-
If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Lance brought up a great question in this week's FCS Wedge Podcast Review Show intro. How many teams in all of FCS would do better than 5-5 if they had played Davis's schedule so far?
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aH...Jldmlldw%3D%3D
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Since they lost to #17 Montana, I will go with 16.
612
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Depends on how tough you view a game at UND to be. 3 pretty decent teams (including UC Davis) have lost at UND but all 3 had chances to win. The 5 wins that Davis has gotten I'd say the majority of top 25 teams should/could get also. There's probably only 5 or so FCS teams in the country that would be better than 6-4 with their schedule but how many could get to 6-4? I'd say you could make the argument for 10-15 more.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Maybe only a handful. 4 or 5 at the very most, perhaps. They should have beat UND, but made stupid mistakes to get out of field goal range.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
uofmman1122
Maybe only a handful. 4 or 5 at the very most, perhaps. They should have beat UND, but made stupid mistakes to get out of field goal range.
"should've beat UND". Rinse, repeat....
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
uofmman1122
Maybe only a handful. 4 or 5 at the very most, perhaps. They should have beat UND, but made stupid mistakes to get out of field goal range.
Really? You think only 4 or 5 FCS teams at most would pick up wins @San Diego, vs Lehigh, @UND, vs Cal Poly, @SUU, and @PSU?
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professor Chaos
Really? You think only 4 or 5 FCS teams at most would pick up wins @San Diego, vs Lehigh, @UND, vs Cal Poly, @SUU, and @PSU?
But kalm said "do better than 5-5" so I think the effort is to show how many teams come up 6, 7, or more wins out of the schedule and that is pretty tough. Getting the 5 is not overly tough for a lot of T20 teams I would think.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
I don't know, about 70 teams in this subdivision are just bad.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ursus arctos horribilis
But kalm said "do better than 5-5" so I think the effort is to show how many teams come up 6, 7, or more wins out of the schedule and that is pretty tough. Getting the 5 is not overly tough for a lot of T20 teams I would think.
The teams I listed are the ones you'd have to beat to get to 6 wins. Like I said in my first reply getting more than 6 wins out of UC Davis' schedule to date is something very few teams could do but getting to 6 wins with their current schedule at this point wouldn't necessarily require an elite team IMO.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
There are two theories here. I will call one the Massey Theory, and the other the Execution Theory.
The Massey theory uses the logic of the Massey Ratings: there's a rank order of teams and though some may have more losses than you'd expect, in an abstract sense, given the stats and scores they put up, they are better than other teams (Davis I think is ranked 10th right now in these rankings).
The Execution theory isn't averse to stats, but asserts that executing and winning games is a fundamental part of the game and the inability to win these games is evidence of not being as good as that abstract aggregate ranking. I am a proponent of this theory, obviously.
We can argue about the abstract all day, but we'll never get a clear answer unless they get a bid to the playoffs. But if they get a bid, we'll never know the counterfactual of other well-deserving teams with good cases for the playoffs.
The cost of using the Execution Theory is that you penalize teams that play better teams that don't execute in tougher schedules. The cost of using Massey Theory is that you erect pretty big barriers for teams/conferences with less tough games, which many can't really help. There's no right answer here, what it comes down to is your personal values and what you as an individual want out of the playoffs and assessing good/bad teams beyond just wins and losses.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter though because bubble teams with 4+ losses never win the whole thing or get farther than the semis if they're lucky (I don't think a 5 or 6 loss team ever has), so I'm not investing too much energy in it. If my team doesn't get in with 4 losses, we made that bed ourselves.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professor Chaos
Really? You think only 4 or 5 FCS teams at most would pick up wins @San Diego, vs Lehigh, @UND, vs Cal Poly, @SUU, and @PSU?
How many schools would beat Cal, NDSU, Weber State, Montana, or UND @ UND?
I could give you that last one, but that's an FBS, 3 top 5 teams, and an undefeated team @ home who has beaten several top 25 teams. I could be convinced to go as far up as 10, but I'd bet there are several top-10 FCS schools that would struggle playing @UND.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professor Chaos
The teams I listed are the ones you'd have to beat to get to 6 wins. Like I said in my first reply getting more than 6 wins out of UC Davis' schedule to date is something very few teams could do but getting to 6 wins with their current schedule at this point wouldn't necessarily require an elite team IMO.
Yeah, I guess I was thinking it would be a tougher stretch maybe to get that UND win for most of those other 10-15 teams after that 3 week stretch. But at the time it didn't look like they would necessarily lose that road game either...I'd say it was sort of a 50/50 at that point for me. Pretty tough traveling schedule when you are taking it on the chin in that span.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
F'N Hawks
"should've beat UND". Rinse, repeat....
Taking a false start and then a delay of game penalty pushing you out of game-winning field goal range with 31 seconds left sounds like a pretty avoidable, stupid mistake, to me.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reign of Terrier
There are two theories here. I will call one the Massey Theory, and the other the Execution Theory.
The Massey theory uses the logic of the Massey Ratings: there's a rank order of teams and though some may have more losses than you'd expect, in an abstract sense, given the stats and scores they put up, they are better than other teams (Davis I think is ranked 10th right now in these rankings).
The Execution theory isn't averse to stats, but asserts that executing and winning games is a fundamental part of the game and the inability to win these games is evidence of not being as good as that abstract aggregate ranking. I am a proponent of this theory, obviously.
We can argue about the abstract all day, but we'll never get a clear answer unless they get a bid to the playoffs. But if they get a bid, we'll never know the counterfactual of other well-deserving teams with good cases for the playoffs.
The cost of using the Execution Theory is that you penalize teams that play better teams that don't execute in tougher schedules. The cost of using Massey Theory is that you erect pretty big barriers for teams/conferences with less tough games, which many can't really help. There's no right answer here, what it comes down to is your personal values and what you as an individual want out of the playoffs and assessing good/bad teams beyond just wins and losses.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter though because bubble teams with 4+ losses never win the whole thing or get farther than the semis if they're lucky (I don't think a 5 or 6 loss team ever has), so I'm not investing too much energy in it. If my team doesn't get in with 4 losses, we made that bed ourselves.
You make reasonable points. Yet there is Kennesaw State "Executing" at what 9-1 this year. They are not a bad team and they're certainly executing. Though this is where Massey (or something else) is needed to quantify that those 9 wins they executed may not be as valuable as somebody else's 7 wins.
I'm not going to argue with you. I too believe that winning the games played is most important, and you can only play those on your schedule. Yet somehow an objective comparison is needed to determine who is in or out. This isn't the first year a team has had 9 or 10 wins yet is not worth one of the eight seeds. It will come up again.
FYI, as to the bubbles never matter... I believe it was JMU several years ago that won the championship after winning ALL their playoff games ON THE ROAD. Can't tell you what they were ranked before the playoffs began, nor their record, but it had to be a relatively poor ranking and record. That was an extremely impressive feat they pulled off. Some day someone else just might repeat it.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
uofmman1122
How many schools would beat Cal, NDSU, Weber State, Montana, or UND @ UND?
I could give you that last one, but that's an FBS, 3 top 5 teams, and an undefeated team @ home who has beaten several top 25 teams. I could be convinced to go as far up as 10, but I'd bet there are several top-10 FCS schools that would struggle playing @UND.
This is about where I am at as well.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grizzlies82
You make reasonable points. Yet there is Kennesaw State "Executing" at what 9-1 this year. They are not a bad team and they're certainly executing. Though this is where Massey (or something else) is needed to quantify that those 9 wins they executed may not be as valuable as somebody else's 7 wins.
I'm not going to argue with you. I too believe that winning the games played is most important, and you can only play those on your schedule. Yet somehow an objective comparison is needed to determine who is in or out. This isn't the first year a team has had 9 or 10 wins yet is not worth one of the eight seeds. It will come up again.
FYI, as to the bubbles never matter... I believe it was JMU several years ago that won the championship after winning ALL their playoff games ON THE ROAD. Can't tell you what they were ranked before the playoffs began, nor their record, but it had to be a relatively poor ranking and record. That was an extremely impressive feat they pulled off. Some day someone else just might repeat it.
2004 if I remember correctly on that one.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reign of Terrier
I don't know, about 70 teams in this subdivision are just bad.
Don't you love scrolling through 40 ESPN box scores to find the 7 that matter?
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grizzlies82
You make reasonable points. Yet there is Kennesaw State "Executing" at what 9-1 this year. They are not a bad team and they're certainly executing. Though this is where Massey (or something else) is needed to quantify that those 9 wins they executed may not be as valuable as somebody else's 7 wins.
I'm not going to argue with you. I too believe that winning the games played is most important, and you can only play those on your schedule. Yet somehow an objective comparison is needed to determine who is in or out. This isn't the first year a team has had 9 or 10 wins yet is not worth one of the eight seeds. It will come up again.
FYI, as to the bubbles never matter... I believe it was JMU several years ago that won the championship after winning ALL their playoff games ON THE ROAD. Can't tell you what they were ranked before the playoffs began, nor their record, but it had to be a relatively poor ranking and record. That was an extremely impressive feat they pulled off. Some day someone else just might repeat it.
As I said, there's no one right answer to this. There's lots of shades of gray. With Kennesaw State, on one hand I think we know they are a program that can do stuff in the playoffs and should deserve some deference. On another, there's no excuse to lose you're one big game of the year like that. So there's a strong argument to keep them in leave them out. heck, had they lost to Monmouth by only a touchdown or even two touchdowns, it would be more understandable. But they didn't.
I think it's unfair to both tell teams they have to go undefeated to make the playoffs and to keep out teams that aren't in the top 10 but play a tough schedule and have an impressive win or two. There's no easy answer or universal rule for this one, you just have to weigh each team relative to the bubble.
IMO Massey won't answer that question for you. Massey is probably at its best when it comes to comparing seeds, but it's terrible at clarifying the bubble.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silenoz
Don't you love scrolling through 40 ESPN box scores to find the 7 that matter?
Rookie, I filter by conference!
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reign of Terrier
Rookie, I filter by conference!
But I have to see if NDSU won!
Spoiler, they did
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
uofmman1122
How many schools would beat Cal, NDSU, Weber State, Montana, or UND @ UND?
I could give you that last one, but that's an FBS, 3 top 5 teams, and an undefeated team @ home who has beaten several top 25 teams. I could be convinced to go as far up as 10, but I'd bet there are several top-10 FCS schools that would struggle playing @UND.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ursus arctos horribilis
Yeah, I guess I was thinking it would be a tougher stretch maybe to get that UND win for most of those other 10-15 teams after that 3 week stretch. But at the time it didn't look like they would necessarily lose that road game either...I'd say it was sort of a 50/50 at that point for me. Pretty tough traveling schedule when you are taking it on the chin in that span.
So I think we're all in agreement that @UND is the swing game there. The 5 wins UC Davis has are easily winnable for a top 25 caliber FCS team and the other 4 losses UC Davis has are games 95% of FCS teams lose.
I don't think UND is as bad as their road losses to EWU and Idaho St indicate but I also don't think they're as good home wins vs SHSU, UC Davis, and Montana St have made them look either. They've had some self-inflicted issues on the road but they've taken advantage of the similar issues from visiting teams when they've been at home. Bottom line is a good team is capable of going to Grand Forks and beating UND and any one of those 3 could've did that had they played cleaner games.
Just off the top of my head I'd take NDSU, JMU, Weber St, Sac St, Montana, UNI, Illinois St, and SDSU go to UND and win. I think you could make arguments for teams like Furman, Dartmouth, Monmouth, Nova, SEMO, Austin Peay, and Central Arkansas. That's 15 teams right there.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ursus arctos horribilis
2004 if I remember correctly on that one.
You are corect on the year.
Old Atlantic 10 sent 4 teams and I think all four were 7-1 conference quad champs, and 9-2 overall (excepting Delaware at 8-3).
Did not look for regular season final standings, but googled 2004 fcs playoffs, that was one impressive bracket.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professor Chaos
So I think we're all in agreement that @UND is the swing game there. The 5 wins UC Davis has are easily winnable for a top 25 caliber FCS team and the other 4 losses UC Davis has are games 95% of FCS teams lose.
I don't think UND is as bad as their road losses to EWU and Idaho St indicate but I also don't think they're as good home wins vs SHSU, UC Davis, and Montana St have made them look either. They've had some self-inflicted issues on the road but they've taken advantage of the similar issues from visiting teams when they've been at home. Bottom line is a good team is capable of going to Grand Forks and beating UND and any one of those 3 could've did that had they played cleaner games.
Just off the top of my head I'd take NDSU, JMU, Weber St, Sac St, Montana, UNI, Illinois St, and SDSU go to UND and win. I think you could make arguments for teams like Furman, Dartmouth, Monmouth, Nova, SEMO, Austin Peay, and Central Arkansas. That's 15 teams right there.
I think we do agree on most all of it. The small disagreement might be that even though an argument can be made for 15, I don't believe that argument for about 5 of those I guess but it is not because I can or would make a case against any of them I just think 1/2 would win, the other 1/2 would not...outside of the top 5 or 6.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ursus arctos horribilis
2004 if I remember correctly on that one.
You would be correct. Not a bad memory for old guy. Beat Lehigh, Furman, W&M, all at their places, and the Griz in Chattanooga.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElCid
You would be correct. Not a bad memory for old guy. Beat Lehigh, Furman, W&M, all at their places, and the Griz in Chattanooga.
Unfortunately, it's hard to forget the pain of being one game away.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Well, UCD has yet to play Montana State and Sac State. If they win both games are they a playoff team?
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ursus arctos horribilis
I think we do agree on most all of it. The small disagreement might be that even though an argument can be made for 15, I don't believe that argument for about 5 of those I guess but it is not because I can or would make a case against any of them I just think 1/2 would win, the other 1/2 would not...outside of the top 5 or 6.
It’s not as if UND would go 0-15 and might even pick off a top 5 at home. It’s also not a lock that everyone would go 5-0 with Davis’s wins.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElCid
You would be correct. Not a bad memory for old guy. Beat Lehigh, Furman, W&M, all at their places, and the Griz in Chattanooga.
Yeah, I definitely remember their path that year. Especially remember the thought was W&M were probably gonna be the likely ones to win at that time. JMU had a bruising O line, great team. The safety was a monster too. Damn good running back, WR, hell they were Champs so I don't know why I'm going back over it they were just damn good everywhere.
They were great, the field f'n sucked. But I always loved going to Chattanooga and spending some time there.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lucchesicourt
Well, UCD has yet to play Montana State and Sac State. If they win both games are they a playoff team?
I would think it would be a strong case that could be made depending on what else goes on of course but those would be at least a couple of top flight wins.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalm
It’s not as if UND would go 0-15 and might even pick off a top 5 at home. It’s also not a lock that everyone would go 5-0 with Davis’s wins.
That goes both ways... it's also not a lock that everyone goes 0-4 against the elite teams that UC Davis has played.
I think the whole point of this conversation is to pitch UC Davis as a bubble team or a team that should be getting more love from pollsters because of how tough their schedule is. I do think they're a playoff team at 7-5 just because of who they'd have to beat down the stretch and the overall strength of their schedule. I don't think they're top 25 material right now because they've lost to every playoff caliber team they've played to this point. I don't buy the notion that team X ranked 20th wouldn't be any better than 5-5 with UC Davis' schedule so UC Davis should be ranked around 20th as well. You need to prove you belong in the playoffs/top 25 by winning and UC Davis hasn't done enough of that to this point IMO.
That's the risk you take by scheduling a team like NDSU OOC. You're not hurt by that loss but you're also not helped when it comes to comparisons to other teams that have more wins. The reward is if they pick off NDSU then they're in the conversation for a high seed.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Weber St struggled to win vs UND at Weber St. Other than the NDSU dismantling of UND to start the year, UND is a borderline play-off team.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RabidRabbit
Weber St struggled to win vs UND at Weber St. Other than the NDSU dismantling of UND to start the year, UND is a borderline play-off team.
UND got beat by 2-7 (vs D1) Idaho St by more than they were beat by NDSU. I do think UND is a playoff team if they win out to get to 7-4 but if they're not they can look to that brutal 35 point loss in Pocatello as the main reason why.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ursus arctos horribilis
Yeah, I definitely remember their path that year. Especially remember the thought was W&M were probably gonna be the likely ones to win at that time. JMU had a bruising O line, great team. The safety was a monster too. Damn good running back, WR, hell they were Champs so I don't know why I'm going back over it they were just damn good everywhere.
They were great, the field f'n sucked. But I always loved going to Chattanooga and spending some time there.
was this the game the JMU QB was hit and spun around 360 degrees. Dudzik ?
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
caribbeanhen
was this the game the JMU QB was hit and spun around 360 degrees. Dudzik ?
That was the 2008 semis @JMU. One of the sweetest Griz victories in my lifetime.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grizalltheway
That was the 2008 semis @JMU. One of the sweetest Griz victories in my lifetime.
ah ok... that was a good game even though I couldnt remember the year
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
caribbeanhen
ah ok... that was a good game even though I couldnt remember the year
In the 2004 game I think the quarterback had the last name of Rascati. I cannot remember the name of the kid butt she was if memory serves a freshman free safety and the dude was outstanding.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
caribbeanhen
was this the game the JMU QB was hit and spun around 360 degrees. Dudzik ?
Back up QB after Rodney Landers got his ankle twisted in a pile. We didn't stand a chance after that happened.
The 2004 Dukes -- only team to win the title w/o a home game -- beat #2 Furman on a 4th and goal TD w/less than 30 seconds left, then beat #3 W&M in the first night game ever at Zable Stadium.
The title game was sealed on Rascati's 6-yd TD run that followed a personal foul penalty on the Griz's DL that punched Rascati in the face. Good game all around. Ochs could sling it and he had good receivers. Ursus is correct on our OL; we rushed for over 300 yards that night.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ursus arctos horribilis
In the 2004 game I think the quarterback had the last name of Rascati. I cannot remember the name of the kid butt she was if memory serves a freshman free safety and the dude was outstanding.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
The safety's name was Tony Lezotte. His brother Matt was the incumbent starting QB and Rascati (sophomore xfer from Louisville) won the job. M. Lezotte was a team captain and instead of pouting, and possibly destroying the locker room, he supported the move. He was the first person the JMU players hoisted up on their shoulders after the win in Chattanooga.
-
Re: If ______ Played Davis's Schedule
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Derby City Duke
The safety's name was Tony Lezotte. His brother Matt was the incumbent starting QB and Rascati (sophomore xfer from Louisville) won the job. M. Lezotte was a team captain and instead of pouting, and possibly destroying the locker room, he supported the move. He was the first person the JMU players hoisted up on their shoulders after the win in Chattanooga.
That is definitely the name. Secretary of State Mike I remember thinking back then those guys all had some kind of cool names. And for some reason I remember them being sort of confusing this was the quarterback and which was the free safety and now that you mention it I remember that is older brother was the quarterback so that explains the confusion I suppose.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk