So how did the committee do?

[bigsig50]

Ham.... dip?

[northwest missouri state]

[bigsig50]

I'll take your word for it. Seems a bit backwards, but I've never been steered wrong by MB eating suggestions, lol

[northwest missouri state]

[GrifFan]

It's actually listed as smoked ham salad on the menu, but they serve with chips and crackers instead of on a sandwich (although you can get a sandwich too, but why you'd order a ham salad sandwich when their burnt ends are so good is beyond me).

[catbacker07]

[catbacker07]

Now that I take a step back and look at all SR brackets I think I see what Committee was trying to accomplish. They are trying to maximize the gate in every match up and potential mat chip even if it means messing with seedlings.

[ctrabs74]

All of those losses, save for IUP, seemed winnable but Cal couldn't finish the deal. That's how I look at the season, if we're gonna be honest.

[OldBison]

[chapmaja]

I really didn't look that close until after the first round games were done, due to GVSU getting beat by WSU and the depression that ensued (not really, but I wasn't thrilled).

I think a case could be made that WSU was snubbed in favor of Lindenwood.

WSU's resume was 8-3 overall, 8-3 against D2 opponents. Two of WSU's losses were to teams that were seeded #1 in their region (Slippery Rock and Ferris State). WSU's other loss was the costly one in my opinion. WSU lost to Truman State, who finished 9-2 but lost to Indy and Lindenwood.

I think losses to teams who are a combined 30-2 entering the post-season should mean something and I think the current system doesn't value the consider the quality of opponents you lose to enough. Lindenwood's 3 losses were to an FCS team, Midwestern State (5-6) and Davenport (5-5).

While I think Lindenwood was the correct team under the selection criteria in place, I think the criteria doesn't take into account enough of how the team actually performs on the field.

I think Lindenwood has scrapped through most of the season, but I question if a team is really that good when your two D2 losses are to teams that finish .500 or below, and only 2 of your 8 regular season wins are larger than a TD and 2 point conversion margin of victory.

To me Lindenwood simply doesn't pass the eye test when you look at common opponents and quality of schedule.

The schools had four common opponents.
1) SVSU was a wash, both beat SVSU by 4 points.
2) Wayne State beat Quincy by 26, while Lindenwood won by 6.
3) WSU beat Davenport 34-0, Davenport beat Lindenwood by 11
4) Truman beat WSU by 21 while Lindenwood beat Truman by 4.

I think the selection criteria needs to look more at how the teams are performing (yes including margin of victory), and less at simply the SOS that you play. Also, I think games vs FCS or DIII teams should count against a team, if they lose and count for a team if they win. I think teams like Lindenwood gain an advantage because they played up (and I know they are not the only one to do it), which gives them 1 less game in the comparison's.

As much as I think WSU had an argument for that spot, I'm sure Truman fans are arguing they deserve that spot as well. Truman lost to Lindenwood, which hurts, but they had the same number of D2 losses as Lindenwood, and those were to teams with much better records than the teams Lindenwood lost to (combined 3 losses against D2 opponents). Truman also had the quality win over WSU by a healthy margin, Truman's problem is they had two games vs FCS (Pioneer conference opponents).

The simple fact is right now the playing field isn't level when you have teams playing one or two games with non-divisional opponents, and other conferences playing top teams in D2 as part of their schedule, and even more who don't play outside their conference during the season.

I think it is time that the NCAA went to a selection committee approach where the performances are reviewed by a selection committee and the committee decides who makes the playoff. (I also think it is time to simply give a conference champion an automatic qualifying spot, and the conference determines who that automatic bid is determined.

[cwfenn]

[TSU_Mike59]

As much as I think WSU had an argument for that spot, I'm sure Truman fans are arguing they deserve that spot as well. Truman lost to Lindenwood, which hurts, but they had the same number of D2 losses as Lindenwood, and those were to teams with much better records than the teams Lindenwood lost to (combined 3 losses against D2 opponents). Truman also had the quality win over WSU by a healthy margin, Truman's problem is they had two games vs FCS (Pioneer conference opponents).

I don't think Truman fans could argue they should have been in over Lindenwood because of the head to head and their win against UIndy, but I would have had a big problem if Wayne was in over Truman. The Bulldogs killed Wayne State in week 2, and Truman's only two losses were to Indy and LWU (combined D2 record: 17-3, one of which was to the other one, so, 16-2). Truman had wins over an eight win team (WSU) and two seven win teams (Urbana, Mo S&T). Wayne had wins over an eight win team (GV) and a seven win team (Ashland).

And, if you really want to use margin of victory (I don't, because teams tend to let off the accelerator to keep guys from getting hurt), but if so, Truman gets the edge over Wayne State based on the road wins at Quincy. TSU +49, WSU +26.

Regardless, LWU proved everyone wrong and showed that they can play by winning at Ouachita.

[Boohaha]

Q39 Beef Rib is fantastic..... Haywards is the best overall ive had while visiting the KC area....

[chapmaja]

I don't think Truman fans could argue they should have been in over Lindenwood because of the head to head and their win against UIndy, but I would have had a big problem if Wayne was in over Truman. The Bulldogs killed Wayne State in week 2, and Truman's only two losses were to Indy and LWU (combined D2 record: 17-3, one of which was to the other one, so, 16-2). Truman had wins over an eight win team (WSU) and two seven win teams (Urbana, Mo S&T). Wayne had wins over an eight win team (GV) and a seven win team (Ashland).

And, if you really want to use margin of victory (I don't, because teams tend to let off the accelerator to keep guys from getting hurt), but if so, Truman gets the edge over Wayne State based on the road wins at Quincy. TSU +49, WSU +26.

Regardless, LWU proved everyone wrong and showed that they can play by winning at Ouachita.

With regard to the last part. Yes, Lindenwood did prove people wrong by beating OBU, but at the same time I think it is very fair to use that as an example of the system doesn't work. OBU looked like a great team because they were 11-0. The problem is there was no comparison between the GAC an any other conference because the GAC plays an 11 game conference schedule. When you don't play outside the conference you can look better than you may be in reality because of the competition you face.

I really think this is one of the biggest problems in D2 football right now. We can't determine how good the teams are because too many conferences play no outside competition until the post-season.

The GAC simply becomes this years example as two top ten ranked teams lost to lower ranked teams in the opening round (granted 1 was NWMSU).

I'm not trying to get on the GAC for their format, but it is a problem across D2. When you -play so many conference games it makes it nearly impossible to accurately select the best teams, thus the computer based system (WP, OWP, OOWP) is so important. Unfortunately that doesn't tell how good a team really is.

Let's not forget half the region's conferences don't see teams outside the conference during the season. The only conference vs conference games were between the GLIAC and the GLVC. Is it fair to see those two conferences beat each other up while the other two don't get any comparison?

The GLIAC managed to get a slight edge over the GLVC by virtue of a 5-3 non-conference game record this season, but that still isn't the same as not playing a non-conference game.

One of the other reasons I think the current system (regional/super regional needs to go) happened up in SR1. 5 schools from one conference get in while one conference doesn't get a team in and the others get 1 each.

Let's look at the PSAC for a minute after they get 5 teams in.

1) SRU - Went undefeated and obviously deserves to get in. (Beat the GLIAC runner up non-conference)

2) Shepherd - 9-2 season. The two losses were a non-conference loss to ODU and a conference loss to Kutztown.

3) IUP 10-1 season. One loss was to SRU.

4) Kutztown - 10-1 season, one loss to SRU.

5) West Chester 9-2, loss to Shepherd and Kutztown

Why did this happen? In my opinion is was due to volume. You have 16 teams, each of whom plays 10 games against PSAC opponents. Keeping the schedule in house can do one of two things. It can allow the cream to rise to the top, as it did this season in the PSAC, or it can beat a conference up (the NE10 is an example). What it isn't is fair to the other conferences who have to play them.

How good was the GMAC this season in comparison to the PSAC? Based on the on field regular season games, they were equal. They split the two games. ODU beat Shepherd and Lake Erie beat Mercyhurst.

When teams compared for post-season positioning can't be compared on the field, there is an issue.

I can tell you a much better comparison between the GLIAC and the GMAC, (GLIAC 5-2) but that doesn't do anyone any good because of the regional system.


Something needs to change to the system so we can actually compare the teams and get the best teams into the post-season. We need a committee that actually looks at the teams and determined who should be the at-large teams rather than the current system which doesn't get the best teams into the post-season in my opinion.

[Ram040506]

With regard to the last part. Yes, Lindenwood did prove people wrong by beating OBU, but at the same time I think it is very fair to use that as an example of the system doesn't work. OBU looked like a great team because they were 11-0. The problem is there was no comparison between the GAC an any other conference because the GAC plays an 11 game conference schedule. When you don't play outside the conference you can look better than you may be in reality because of the competition you face.

I really think this is one of the biggest problems in D2 football right now. We can't determine how good the teams are because too many conferences play no outside competition until the post-season.

The GAC simply becomes this years example as two top ten ranked teams lost to lower ranked teams in the opening round (granted 1 was NWMSU).

I'm not trying to get on the GAC for their format, but it is a problem across D2. When you -play so many conference games it makes it nearly impossible to accurately select the best teams, thus the computer based system (WP, OWP, OOWP) is so important. Unfortunately that doesn't tell how good a team really is.

Let's not forget half the region's conferences don't see teams outside the conference during the season. The only conference vs conference games were between the GLIAC and the GLVC. Is it fair to see those two conferences beat each other up while the other two don't get any comparison?

The GLIAC managed to get a slight edge over the GLVC by virtue of a 5-3 non-conference game record this season, but that still isn't the same as not playing a non-conference game.

One of the other reasons I think the current system (regional/super regional needs to go) happened up in SR1. 5 schools from one conference get in while one conference doesn't get a team in and the others get 1 each.

Let's look at the PSAC for a minute after they get 5 teams in.

1) SRU - Went undefeated and obviously deserves to get in. (Beat the GLIAC runner up non-conference)

2) Shepherd - 9-2 season. The two losses were a non-conference loss to ODU and a conference loss to Kutztown.

3) IUP 10-1 season. One loss was to SRU.

4) Kutztown - 10-1 season, one loss to SRU.

5) West Chester 9-2, loss to Shepherd and Kutztown

Why did this happen? In my opinion is was due to volume. You have 16 teams, each of whom plays 10 games against PSAC opponents. Keeping the schedule in house can do one of two things. It can allow the cream to rise to the top, as it did this season in the PSAC, or it can beat a conference up (the NE10 is an example). What it isn't is fair to the other conferences who have to play them.

How good was the GMAC this season in comparison to the PSAC? Based on the on field regular season games, they were equal. They split the two games. ODU beat Shepherd and Lake Erie beat Mercyhurst.

When teams compared for post-season positioning can't be compared on the field, there is an issue.

I can tell you a much better comparison between the GLIAC and the GMAC, (GLIAC 5-2) but that doesn't do anyone any good because of the regional system.


Something needs to change to the system so we can actually compare the teams and get the best teams into the post-season. We need a committee that actually looks at the teams and determined who should be the at-large teams rather than the current system which doesn't get the best teams into the post-season in my opinion.