the final STATS Poll
2013: South Carolina St (selected as an at-large) loses 30-20 to unseeded Furman who would finish 8-6 and ranked 22nd in the final STATS Poll
2012: Bethune-Cookman loses 30-20 to unseeded Coastal Carolina who would finish 8-4 and unranked in the final STATS Poll
2011: Norfolk St loses 35-18 to unseeded Old Dominion who would finish 10-3 and ranked 10th in the final STATS Poll
2010: South Carolina St (selected as at at-large) loses 41-16 to unseeded Georgia Southern who would finish 10-5 and ranked 4th in the final STATS Poll
2010: Bethune-Cookman loses 45-20 to unseeded New Hampshire who would finish 8-5 and ranked 7th in the final STATS Poll
2009: South Carolina St loses 20-13 to unseeded Appalachian St who would finish 11-3 and ranked 3rd in the final STATS Poll

So in those 9 games the average score was 37-18 and the average final STATS Poll ranking of the teams that beat them was about between 11 and 12 (11.4 to be exact). It's a pretty lazy argument to write those off as just unlucky draws in the bracket.
i started writing this exact same email and decided to let it go .... that track records speaks volumes for itself. The best game was 2009 by far, the only seeded opponent in 10 years. Only 2 other close games (10 pt margins) since then were even close and the other 7 were all blowouts against unseeded teams.

No rationale for ignoring that recent history. And again, MEAC is not the only conference who is clearly not a 3 bid conference ... you have plenty of company. So you are not being picked on, other than when certain posters claim their 3rd place team clearly deserves a bid.

[Reign of Terrier]

To put in perspective how bad the OVC was from 1995-2012 in the playoffs, this is the outcome of their playoff games those years (note: Eastern Illinois didn't join the conference until 1996):
1995: Montana 48 EKU 10
1996: Murray State 34 WIU 6
1996: Troy 31 Murray State 3
1996: UNI 21 EIU 14 (EIU's first year in the OVC)
1997: WKU 42 EKU 14
1998: App State 45 TSU 31
1999: NC A&T 24 TSU 10
2000: Montana 45 EIU 13
2001: UNI 49 EIU 3
2002: WKU 59 Murray 20
2002: WIU 48 EIU 9
2003: WKU 45 JSU 7
2004 Furman 49 JSU 7
2005: SIU 21 EIU 6
2006: Illinois State 24 EIU 13
2007: SIU 30 EIU 11
2008: Richmond 38 EKU 10
2009: SIU 48 EIU 7
2010: Wofford 17 JSU 14
2010: EWU 37 SEMO 17
2011: JMU 20 EKU 17
2011: UCA 34 TTU 14
2012: SDSU 58 EIU 10

By my count, from 1995- 2011 the OVC was 1-22 in playoff games, with 19 of those 22 games coming by double digits and 15 coming by 3 scores plus.

Say what you want to say about the OVC, but they turned it around pretty nicely in 2013, winning 4 total playoff games. They've won a couple more since and at the very least they are more competitive. These things change on a dime.

I'm a big fan of using history to help us figure out the future, but this is the counterpoint to anyone who doesn't want to give any shot to a conference because of their playoff history.

[MSUBobcat]

Just going back until the field expanded to 22 teams:

2010: Montana State got whipped by NDSU at home. Yes, it's NDSU, but NDSU *then* is not the same as NDSU now. That Montana State team was seeded.
2012: seeded Montana State got whipped by Eastern Washington at home 34-16 (SHSU beat 3 Big sky teams on their way to Frisco)
2013: Southern Utah got whipped by 31 to SHSU, UNA got whipped by SDSU (who got whipped in the round of 16 by EWU), seeded Montana got beaten by Coastal
2015: Autobid SUU lost to Sam Houston at home (they didn't get whipped but I expect better if the Big Sky is so much better than, say, the southland); seeded Portland State lost by 2 scores to UNI. I agree that UNI is good, but it's still kind of a choke.
2016: Seeded North Dakota got beaten by Richmond who lost 38-0 the next week, the 3rd best Big Sky team in Weber State got whipped by the third best Socon team in Chattanooga, San Diego beat Cal Poly
2017: NAU got worked by San Diego (and 8 seed SUU lost to Weber in spite of having a bye and home field)


All of the above are games where the teams met in the first round (and were whipped) or lost as a seed. I'm not listing all of the loss because many of them are respectable. I throw skepticism in the direction of the MVFC all the time, but at least they show up to their playoff games and win a lot of them. With the Big Sky, I don't really trust any team but EWU and Montana to win a game.

You may not agree with all of my characterizations of these games as bad losses, but plenty of them are. Where there's smoke, there's fire. There are lots of Big Sky and formerly Big Sky teams like UND that do well in conference play, many times to earn a seed, but they manage to bungle it up in a way that we should all be skeptical (MSU, Portland State, SUU, UND, UNA, Cal Poly),

2010: NDSU beat Kansas (not a powerhouse, but still P5) and lost IN OVERTIME to the eventual national champ EWU (I may be mistaken but I think there was even some controversial call that the Bison faithful decry still to this day); I don't know that I call it "choking"
2012: SHSU was the national runner-up that year (they even made T-shirts, I believe); hard to call it choking when they are a FINAL 2 team unless every team they beat on the way all CHOKED and didn't "lose to the better team"
2013: SUU was 8-4 going into the playoffs, played on the road and was ranked lower than SHSU; them losing wasn't unexpected, but perhaps the margin was; losing a game that you are expected to lose, regardless of margin, isn't quite "choking" but I'll give partial credit. NAU was probably looked at as a near toss up. To be fair, MSU, a non-playoff team, thumped them by even more than SDSU, so I'm not sure it was a shocking outcome for most viewers, but I'll give that one to you. UM was expected to beat Coastal Carolina, not so much because they were clearly the better team, but because it was expected the beach-goers would struggle with the altitude and the elements (there was many a discussion here on AGS). I'd call all 3 mild upsets.
2015: SUU lost AT SHSU by 3 points, who should have been seeded but it was given to McNeese due to the head to head. Sam made the semis-clearly not a choke. Portland State was seeded and did choke a bit against UNI.
2016: UND lost to Richmond who was actually ranked slightly higher in both the STATS and Coaches' Polls; they were viewed as being pretty equal and the result (a 3 point loss) bore that out; WSU was a "receiving votes" in both polls the ENTIRE YEAR and was probably one of the last teams in; the results of that game show the down side of the expanded field, sometimes you just gotta fill the slots; I've already conceded that losing to a non-scholly, no matter how good, is unacceptable
2017: See previous comments about San Diego

So in summary, I see slight upsets by SUU, NAU and UM in 2013, a bit more choking by PSU in 2015, and 2 definite chokes by Cal Poly and NAU against San Diego. By my count that's, at best 6 "chokes" but more accurately 3, maybe 4. Over that same span the Big Sky has had 28 playoff berths.... clearly the 2 losses to San Diego are a black mark, but other than that, it's PLAYOFFS. Just because the "favored" team loses, it's usually not nearly as shocking as you like to claim.

[MacThor]

Yeah, that 2016 Richmond-North Dakota game was close and required a big 4th quarter comeback. We didn't "whip" them. That Richmond team was pretty good and probably would have been seeded if they hadn't imploded after Kyle Lauletta's injury (and the worst targeting call you'll ever see) in the last regular season game.

It is true that the ratio of Seeds to Final Four participants is pretty low for the Big Sky, since the expansion. I think the only conference with a worse ratio may be......The Southern. :)

[Professor Chaos]

To put in perspective how bad the OVC was from 1995-2012 in the playoffs, this is the outcome of their playoff games those years (note: Eastern Illinois didn't join the conference until 1996):
1995: Montana 48 EKU 10
1996: Murray State 34 WIU 6
1996: Troy 31 Murray State 3
1996: UNI 21 EIU 14 (EIU's first year in the OVC)
1997: WKU 42 EKU 14
1998: App State 45 TSU 31
1999: NC A&T 24 TSU 10
2000: Montana 45 EIU 13
2001: UNI 49 EIU 3
2002: WKU 59 Murray 20
2002: WIU 48 EIU 9
2003: WKU 45 JSU 7
2004 Furman 49 JSU 7
2005: SIU 21 EIU 6
2006: Illinois State 24 EIU 13
2007: SIU 30 EIU 11
2008: Richmond 38 EKU 10
2009: SIU 48 EIU 7
2010: Wofford 17 JSU 14
2010: EWU 37 SEMO 17
2011: JMU 20 EKU 17
2011: UCA 34 TTU 14
2012: SDSU 58 EIU 10

By my count, from 1995- 2011 the OVC was 1-22 in playoff games, with 19 of those 22 games coming by double digits and 15 coming by 3 scores plus.

Say what you want to say about the OVC, but they turned it around pretty nicely in 2013, winning 4 total playoff games. They've won a couple more since and at the very least they are more competitive. These things change on a dime.

I'm a big fan of using history to help us figure out the future, but this is the counterpoint to anyone who doesn't want to give any shot to a conference because of their playoff history.
Well, since you beat the dead horse for so long about the 5th place MVFC team being underserving of a playoff bid due to past postseason performance tell us about how the 3rd place OVC team has done in the playoffs.

Because if you're equating the MEAC with the OVC South Carolina St is 3rd in the MEAC pecking order right now.

For the record I think SCSU might be a worthy playoff team but if they're left out there's plenty of logic you can use to justify it other than anti-MEAC bias.

[F'N Hawks]

Yeah, that 2016 Richmond-North Dakota game was close and required a big 4th quarter comeback. We didn't "whip" them. That Richmond team was pretty good and probably would have been seeded if they hadn't imploded after Kyle Lauletta's injury (and the worst targeting call you'll ever see) in the last regular season game.

It is true that the ratio of Seeds to Final Four participants is pretty low for the Big Sky, since the expansion. I think the only conference with a worse ratio may be......The Southern. :)

Sigh. What a 4th quarter disaster in our first FCS playoff game ever. Total meltdown mentally and Richmond took advantage by blocking a punt and also scoring after UND's moron ran into your punter up 24-7 at the end of the 3rd.

[Reign of Terrier]

2010: NDSU beat Kansas (not a powerhouse, but still P5) and lost IN OVERTIME to the eventual national champ EWU (I may be mistaken but I think there was even some controversial call that the Bison faithful decry still to this day); I don't know that I call it "choking"
2012: SHSU was the national runner-up that year (they even made T-shirts, I believe); hard to call it choking when they are a FINAL 2 team unless every team they beat on the way all CHOKED and didn't "lose to the better team"
2013: SUU was 8-4 going into the playoffs, played on the road and was ranked lower than SHSU; them losing wasn't unexpected, but perhaps the margin was; losing a game that you are expected to lose, regardless of margin, isn't quite "choking" but I'll give partial credit. NAU was probably looked at as a near toss up. To be fair, MSU, a non-playoff team, thumped them by even more than SDSU, so I'm not sure it was a shocking outcome for most viewers, but I'll give that one to you. UM was expected to beat Coastal Carolina, not so much because they were clearly the better team, but because it was expected the beach-goers would struggle with the altitude and the elements (there was many a discussion here on AGS). I'd call all 3 mild upsets.
2015: SUU lost AT SHSU by 3 points, who should have been seeded but it was given to McNeese due to the head to head. Sam made the semis-clearly not a choke. Portland State was seeded and did choke a bit against UNI.
2016: UND lost to Richmond who was actually ranked slightly higher in both the STATS and Coaches' Polls; they were viewed as being pretty equal and the result (a 3 point loss) bore that out; WSU was a "receiving votes" in both polls the ENTIRE YEAR and was probably one of the last teams in; the results of that game show the down side of the expanded field, sometimes you just gotta fill the slots; I've already conceded that losing to a non-scholly, no matter how good, is unacceptable
2017: See previous comments about San Diego

So in summary, I see slight upsets by SUU, NAU and UM in 2013, a bit more choking by PSU in 2015, and 2 definite chokes by Cal Poly and NAU against San Diego. By my count that's, at best 6 "chokes" but more accurately 3, maybe 4. Over that same span the Big Sky has had 28 playoff berths.... clearly the 2 losses to San Diego are a black mark, but other than that, it's PLAYOFFS. Just because the "favored" team loses, it's usually not nearly as shocking as you like to claim.

The problem here is that your justifying the chokes after the fact. Yes, we know North Dakota State was good that year in hindsight, but they were a 7-4 bubble team. Yes, we know SHSU was good in hindsight (even though they lost worse to NDSU than NDSU's semi/quarterfinal opponents, but I digress). I guarantee the outcomes of playoff games that are played this year are going to make more sense in the light of future outcomes (playoff or otherwise) next year, two years from now, or even a decade (just like that Montana State-NDSU game). But in real time? It's choking.

It could be the case that half of the seeded Big Sky teams lose to the next up-and-coming FCS programs this year in their first game. But it's still a choke. They have expectation thrusted upon them and they faulter. It would be one thing if it were just one seeded team or one 50-50 game, but it happens frequently enough that you just can't ignore it.

When you are a seeded team, you are expected to beat non-seeded teams. That's why you're seeded. When you consistently lose games as seeded teams, you're choking. This is pretty straight forward. Since 201, the Big sky has been seeded the most times (15) and lost the most first-games (5) and has the third worst winning percentage. I feel like you have to bull**** yourself if you think that's nothing. And EWU has 6 of those 10 wins. So if you're a seeded Big Sky team, you're 4-5, which is second worst, only to the OVC.

[Reign of Terrier]

Well, since you beat the dead horse for so long about the 5th place MVFC team being underserving of a playoff bid due to past postseason performance tell us about how the 3rd place OVC team has done in the playoffs.

Because if you're equating the MEAC with the OVC South Carolina St is 3rd in the MEAC pecking order right now.

For the record I think SCSU might be a worthy playoff team but if they're left out there's plenty of logic you can use to justify it other than anti-MEAC bias.

*Tied for second. That sounds pedantic, but it's really not. A lot of times the fourth place CAA team (or what have you) is tied with at least 2 other teams and we don't say it's the sixth place team.

I understand both sides of the arguments keeping SC State out. I just don't like the general line of reasoning of denying a bid based on 20 years of playoff performances. 5 years? Okay. 20 is over the top.

I think SC State deserves it but I think they're going to be kept out because of their conference position.

But I do think that, like the OVC, the MEAC has improved in the last few years and it's a bit tricky to judge them because of their playoff absence.

[uni88]

The problem here is that your justifying the chokes after the fact. Yes, we know North Dakota State was good that year in hindsight, but they were a 7-4 bubble team. Yes, we know SHSU was good in hindsight (even though they lost worse to NDSU than NDSU's semi/quarterfinal opponents, but I digress). I guarantee the outcomes of playoff games that are played this year are going to make more sense in the light of future outcomes (playoff or otherwise) next year, two years from now, or even a decade (just like that Montana State-NDSU game). But in real time? It's choking.

It could be the case that half of the seeded Big Sky teams lose to the next up-and-coming FCS programs this year in their first game. But it's still a choke. They have expectation thrusted upon them and they faulter. It would be one thing if it were just one seeded team or one 50-50 game, but it happens frequently enough that you just can't ignore it.

When you are a seeded team, you are expected to beat non-seeded teams. That's why you're seeded. When you consistently lose games as seeded teams, you're choking. This is pretty straight forward. Since 201, the Big sky has been seeded the most times (15) and lost the most first-games (5) and has the third worst winning percentage. I feel like you have to bull**** yourself if you think that's nothing. And EWU has 6 of those 10 wins. So if you're a seeded Big Sky team, you're 4-5, which is second worst, only to the OVC.

So you want to punish Big Sky teams because other Big Sky teams choked in the playoffs in years past but you don't think Wofford should be punished for choking against Samford earlier this year?

[katss07]

2010: NDSU beat Kansas (not a powerhouse, but still P5) and lost IN OVERTIME to the eventual national champ EWU (I may be mistaken but I think there was even some controversial call that the Bison faithful decry still to this day); I don't know that I call it "choking"
2012: SHSU was the national runner-up that year (they even made T-shirts, I believe); hard to call it choking when they are a FINAL 2 team unless every team they beat on the way all CHOKED and didn't "lose to the better team"
2013: SUU was 8-4 going into the playoffs, played on the road and was ranked lower than SHSU; them losing wasn't unexpected, but perhaps the margin was; losing a game that you are expected to lose, regardless of margin, isn't quite "choking" but I'll give partial credit. NAU was probably looked at as a near toss up. To be fair, MSU, a non-playoff team, thumped them by even more than SDSU, so I'm not sure it was a shocking outcome for most viewers, but I'll give that one to you. UM was expected to beat Coastal Carolina, not so much because they were clearly the better team, but because it was expected the beach-goers would struggle with the altitude and the elements (there was many a discussion here on AGS). I'd call all 3 mild upsets.
2015: SUU lost AT SHSU by 3 points, who should have been seeded but it was given to McNeese due to the head to head. Sam made the semis-clearly not a choke. Portland State was seeded and did choke a bit against UNI.
2016: UND lost to Richmond who was actually ranked slightly higher in both the STATS and Coaches' Polls; they were viewed as being pretty equal and the result (a 3 point loss) bore that out; WSU was a "receiving votes" in both polls the ENTIRE YEAR and was probably one of the last teams in; the results of that game show the down side of the expanded field, sometimes you just gotta fill the slots; I've already conceded that losing to a non-scholly, no matter how good, is unacceptable
2017: See previous comments about San Diego

So in summary, I see slight upsets by SUU, NAU and UM in 2013, a bit more choking by PSU in 2015, and 2 definite chokes by Cal Poly and NAU against San Diego. By my count that's, at best 6 "chokes" but more accurately 3, maybe 4. Over that same span the Big Sky has had 28 playoff berths.... clearly the 2 losses to San Diego are a black mark, but other than that, it's PLAYOFFS. Just because the "favored" team loses, it's usually not nearly as shocking as you like to claim.
2015 Sam was a good team, but definitely not seed worthy. The Kats lost to Lamar. McNeese was undefeated. It’s clear who deserved the seed.

Of all three 2015 Sam playoff wins, I would argue that SUU was probably the toughest game. Had multiple future NFLers on defense. Sam definitely got lucky beating the T-Birds. SUU was more talented. They choked.

[katss07]

So you want to punish Big Sky teams because other Big Sky teams choked in the playoffs in years past but you don't think Wofford should be punished for choking against Samford earlier this year?
It’s SuckCon logic. Wofford and Furman fans love to use it.

[MSUBobcat]

Yeah, that 2016 Richmond-North Dakota game was close and required a big 4th quarter comeback. We didn't "whip" them. That Richmond team was pretty good and probably would have been seeded if they hadn't imploded after Kyle Lauletta's injury (and the worst targeting call you'll ever see) in the last regular season game.

It is true that the ratio of Seeds to Final Four participants is pretty low for the Big Sky, since the expansion. I think the only conference with a worse ratio may be......The Southern. :)

Not sure which expansion you're referring to, so I'll go back to 2010. Looking at the performance of the Big Sky teams that were a top 4 seed (since the 5-8 seeds would presumably be on the road against a higher ranked team in the QF):
2010: #4 MSU lost in round 2 to a solid NDSU team, but yes, more was expected of us
2011: #4 UM made semis
2012: #2 EWU made semis; #3 MSU lost in QF
2013: #3 EWU made semis
2014: #4 EWU lost in QF to the #5
2015: No top 4 seed
2016: #2 EWU made semis
2017: No top 4 seed
2018: #2 WSU lost in QF to #7; #3 EWU made championship.

Of the 9 times the Big Sky has had a top 4 seed, they've made the semis 5 times (.556) which isn't great. Here's the success rate for the other conferences since 2010:
MVFC: 8 of 9; .889 (Bizuns, duh...)
CAA: 4 of 6; .667
Southern: 1 of 2; .500 (no top 4 seed since 2011)
Southland: 1 of 4; .250
OVC: 1 of 5; .200
Big South: 0 of 1; .000

The Big Sky hasn't made the most of their top 4 seeds as often as the MVFC(Bison) or even CAA, but more often than not the top 4 team has made the semis and it's a better ratio than the SoCon, Southern, OVC and Big South...

Also interesting from looking back at how top 4 seeds have done.... only 1 time (2011) have the seeds gone chalk; all 4 teams made the semis and the top 2 seeds were the finalists. Only 1 other time (2016) has only 1 top 4 dropped the ball; 6 years, half the top 4 have lost before the semifinals and in the first year of expansion (2010) only ONE TEAM made the semifinals

[MSUBobcat]

The problem here is that your justifying the chokes after the fact. Yes, we know North Dakota State was good that year in hindsight, but they were a 7-4 bubble team. Yes, we know SHSU was good in hindsight (even though they lost worse to NDSU than NDSU's semi/quarterfinal opponents, but I digress). I guarantee the outcomes of playoff games that are played this year are going to make more sense in the light of future outcomes (playoff or otherwise) next year, two years from now, or even a decade (just like that Montana State-NDSU game). But in real time? It's choking.

It could be the case that half of the seeded Big Sky teams lose to the next up-and-coming FCS programs this year in their first game. But it's still a choke. They have expectation thrusted upon them and they faulter. It would be one thing if it were just one seeded team or one 50-50 game, but it happens frequently enough that you just can't ignore it.

When you are a seeded team, you are expected to beat non-seeded teams. That's why you're seeded. When you consistently lose games as seeded teams, you're choking. This is pretty straight forward. Since 201, the Big sky has been seeded the most times (15) and lost the most first-games (5) and has the third worst winning percentage. I feel like you have to bull**** yourself if you think that's nothing. And EWU has 6 of those 10 wins. So if you're a seeded Big Sky team, you're 4-5, which is second worst, only to the OVC.

That makes zero sense whatsoever. A choke is a choke is a choke. It can't be a choke in real time, but oh wait... on second thought, that wasn't a choke... xrolleyesx

[MacThor]

Not sure which expansion you're referring to, so I'll go back to 2010. Looking at the performance of the Big Sky teams that were a top 4 seed (since the 5-8 seeds would presumably be on the road against a higher ranked team in the QF):
2010: #4 MSU lost in round 2 to a solid NDSU team, but yes, more was expected of us
2011: #4 UM made semis
2012: #2 EWU made semis; #3 MSU lost in QF
2013: #3 EWU made semis
2014: #4 EWU lost in QF to the #5
2015: No top 4 seed
2016: #2 EWU made semis
2017: No top 4 seed
2018: #2 WSU lost in QF to #7; #3 EWU made championship.

Of the 9 times the Big Sky has had a top 4 seed, they've made the semis 5 times (.556) which isn't great. Here's the success rate for the other conferences since 2010:
MVFC: 8 of 9; .889 (Bizuns, duh...)
CAA: 4 of 6; .667
Southern: 1 of 2; .500 (no top 4 seed since 2011)
Southland: 1 of 4; .250
OVC: 1 of 5; .200
Big South: 0 of 1; .000

The Big Sky hasn't made the most of their top 4 seeds as often as the MVFC(Bison) or even CAA, but more often than not the top 4 team has made the semis and it's a better ratio than the SoCon, Southern, OVC and Big South...

Also interesting from looking back at how top 4 seeds have done.... only 1 time (2011) have the seeds gone chalk; all 4 teams made the semis and the top 2 seeds were the finalists. Only 1 other time (2016) has only 1 top 4 dropped the ball; 6 years, half the top 4 have lost before the semifinals and in the first year of expansion (2010) only ONE TEAM made the semifinals

I was referring to the 2013 expansion to 24 teams. I think you're being a little punitive by just looking at Top 4 seeds in the semis, too. Just because a Top 4 team didn't make the semis doesn't mean they "choked." What if another team from that conference (a #5-#8 seed, or an unseeded team) makes the semis instead? It happens. Was it a "choke" when #2 Illinois State lost to #7 Richmond in 2015? No.

The SoCon hasn't put a team in the Final Four in the current format, and certain fans want to take shots at the conferences that consistently do. Mostly I was just taking a light-hearted jab at the SoCon because this whole conference inferiority-complex pissing contest is just silly.

I won't be the least bit surprised or upset if the Big Sky gets 3 seeds.

[MSUBobcat]

I was referring to the 2013 expansion to 24 teams. I think you're being a little punitive by just looking at Top 4 seeds in the semis, too. Just because a Top 4 team didn't make the semis doesn't mean they "choked." What if another team from that conference (a #5-#8 seed, or an unseeded team) makes the semis instead? It happens. Was it a "choke" when #2 Illinois State lost to #7 Richmond in 2015? No.

The SoCon hasn't put a team in the Final Four in the current format, and certain fans want to take shots at the conferences that consistently do. Mostly I was just taking a light-hearted jab at the SoCon because this whole conference inferiority-complex pissing contest is just silly.

I won't be the least bit surprised or upset if the Big Sky gets 3 seeds.

I caught your jab at the SoCon. And I wasn't calling any of the teams that failed to make the semis "chokers", that's YoungPup's area of expertise. I was just curious how often the top 4 seeds (presumably the best 4 teams) made it to the Final Four. 16 of 36 teams failed to attain their DESTINY. I would not have guessed it to be that high. If you look at all top 4 seeds not named Bizuns, the ratio would be sub .500 which is really quite shocking, IMO.

[Reign of Terrier]

That makes zero sense whatsoever. A choke is a choke is a choke. It can't be a choke in real time, but oh wait... on second thought, that wasn't a choke... xrolleyesx

You're literally doing this.

[Reign of Terrier]

So you want to punish Big Sky teams because other Big Sky teams choked in the playoffs in years past but you don't think Wofford should be punished for choking against Samford earlier this year?

No, I'm saying handing them 3+ seeds when they're going to **** it up is a mistake for anyone paying attention to the subdivision.

[uni88]

No, I'm saying handing them 3+ seeds when they're going to **** it up is a mistake for anyone paying attention to the subdivision.

Change "them 3+ seeds" to "Wofford a seed" and see how you like that statement.

History does matter but it should not be the only consideration. If we gave history as much weight when considering SC State as you do when considering Big Sky seeds then SC State would be out of the playoffs and your loss to them would be a bad loss.

You have an amazing ability to take one position in arguing for one thing and then to take an almost opposite position when arguing for something else. Trying to follow your arguments is like playing mental Twister.

[uofmman1122]

No, I'm saying handing them 3+ seeds when they're going to **** it up is a mistake for anyone paying attention to the subdivision.
Again, we didn't last year, so why are you so bent out of shape about this?

Apart from NDSU, JMU, ISUr, UNI and SDSU, what teams should be seeded instead of Montana, Weber State, and Sac State?

[Catbooster]

No, I'm saying handing them 3+ seeds when they're going to **** it up is a mistake for anyone paying attention to the subdivision.
Just so I understand, you're saying that teams from conferences with poor historical playoff records shouldn't have that held against them when it comes to being selected for the playoffs because you can't tell whether they have turned it around and are surging to a new level until you give them a chance. But teams from "better" conferences that don't have a great win/loss ratio in the playoffs should not be given seeds because they are slaves to their conference's history?

I think you're being inconsistent. I'm inclined to think that improving playoff performance for a team that has been to the playoffs a couple times is easier than improving from not making the playoffs to making the playoffs and winning a few playoff games.

[Catbooster]

Again, we didn't last year, so why are you so bent out of shape about this?

Apart from NDSU, JMU, ISUr, UNI and SDSU, what teams should be seeded instead of Montana, Weber State, and Sac State?
Easy - Montana State after we beat UM this weekend. xcoffeex




xthumbsupx

[uofmman1122]

Easy - Montana State after we beat UM this weekend. xcoffeex




xthumbsupx
I guess I should have clarified that the question is posed assuming those three teams win, since it makes his argument even more laughable, but I'd doubt they'd put MSU over Sac and maybe not even over Weber if you beat us this weekend.

[kalm]

Just going back until the field expanded to 22 teams:

2010: Montana State got whipped by NDSU at home. Yes, it's NDSU, but NDSU *then* is not the same as NDSU now. That Montana State team was seeded.
2012: seeded Montana State got whipped by Eastern Washington at home 34-16 (SHSU beat 3 Big sky teams on their way to Frisco)
2013: Southern Utah got whipped by 31 to SHSU, UNA got whipped by SDSU (who got whipped in the round of 16 by EWU), seeded Montana got beaten by Coastal
2015: Autobid SUU lost to Sam Houston at home (they didn't get whipped but I expect better if the Big Sky is so much better than, say, the southland); seeded Portland State lost by 2 scores to UNI. I agree that UNI is good, but it's still kind of a choke.
2016: Seeded North Dakota got beaten by Richmond who lost 38-0 the next week, the 3rd best Big Sky team in Weber State got whipped by the third best Socon team in Chattanooga, San Diego beat Cal Poly
2017: NAU got worked by San Diego (and 8 seed SUU lost to Weber in spite of having a bye and home field)


All of the above are games where the teams met in the first round (and were whipped) or lost as a seed. I'm not listing all of the loss because many of them are respectable. I throw skepticism in the direction of the MVFC all the time, but at least they show up to their playoff games and win a lot of them. With the Big Sky, I don't really trust any team but EWU and Montana to win a game.

You may not agree with all of my characterizations of these games as bad losses, but plenty of them are. Where there's smoke, there's fire. There are lots of Big Sky and formerly Big Sky teams like UND that do well in conference play, many times to earn a seed, but they manage to bungle it up in a way that we should all be skeptical (MSU, Portland State, SUU, UND, UNA, Cal Poly),

Without wading through the rest of the thread you need to correct some stuff in this list. Begin with MSU and EWU haven’t met in the playoffs but there are several other factually incorrect claims in your post.

[cx500d]

Without wading through the rest of the thread you need to correct some stuff in this list. Begin with MSU and EWU haven’t met in the playoffs but there are several other factually incorrect claims in your post.
RoT is pretty loose with facts as usual

[CopperCat]

The problem here is that your justifying the chokes after the fact. Yes, we know North Dakota State was good that year in hindsight, but they were a 7-4 bubble team. Yes, we know SHSU was good in hindsight (even though they lost worse to NDSU than NDSU's semi/quarterfinal opponents, but I digress). I guarantee the outcomes of playoff games that are played this year are going to make more sense in the light of future outcomes (playoff or otherwise) next year, two years from now, or even a decade (just like that Montana State-NDSU game). But in real time? It's choking.

It could be the case that half of the seeded Big Sky teams lose to the next up-and-coming FCS programs this year in their first game. But it's still a choke. They have expectation thrusted upon them and they faulter. It would be one thing if it were just one seeded team or one 50-50 game, but it happens frequently enough that you just can't ignore it.

When you are a seeded team, you are expected to beat non-seeded teams. That's why you're seeded. When you consistently lose games as seeded teams, you're choking. This is pretty straight forward. Since 201, the Big sky has been seeded the most times (15) and lost the most first-games (5) and has the third worst winning percentage. I feel like you have to bull**** yourself if you think that's nothing. And EWU has 6 of those 10 wins. So if you're a seeded Big Sky team, you're 4-5, which is second worst, only to the OVC.
You apparently have an axe to grind with the BSC, especially MSU.

It’s rather comedic, please do continue.

[Reign of Terrier]

You apparently have an axe to grind with the BSC, especially MSU.

It’s rather comedic, please do continue.Everyone thinks I have an axe to grind with their conference because I apply the same scrutiny to the Big Sky, CAA, and MVFC as they do my own.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Without wading through the rest of the thread you need to correct some stuff in this list. Begin with MSU and EWU haven’t met in the playoffs but there are several other factually incorrect claims in your post.That was a typo but nice rebuttal

Oh wait, it's not there.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Change "them 3+ seeds" to "Wofford a seed" and see how you like that statement.

History does matter but it should not be the only consideration. If we gave history as much weight when considering SC State as you do when considering Big Sky seeds then SC State would be out of the playoffs and your loss to them would be a bad loss.

You have an amazing ability to take one position in arguing for one thing and then to take an almost opposite position when arguing for something else. Trying to follow your arguments is like playing mental Twister.

There's a difference between arguing against teams not getting a bid and teams not getting a seed.

I think all 4 Big Sky teams deserve a bid without hesitation. But a seed? Not so fast.

It's not that hard to understand that having a seed endows some incumbent advantages (home field, the bye, etc) which mean a big difference over a month-long playoff. It's not fair when it's wasted on a newcomer program that hasn't done anything yet and that history shows will probably bungle it.

Some conferences you can lose 2+ conference games and an OOC game by double digits and get a seed while in others like the socon, OVC, and Southland you basically have to go undefeated. And then the next year, who was seeded colors our perceptions of preseason rankings and all this other stuff and the same logic that's in place now remains, and there's not much to be done to remove from them if you're a "next three" conference.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Again, we didn't last year, so why are you so bent out of shape about this?

Apart from NDSU, JMU, ISUr, UNI and SDSU, what teams should be seeded instead of Montana, Weber State, and Sac State?I'm least skeptical of Montana and Weber State. Montana as a program almost always advances to at least the quarterfinals, no matter who they play and Weber has recent playoff success.

I'm skeptical of Sacramento State because they haven't done anything OOC, I don't think they've even made the playoffs before and then suddenly they're a top 8 team? Same with Montana State. They won a national title in the early 80s but have since only won 4 playoff games since the Reagan administration.

UC Davis would have proven this reasoning wrong last year, but it's only one year. I have said it before and I will say it again, if they prove me wrong, I will admit it and update my analysis. But right now I'm still skeptical


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Reign of Terrier]

Just so I understand, you're saying that teams from conferences with poor historical playoff records shouldn't have that held against them when it comes to being selected for the playoffs because you can't tell whether they have turned it around and are surging to a new level until you give them a chance. But teams from "better" conferences that don't have a great win/loss ratio in the playoffs should not be given seeds because they are slaves to their conference's history?

I think you're being inconsistent. I'm inclined to think that improving playoff performance for a team that has been to the playoffs a couple times is easier than improving from not making the playoffs to making the playoffs and winning a few playoff games.

Not exactly. First I'm saying we should be a little more lenient in terms of giving out bids (not seeds) and update our priors when recent evidence reveals itself, especially in OOC play.

I assume people are referencing my defense of the MEAC. Let me be clear: I'm not saying the MEAC is some super conference now, but I think we have better evidence to show the top is better than previously thought by virtue of their wins over FBS, CAA, Southern, and playoff OVC teams recently. I think SC state should get a bid, but that's different from saying they should get a seed (no). If SC state gets a bid and lays an egg I will admit I'm wrong and update my opinion.

Second, I am saying with seeds, we should be a lot more skeptical and evaluate seeding based on program success more than conference affiliation which I think is happening this season. There's a lot of variation within conferences and a lot of evidence to suggest that programs are more predictive of success than conference affiliation. There are inherent, incumbent advantages with seeding, and I think it's unfair when it's wasted on teams that will bungle it.

Also, sorry I'm spamming this thread here, I'm on my phone. I'm trying to answer people's questions respectfully as I understand I can be a little much, but I'm having fun and I appreciate the feedback because it's helping me clarify my positions.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[ElCid]

I'm least skeptical of Montana and Weber State. Montana as a program almost always advances to at least the quarterfinals, no matter who they play and Weber has recent playoff success.

I'm skeptical of Sacramento State because they haven't done anything OOC, I don't think they've even made the playoffs before and then suddenly they're a top 8 team? Same with Montana State. They won a national title in the early 80s but have since only won 4 playoff games since the Reagan administration.

UC Davis would have proven this reasoning wrong last year, but it's only one year. I have said it before and I will say it again, if they prove me wrong, I will admit it and update my analysis. But right now I'm still skeptical


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I get most of what you are saying, but in many of your posts you reference what teams have done in previous playoffs. I understand that position, but I do not agree with it at all. Every year stands on its own. A team could be 0-10 in the playoffs but they get a reset each and every year if their season performance dictates it. The committee members may very well consider past performance as a factor, right or wrong, but I think that kind of thinking is a foul whether it is for playoff participation or seeding. In a worse case, it basically locks successful playoff teams in even though they may not warrant it, in a given year. Playoff success should not be a determining factor in whether or not a team should be included, season performance is. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you are just predicting playoff performance, ok.

[CopperCat]

I'm least skeptical of Montana and Weber State. Montana as a program almost always advances to at least the quarterfinals, no matter who they play and Weber has recent playoff success.

I'm skeptical of Sacramento State because they haven't done anything OOC, I don't think they've even made the playoffs before and then suddenly they're a top 8 team? Same with Montana State. They won a national title in the early 80s but have since only won 4 playoff games since the Reagan administration.

UC Davis would have proven this reasoning wrong last year, but it's only one year. I have said it before and I will say it again, if they prove me wrong, I will admit it and update my analysis. But right now I'm still skeptical


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
You’re bringing up games from the 1980s as if they matter for future playoff performance potential......

But as long as we are bringing up useless trivia, how many natl championships has Wofford won?

[Reign of Terrier]

I get most of what you are saying, but in many of your posts you reference what teams have done in previous playoffs. I understand that position, but I do not agree with it at all. Every year stands on its own. A team could be 0-10 in the playoffs but they get a reset each and every year if their season performance dictates it. The committee members may very well consider past performance as a factor, right or wrong, but I think that kind of thinking is a foul whether it is for playoff participation or seeding. In a worse case, it basically locks successful playoff teams in even though they may not warrant it, in a given year. Playoff success should not be a determining factor in whether or not a team should be included, season performance is. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you are just predicting playoff performance, ok.

My position: prior playoff success should not determine whether or not a team gets in the field. But when handing out seeds, we should look at prior (especially immediate) playoff performance because it can tell us if they're not a fraud. It seems like southeastern teams (Socon, big south, OVC, maybe Southland) have to make the playoffs first and do something the year before they get a seed (KSU, The Citadel, Wofford), but Big Sky teams don't. On the top of my head, SELA/McNeese are probably the exceptions to that southeastern trend, but it's worth noting that they got those seeds by beating Sam Houston and a couple of them lost pretty early too (the Southland has the second worst seed record, after the OVC).

- - - Updated - - -


You’re bringing up games from the 1980s as if they matter for future playoff performance potential......

But as long as we are bringing up useless trivia, how many natl championships has Wofford won?

I'm not bringing up games from the 1980s, I'm bringing up the lack of games since the 1980s.

[ElCid]

I'm not bringing up games from the 1980s, I'm bringing up the lack of games since the 1980s.



Now that is funny.
xlolxxlolxxlolx

[kalm]

My position: prior playoff success should not determine whether or not a team gets in the field. But when handing out seeds, we should look at prior (especially immediate) playoff performance because it can tell us if they're not a fraud. It seems like southeastern teams (Socon, big south, OVC, maybe Southland) have to make the playoffs first and do something the year before they get a seed (KSU, The Citadel, Wofford), but Big Sky teams don't. On the top of my head, SELA/McNeese are probably the exceptions to that southeastern trend, but it's worth noting that they got those seeds by beating Sam Houston and a couple of them lost pretty early too (the Southland has the second worst seed record, after the OVC).

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not bringing up games from the 1980s, I'm bringing up the lack of games since the 1980s.

I think history has an influence but it would be hard to pick the recent stretch to support your idea. An unseeded Weber’s success in 2017, last year’s wins, and this year where 3 of the front runners have wins either against a conference champion or a top 10 team, or, in the case of Sac 2 wins against two of those other front runners.

[MSUBobcat]

You're literally doing this.

I'm doing something impossible?!?!? Wow, good for me!

[MSUBobcat]

I get most of what you are saying, but in many of your posts you reference what teams have done in previous playoffs. I understand that position, but I do not agree with it at all. Every year stands on its own. A team could be 0-10 in the playoffs but they get a reset each and every year if their season performance dictates it. The committee members may very well consider past performance as a factor, right or wrong, but I think that kind of thinking is a foul whether it is for playoff participation or seeding. In a worse case, it basically locks successful playoff teams in even though they may not warrant it, in a given year. Playoff success should not be a determining factor in whether or not a team should be included, season performance is. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you are just predicting playoff performance, ok.

^^^^This guy!!! He gets it. MSU laying an egg in 2010 has ZERO bearing on 2019 Sacramento State, who appears to be getting a SEED in it's 1st playoff appearance ever. It has no bearing on even the current year MSU team (which isn't going far because we have no QB). If we're going to use historical results to evaluate current teams, maybe we should stop inviting Wofford, since they haven't made it past the quarterfinals in 16 years and have NEVER made it past the semis. Ever.

[MSUBobcat]

My position: prior playoff success should not determine whether or not a team gets in the field. But when handing out seeds, we should look at prior (especially immediate) playoff performance because it can tell us if they're not a fraud. It seems like southeastern teams (Socon, big south, OVC, maybe Southland) have to make the playoffs first and do something the year before they get a seed (KSU, The Citadel, Wofford), but Big Sky teams don't. On the top of my head, SELA/McNeese are probably the exceptions to that southeastern trend, but it's worth noting that they got those seeds by beating Sam Houston and a couple of them lost pretty early too (the Southland has the second worst seed record, after the OVC).



Uhhhhhhhh... didn't KSU get a #4 seed in the program's FOURTH YEAR in existence? Or is it's immense playoff history of the year prior enough to count as "doing something" under your expert criteria?

Your line of thinking has you on an island all by yourself. WILSON!!!!!!!

[Reign of Terrier]

I think history has an influence but it would be hard to pick the recent stretch to support your idea. An unseeded Weber’s success in 2017, last year’s wins, and this year where 3 of the front runners have wins either against a conference champion or a top 10 team, or, in the case of Sac 2 wins against two of those other front runners.

I'll admit I'm wrong if Sac State and Montana State (if they get a seed) win their first game. But even then, that may come down to matchups (I'm not going to pick Holy Cross to beat Sac State, for instance, or give them abundant credit for it). Last year was a good omen for the Big Sky, but I can't forget the recent stuff. Two consecutive years of going 4-0 against your first game competition MVFC style will shut me up.

[Reign of Terrier]

Uhhhhhhhh... didn't KSU get a #4 seed in the program's FOURTH YEAR in existence? Or is it's immense playoff history of the year prior enough to count as "doing something" under your expert criteria?

Your line of thinking has you on an island all by yourself. WILSON!!!!!!!

They won two playoff games the year before their seed and they didn't get blown out in their loss either. It wasn't just handed to them. They accomplished something OOC against playoff-caliber competition, and got the proverbial dub.

[MSUBobcat]

I'll admit I'm wrong if Sac State and Montana State (if they get a seed) win their first game. But even then, that may come down to matchups (I'm not going to pick Holy Cross to beat Sac State, for instance, or give them abundant credit for it). Last year was a good omen for the Big Sky, but I can't forget the recent stuff. Two consecutive years of going 4-0 against your first game competition MVFC style will shut me up.

Doubtful.... you like to pontificate. I don't see that changing....

[Reign of Terrier]

Doubtful.... you like to pontificate. I don't see that changing....

I can pontificate about other things

[MSUBobcat]

I'll admit I'm wrong if Sac State and Montana State (if they get a seed) win their first game. But even then, that may come down to matchups (I'm not going to pick Holy Cross to beat Sac State, for instance, or give them abundant credit for it). Last year was a good omen for the Big Sky, but I can't forget the recent stuff. Two consecutive years of going 4-0 against your first game competition MVFC style will shut me up.

Ahhh, so the historical benefit or doubt can be altered by a SINGLE season. NOW I get it. xsmiley_wix

[Grizzlies82]

Easy - Montana State after we beat UM this weekend. xcoffeex


xthumbsupx


Just stop it. Don't be delusional.

Pooooooor Bobcats.

Just helping you prepare for Saturday's game. You're welcome. :)

[Redbird 4th & short]

Everyone thinks I have an axe to grind with their conference because I apply the same scrutiny to the Big Sky, CAA, and MVFC as they do my own.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

dude, youre just all over the place .. your argument shifts with the moment and depending on the audience.

Subsequent to our exchange where you argue vehemently that MVFC didn't deserve 4 or more teams, but Colonial somehow did .. but only if you just look at 4th place teams going back to 2008 or 2017 (can't stop at 2011 though) and then repeatedly bringing up WIU playing Dayton as an example every time we talk about MVFC playoff competition .. as if mentioning it 10 times will make it seem like they draw Dayton every year in playoffs.

But then we both moved on and next thing I notice is your arguing how Colonial gets easy draws in playoffs and that their playoff record is inflated as a result. I told you that, but now you spew that like it was your original thought.

And now youre onto Big Sky ... which i would have agreed had very weak depth up until the last few years. But the last coupleyears, excluding NDSU, they have moved very close to MVFC level. in fact, this year, their top 5 may be stronger than our top 5 , excluding NDSU .. as usual.

You're going to run out of conferences ... and not be able to field 24 playoff teams if you keep you line of reasoning up. Or just give every conference 3 autobids and call it a day.

[Bisonoline]

dude, youre just all over the place .. your argument shifts with the moment and depending on the audience.

Subsequent to our exchange where you argue vehemently that MVFC didn't deserve 4 or more teams, but Colonial somehow did .. but only if you just look at 4th place teams going back to 2008 or 2017 (can't stop at 2011 though) and then repeatedly bringing up WIU playing Dayton as an example every time we talk about MVFC playoff competition .. as if mentioning it 10 times will make it seem like they draw Dayton every year in playoffs.

But then we both moved on and next thing I notice is your arguing how Colonial gets easy draws in playoffs and that their playoff record is inflated as a result. I told you that, but now you spew that like it was your original thought.

And now youre onto Big Sky ... which i would have agreed had very weak depth up until the last few years. But the last coupleyears, excluding NDSU, they have moved very close to MVFC level. in fact, this year, their top 5 may be stronger than our top 5 , excluding NDSU .. as usual.

You're going to run out of conferences ... and not be able to field 24 playoff teams if you keep you line of reasoning up. Or just give every conference 3 autobids and call it a day.

Nobody beats a dead horse like he does. LOL sometimes you just gotta walk away because he won't stop talking.

[Reign of Terrier]

dude, youre just all over the place .. your argument shifts with the moment and depending on the audience.

Subsequent to our exchange where you argue vehemently that MVFC didn't deserve 4 or more teams, but Colonial somehow did .. but only if you just look at 4th place teams going back to 2008 or 2017 (can't stop at 2011 though) and then repeatedly bringing up WIU playing Dayton as an example every time we talk about MVFC playoff competition .. as if mentioning it 10 times will make it seem like they draw Dayton every year in playoffs.

But then we both moved on and next thing I notice is your arguing how Colonial gets easy draws in playoffs and that their playoff record is inflated as a result. I told you that, but now you spew that like it was your original thought.

And now youre onto Big Sky ... which i would have agreed had very weak depth up until the last few years. But the last coupleyears, excluding NDSU, they have moved very close to MVFC level. in fact, this year, their top 5 may be stronger than our top 5 , excluding NDSU .. as usual.

You're going to run out of conferences ... and not be able to field 24 playoff teams if you keep you line of reasoning up. Or just give every conference 3 autobids and call it a day.

My argument was never that the MVFC didn't deserve 4 teams. It was that the CAA likely deserved more or the fourth team deserved consideration before the MVFC, given their historical record in the playoffs. I changed/updated that opinion based on how the CAA performed this year + how they performed in the playoffs last year. We're in new territory with the CAA and OVC in terms of how predictible they are in being successful or not in the playoffs. We may be there in the Big Sky; this year's playoffs will let us know if last year was a fluke or not.

I've given credit to you and Clenz changing my mind about the CAA at least once, maybe even two times. The fact that that happened doesn't mean I need to cite you every time I repeat the argument. But between this and constantly repeating how I got one factual point wrong in our first argument like six months ago is...a weird fixation to say the least. Move on.

My point has always been that the purported power conferences get too much credit for winning playoff games against relatively easy competition like Dayton (though not always of that low of a caliber), when the real question is whether the bubble teams left at home could have done the same (in a lot of cases, I think the answer is yes).

I'm targeting the Big Sky because if Montana State wins this weekend they could have as many as four teams in the bid discussion and that's just too much, given their playoff history. Ya know, the Big Fluffy. I think it's an exaggeration to say that the Big sky is on the level of the MVFC. Both have gotten well over 10 seeds since 2010 (when the field expanded), with the MVFC getting 14 and the OVC getting 15. The MVFC is undefeated in their first game as a seeded team at 14-0. The Big Sky has the most losses of any conferences at 10-5. Take out NDSU and the MVFC is still like 6-0 (or so) but if you take out EWU, they're 4-5. It's definitely not the same degree of depth.

I update my opinions when I'm proven wrong, it's not that hard to understand. I've argued that the CAA deserved more in the playoffs than the MVFC, then changed my mind when it became clear that last year's playoffs was not a fluke and that it's very likely the conference will go through a relative drought outside of JMU. I've argued that the Big Sky doesn't deserve as much love with seeding as they are currently getting. I've also argued that the 4th-5th place MVFC team historically aren't comparable to the top 3, especially if they aren't named NDSU/SDSU/UNI and when selecting playoff teams, we need to keep that in mind.

With the exception of the CAA argument, which I've changed my mind about, none of these arguments are contradictory to each other. You can hold all 3 and be consistent. It's not hard if you're keeping up.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Nobody beats a dead horse like he does. LOL sometimes you just gotta walk away because he won't stop talking.
wait wait wait ... I'm the one who beats the same dead horse to death. He has several dead horses, which makes it much harder to nail him down.

xdrunkyx

[Redbird 4th & short]

My argument was never that the MVFC didn't deserve 4 teams. It was that the CAA likely deserved more or the fourth team deserved consideration before the MVFC, given their historical record in the playoffs. I changed/updated that opinion based on how the CAA performed this year + how they performed in the playoffs last year. We're in new territory with the CAA and OVC in terms of how predictible they are in being successful or not in the playoffs. We may be there in the Big Sky; this year's playoffs will let us know if last year was a fluke or not.

I've given credit to you and Clenz changing my mind about the CAA at least once, maybe even two times. The fact that that happened doesn't mean I need to cite you every time I repeat the argument. But between this and constantly repeating how I got one factual point wrong in our first argument like six months ago is...a weird fixation to say the least. Move on.

My point has always been that the purported power conferences get too much credit for winning playoff games against relatively easy competition like Dayton (though not always of that low of a caliber), when the real question is whether the bubble teams left at home could have done the same (in a lot of cases, I think the answer is yes).

I'm targeting the Big Sky because if Montana State wins this weekend they could have as many as four teams in the bid discussion and that's just too much, given their playoff history. Ya know, the Big Fluffy. I think it's an exaggeration to say that the Big sky is on the level of the MVFC. Both have gotten well over 10 seeds since 2010 (when the field expanded), with the MVFC getting 14 and the OVC getting 15. The MVFC is undefeated in their first game as a seeded team at 14-0. The Big Sky has the most losses of any conferences at 10-5. Take out NDSU and the MVFC is still like 6-0 (or so) but if you take out EWU, they're 4-5. It's definitely not the same degree of depth.

I update my opinions when I'm proven wrong, it's not that hard to understand. I've argued that the CAA deserved more in the playoffs than the MVFC, then changed my mind when it became clear that last year's playoffs was not a fluke and that it's very likely the conference will go through a relative drought outside of JMU. I've argued that the Big Sky doesn't deserve as much love with seeding as they are currently getting. I've also argued that the 4th-5th place MVFC team historically aren't comparable to the top 3, especially if they aren't named NDSU/SDSU/UNI and when selecting playoff teams, we need to keep that in mind.

With the exception of the CAA argument, which I've changed my mind about, none of these arguments are contradictory to each other. You can hold all 3 and be consistent. It's not hard if you're keeping up.

11-0 .... WIU just beat Dayton in 1st round again !!!! :D

On more serious note, I think it is time to give the Big Sky more credit. they are legit agian this year. Last year it went 3 or 4 deep. This year is 5 or 6 deep. They used to go 1 or 2 deep most years and their playoff record verified it. But the committee kept giving them 3 or 4 teams.

[MSUBobcat]

wait wait wait ... I'm the one who beats the same dead horse to death. He has several dead horses, which makes it much harder to nail him down.

xdrunkyx

I'm not sure they are DEAD horses he keeps beating. I think they are ghost horses. Just when you've almost got your hands on the horse, you go right thru it and now it's behind you. xrotatehx

[Redbird 4th & short]

I'm not sure they are DEAD horses he keeps beating. I think they are ghost horses. Just when you've almost got your hands on the horse, you go right thru it and now it's behind you. xrotatehx
You know I was seriously thinking of switching metaphor to nailing jello to wall .. but ghost horses make a similar point.

That said .. I'll give reign partial credit for evolving somewhat .. but he sure doesn't make it easy.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Uhhhhhhhh... didn't KSU get a #4 seed in the program's FOURTH YEAR in existence? Or is it's immense playoff history of the year prior enough to count as "doing something" under your expert criteria?

Your line of thinking has you on an island all by yourself. WILSON!!!!!!!
ok, props for Wilson quip .. I may steal that one down the road.

[uni88]

They won two playoff games the year before their seed and they didn't get blown out in their loss either. It wasn't just handed to them. They accomplished something OOC against playoff-caliber competition, and got the proverbial dub.

They're slackers. Georgia Southern won a natty in their fourth year of existence. No credit to KSU! :P

[ST_Lawson]

11-0 .... WIU just beat Dayton in 1st round again !!!! :D

I was hoping we'd somehow pick up one more win this season.

[Professor Chaos]

Nicholls and SLU just made the bubble a little tighter. SLU has a pretty good shot at an at-large at 7-4 I'd say.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Nicholls and SLU just made the bubble a little tighter. SLU has a pretty good shot at an at-large at 7-4 I'd say.

I agree. I think the Southland could be looking at 3 teams. Nicholls has an outside shot at a seed. They have a pretty solid resume. If they traded one of their FBS games for a FCS cupcake they likely get one at 9-3.

[PaladinFan]

This article was posted on our forum - an interview with the selection committee http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=20191121115455672936004

Mentions that the committee does favor close games against FBS schools given that so few FCS teams win those games. Specifically mentions Furman's game against VT, but also mentions SELA, who played close with Ole Miss.

[mvemjsunpx]

I agree. I think the Southland could be looking at 3 teams. Nicholls has an outside shot at a seed. They have a pretty solid resume. If they traded one of their FBS games for a FCS cupcake they likely get one at 9-3.

I really don't think Nicholls has a chance at a seed. There isn't a single poll/metric that has them anywhere near the top-8.

[FUBeAR]

They're slackers. Georgia Southern won a natty in their fourth year of existence. No credit to KSU! :P
2nd year of ‘real’ play. The igglets were a club team in ‘82 & ‘83

[Reign of Terrier]

11-0 .... WIU just beat Dayton in 1st round again !!!! :D

On more serious note, I think it is time to give the Big Sky more credit. they are legit agian this year. Last year it went 3 or 4 deep. This year is 5 or 6 deep. They used to go 1 or 2 deep most years and their playoff record verified it. But the committee kept giving them 3 or 4 teams.

I'll take you're lack of a rebuttal here as a win on my part:D

But as for the Big Sky being deep: if they repeat their performance from last year, I will admit I'm likely wrong. It all depends on matchups. If they lose to a team like UNI (or something), I won't hold it against them either.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I was hoping we'd somehow pick up one more win this season.
hah ... even better, it was a playoff game and youre going to round of 16 ... again !!!!!!!!!

[ST_Lawson]

hah ... even better, it was a playoff game and youre going to round of 16 ... again !!!!!!!!!

Something tells me it may be a while before I hear that said about WIU again.