MUHAWKS
September 18th, 2022, 10:07 AM
*Disclaimer- apologies in advance for seemingly making every post have some sort of Monmouth perspective involved, but it is just who I am!! love me or hate me for it*.
It seems it is still too early to tell much in FCS for the middle of the road or "improving" teams. That holds true for The CAA as well IMO. Then there are things we are pretty sure of but to what extent is in question. To wit, Let's take Delaware. I think even after 3 games, it is fair to say they are legit. However, are they at the level where they can seriously start thinking of a national title? I will leave that for Hen fans to opine on. I would say probably yes but have only see part of 1 game. More on that and similar in a bit.
I have always had the view, and even more so now that it is hard to win football games and parity among the non top 5-10 schools is as high as ever. So while ND and SD State would probably still walk all over teams like Fordham or New Hampshire, it seems teams that are "ranked" about 35-70 can hang with and give good games to teams ranked 15-25. I am not articulating that well, but hopefully the point is taken. Gardner Webb is a great example. Sure, they may be improved, but how much can a Big South team REALLY improve in 1 season? This is a team that my team (Monmouth) beat soundly every year, including last year 54-17. This was a BAD Big South team every year. Now they go and give a decent FBS everything they can handle and play a top CAA team fairly evenly. Yes both losses, but again I hope you see the point. For years teams like mine and Kennesaw got zero credit for beating these teams and usually blowing them out. Are we at the point where we just want to say "a win is a win period" b/c parity is on the rise or do we question teams that barely slide by "bad" teams (perception wise). Army LOST by 10 to Coastal Carolina, a team that was on the ropes in a major way against Gardner Webb. Then Army beats Villanova by 39 points. Is Villanova not who we they thought they were? Or is it just the old cannot stop the triple option? Scoring only 10 points was a bit eye opening. There are numerous more examples of things like this, but again it is only week 3 so I am not sure how much to read into these things. NC Central may indeed be a good team, but UNH is supposed to win that game. They lose by a wide margin. If Monmouth or Albany or any other non top CAA team lose that game it would surely be looked at as bad. NC Central may be improved and that is really the huge question, are these "average to bad" teams improved? They were 6-5 last year with their wins coming against the worst of the worst. They lost to NC A&T by 23 ( a team Monmouth beat handily). My point is not to try and make Monmouth look better than they are, my point is that 99% of people on this board said The Big South sucks and gave zero credit for winning those games. The Big South may indeed suck, but I feel again that there is so much parity, that unless a team is just woeful, it is HARD to win games. Hampton is 3-0 but I would argue Albany's 0-3 looks better than Hampton's 3-0. Merrimack would be considered a "bad loss" but I watched The Harvard game and they have talent.
What seems to be certain in The CAA, as certain as anything can be after 3 weeks? IMO- It is Delaware is very good and seems to be the cream of the crop who should probably be thinking about going far into the playoffs. William and Mary could be close to that or even in the same boat. Richmond is probably very good and Elon I want to say is in that same boat too.
I will probably get some heat for this but I was not sold on Nova even before yesterday. To be fair, I do not read too much into a game against Army just b/c of the triple option, but 49-10 is 49-10. It may not be a good idea to question Nova the week before Monmouth plays them, but based on recent history and bias of this board, Nova beating us will not mean much anyway.
I saw bits and pieces of URI in 2 games and was left with no real opinion, was tough to tell. I will give benefit of the doubt to those that say they are a top playoff type team.
It seems Stony Brook is down and probably Towson too. That said it would not shock me if they win a game or two they "are not supposed to". Maine I just cannot figure out but so far I guess a down team.
Albany as stated above is 0-3 yet 2 very close games against good or thought to be good teams. Would it shock anyone if Albany stepped up and beat Elon or URI? not me.
Getting back to my original point- It is hard to win games and perception is reality (even though it should not be). The perception is UNH is supposed to beat NC Central and that Gardner Webb should be beaten by 30 by a good CAA team, but reality is just not such. It looks great on paper to blow teams out or to beat good teams but at the end of the day winning is the only thing that matters, period. I am going to make you guys sick with Monmouth but the example of us really shows a great example. The Fordham game was legit one play either way and we win. The UNH game was probably the worst loss I have seen b/c we were in control almost the whole game and driving to possibly go up 28-17 late in third or early 4th (actually we did score or get to the 1 and there was a penalty that did not effect the play that nullified it). If the Queen had balls she would be the King. But what is my point? The point is UNH and Fordham both became ranked (in either stats, coaches or both) and we were an 0-2 afterthought. So we make those 2-3 plays and would be sitting at 3-0 which based on that logic would put us in the top 20-25. But I can assure you we have too many flaws to be anywhere near that, but it was not b/c we got outclassed it was b/c of Literally 2-3 plays. So make 2-3 plays and you are ranked 22nd. Do not make them and you are thrown out with the trash. I AGREE with this however, and that is my point. There is very little separating being ranked 20th and in contention for playoffs and becoming 4-7 and thought of as crap. The gap is not wide. That in my opinion, is FCS football and also CAA football for the NON top couple teams. So it should not be a "bad" loss if and when Monmouth or Albany or whoever beats a good team.
It seems on a national level, Delaware and William and Mary are and will be relevant. Richmond and Elon may be. Villanova I want to say is but can I be blamed for not buying in yet? I also feel that beating non conference teams who are thought of as average or not good still matters a lot b/c again it is hard to win games!!
To end this, although it sounds like I am ridiculing UNH or Elon, it is the opposite. Certain teams just provide bad matchups and I do not think too much should ever be made of 1 game. I think it is hard to win football games and a win is a win, period. While that makes it true that a loss is a loss, not too much can be read into 1 game. I guarantee you if Delaware goes 10-1 but loses to Albany it will not hurt them or change the perception. Conversely if Albay goes 4-7 and beats Delaware, they would gladly switch places. So my opinion is that teams that have "good losses" should absolutely be given credit for them only when it is in conjunction with a 7-4 or 8-3 record with a couple good wins. And teams should not be docked for bad losses or close wins against "bad" teams when the overall body of work says otherwise.
It seems it is still too early to tell much in FCS for the middle of the road or "improving" teams. That holds true for The CAA as well IMO. Then there are things we are pretty sure of but to what extent is in question. To wit, Let's take Delaware. I think even after 3 games, it is fair to say they are legit. However, are they at the level where they can seriously start thinking of a national title? I will leave that for Hen fans to opine on. I would say probably yes but have only see part of 1 game. More on that and similar in a bit.
I have always had the view, and even more so now that it is hard to win football games and parity among the non top 5-10 schools is as high as ever. So while ND and SD State would probably still walk all over teams like Fordham or New Hampshire, it seems teams that are "ranked" about 35-70 can hang with and give good games to teams ranked 15-25. I am not articulating that well, but hopefully the point is taken. Gardner Webb is a great example. Sure, they may be improved, but how much can a Big South team REALLY improve in 1 season? This is a team that my team (Monmouth) beat soundly every year, including last year 54-17. This was a BAD Big South team every year. Now they go and give a decent FBS everything they can handle and play a top CAA team fairly evenly. Yes both losses, but again I hope you see the point. For years teams like mine and Kennesaw got zero credit for beating these teams and usually blowing them out. Are we at the point where we just want to say "a win is a win period" b/c parity is on the rise or do we question teams that barely slide by "bad" teams (perception wise). Army LOST by 10 to Coastal Carolina, a team that was on the ropes in a major way against Gardner Webb. Then Army beats Villanova by 39 points. Is Villanova not who we they thought they were? Or is it just the old cannot stop the triple option? Scoring only 10 points was a bit eye opening. There are numerous more examples of things like this, but again it is only week 3 so I am not sure how much to read into these things. NC Central may indeed be a good team, but UNH is supposed to win that game. They lose by a wide margin. If Monmouth or Albany or any other non top CAA team lose that game it would surely be looked at as bad. NC Central may be improved and that is really the huge question, are these "average to bad" teams improved? They were 6-5 last year with their wins coming against the worst of the worst. They lost to NC A&T by 23 ( a team Monmouth beat handily). My point is not to try and make Monmouth look better than they are, my point is that 99% of people on this board said The Big South sucks and gave zero credit for winning those games. The Big South may indeed suck, but I feel again that there is so much parity, that unless a team is just woeful, it is HARD to win games. Hampton is 3-0 but I would argue Albany's 0-3 looks better than Hampton's 3-0. Merrimack would be considered a "bad loss" but I watched The Harvard game and they have talent.
What seems to be certain in The CAA, as certain as anything can be after 3 weeks? IMO- It is Delaware is very good and seems to be the cream of the crop who should probably be thinking about going far into the playoffs. William and Mary could be close to that or even in the same boat. Richmond is probably very good and Elon I want to say is in that same boat too.
I will probably get some heat for this but I was not sold on Nova even before yesterday. To be fair, I do not read too much into a game against Army just b/c of the triple option, but 49-10 is 49-10. It may not be a good idea to question Nova the week before Monmouth plays them, but based on recent history and bias of this board, Nova beating us will not mean much anyway.
I saw bits and pieces of URI in 2 games and was left with no real opinion, was tough to tell. I will give benefit of the doubt to those that say they are a top playoff type team.
It seems Stony Brook is down and probably Towson too. That said it would not shock me if they win a game or two they "are not supposed to". Maine I just cannot figure out but so far I guess a down team.
Albany as stated above is 0-3 yet 2 very close games against good or thought to be good teams. Would it shock anyone if Albany stepped up and beat Elon or URI? not me.
Getting back to my original point- It is hard to win games and perception is reality (even though it should not be). The perception is UNH is supposed to beat NC Central and that Gardner Webb should be beaten by 30 by a good CAA team, but reality is just not such. It looks great on paper to blow teams out or to beat good teams but at the end of the day winning is the only thing that matters, period. I am going to make you guys sick with Monmouth but the example of us really shows a great example. The Fordham game was legit one play either way and we win. The UNH game was probably the worst loss I have seen b/c we were in control almost the whole game and driving to possibly go up 28-17 late in third or early 4th (actually we did score or get to the 1 and there was a penalty that did not effect the play that nullified it). If the Queen had balls she would be the King. But what is my point? The point is UNH and Fordham both became ranked (in either stats, coaches or both) and we were an 0-2 afterthought. So we make those 2-3 plays and would be sitting at 3-0 which based on that logic would put us in the top 20-25. But I can assure you we have too many flaws to be anywhere near that, but it was not b/c we got outclassed it was b/c of Literally 2-3 plays. So make 2-3 plays and you are ranked 22nd. Do not make them and you are thrown out with the trash. I AGREE with this however, and that is my point. There is very little separating being ranked 20th and in contention for playoffs and becoming 4-7 and thought of as crap. The gap is not wide. That in my opinion, is FCS football and also CAA football for the NON top couple teams. So it should not be a "bad" loss if and when Monmouth or Albany or whoever beats a good team.
It seems on a national level, Delaware and William and Mary are and will be relevant. Richmond and Elon may be. Villanova I want to say is but can I be blamed for not buying in yet? I also feel that beating non conference teams who are thought of as average or not good still matters a lot b/c again it is hard to win games!!
To end this, although it sounds like I am ridiculing UNH or Elon, it is the opposite. Certain teams just provide bad matchups and I do not think too much should ever be made of 1 game. I think it is hard to win football games and a win is a win, period. While that makes it true that a loss is a loss, not too much can be read into 1 game. I guarantee you if Delaware goes 10-1 but loses to Albany it will not hurt them or change the perception. Conversely if Albay goes 4-7 and beats Delaware, they would gladly switch places. So my opinion is that teams that have "good losses" should absolutely be given credit for them only when it is in conjunction with a 7-4 or 8-3 record with a couple good wins. And teams should not be docked for bad losses or close wins against "bad" teams when the overall body of work says otherwise.