RR's

[IUPNation]

Forever

[IUPNation]

Please elaborate.

[Horror Child]

So that's actual consistent. Just two posts ago you called me out for my inconsistency.

[IUPNation]

So that's actual consistent. Just two posts ago you called me out for my inconsistency.

[Horror Child]

.

[IUPNation]

I will take you silly insult of calling me a whiny fool as that your admission I was right because you know I am.

You probably are right that some region 1 teams get nods over better teams in other regions. That generally would never apply to IUP. Probably West Chester though. HA!

BTW the nuns at Kenrick would have told you that 8-2 is better than 7-3

[IUP24]

My whole point is that every year certain teams have no margin of error and others can skate in and have a wide margin

I've never said how playoff teams were determined was right or wrong. What's the point? There's been one guy on this message board screaming that the PSAC should figure out a way to do crossovers do the SOS is about the same for everyone, which has resulted in only him looking like a whiny fool.

I just used the written rules, applied them to every team equally, and showed the results. The playoff qualification rules do change from time to time, but again, they change the same way for every team.One could easily argue that any qualification rules that admit an equal number of teams from SR1 as the other three regions don't really determine the best teams for the playoffs.

Despite you both arguing, there's material in both of these posts that I agree with. And I think you both can find some common ground. When this conversation started about a week ago, I made a few posts that essentially stated that the best way to get to the playoffs was to have a schedule that allows you to win more games than everybody else. I still believe that to be the case. While that's fundamentally different than the opinion I have long held, I am no longer at the point where I think scheduling games against better than average competition will do anything to benefit you. Here's the reality.. If a team goes 10-1, regardless of their schedule, they get into the playoffs. We've long stated that the moment you get that second loss you no longer control anything as it relates to your playoff life.

I think criteria such as SOS, etc., can be barometers to separate teams with the same record in terms of positioning, but I don't believe that makes much of a difference at all when it comes to most teams getting into the playoffs. Just my opinion. Take this year for instance. For the most part, I think everybody is fairly confident in 5 of the 7 teams that will be selected for the SR1 field. So at that point, you're in a jumbled group of three teams with two losses vying for the last 1 or 2 spots. How else do you select them at that point? I agree with Horror Child that the criteria may not be right or wrong, but it is what it is. Precedence has told us that if you only have one loss on your schedule or are undefeated, you will be a playoff participant.

I know there's certain posters that are "data" people, that like numbers to back up claims, but it's just my opinion that the state of Division 1 college football is trickling down to the lower levels as well. There's no reason for any team to be concerned about SOS because the playoff selection committee doesn't care about who you're playing in the non-conference. A win over a great opponent can be a great mark for your resume, but you get no brownie points for losing to that same team. A loss is still a loss. College football is all about "perception." And the only perception that people have is rooted in wins and losses.

We'll see how good Minnesota is today - I'm sure not very. People love the Golden Gophers... PJ Fleck, "Row the Boat," undefeated, etc... Nobody cares that they have played likely the worst schedule of any Power 5 team. The front running sports media cares about wins. That's it. Right or wrong - that's the reality. You don't get College Gameday to show up to your school by scheduling tough opponents that you lose to in a nail biter. Programs are better served to just simply schedule cupcakes and try to stack wins. That's why rivalries are dying in major college football. Texas and Texas A&M aren't in a hurry to renew their rivalry. Had Penn State not lost to Pitt in 2016, that series probably keeps going. But it's too much of a risk in their eyes to potentially lose that game. There's others out there too, but you see my point. LSU might lose to Alabama today and they would likely be held out of the playoff given the other scenarios that exist in 2019. So how much did that Texas win really benefit them in the long run? They just prolonged the inevitable elimination loss to Alabama another 9 weeks.

I don't think any of this is right, I just think that this is the way it is now. I want to see regional and historical rivalry games. I want to see matchups between top schools out of conference. Heck, I'd love to see IUP play somebody like Grand Valley in a home and home. But that's not what the media has told us is important. Win more games than everybody else. That's all people care about. That's all the voters care about for the polls. And I think all of this is relative to this level now too. The formula for any team, IUP included, is to win more games than everybody else. Because that's truly all that matters.

[IUPNation]

Despite you both arguing, there's material in both of these posts that I agree with. And I think you both can find some common ground. When this conversation started about a week ago, I made a few posts that essentially stated that the best way to get to the playoffs was to have a schedule that allows you to win more games than everybody else. I still believe that to be the case. While that's fundamentally different than the opinion I have long held, I am no longer at the point where I think scheduling games against better than average competition will do anything to benefit you. Here's the reality.. If a team goes 10-1, regardless of their schedule, they get into the playoffs. We've long stated that the moment you get that second loss you no longer control anything as it relates to your playoff life.

I think criteria such as SOS, etc., can be barometers to separate teams with the same record in terms of positioning, but I don't believe that makes much of a difference at all when it comes to most teams getting into the playoffs. Just my opinion. Take this year for instance. For the most part, I think everybody is fairly confident in 5 of the 7 teams that will be selected for the SR1 field. So at that point, you're in a jumbled group of three teams with two losses vying for the last 1 or 2 spots. How else do you select them at that point? I agree with Horror Child that the criteria may not be right or wrong, but it is what it is. Precedence has told us that if you only have one loss on your schedule or are undefeated, you will be a playoff participant.

I know there's certain posters that are "data" people, that like numbers to back up claims, but it's just my opinion that the state of Division 1 college football is trickling down to the lower levels as well. There's no reason for any team to be concerned about SOS because the playoff selection committee doesn't care about who you're playing in the non-conference. A win over a great opponent can be a great mark for your resume, but you get no brownie points for losing to that same team. A loss is still a loss. College football is all about "perception." And the only perception that people have is rooted in wins and losses.

We'll see how good Minnesota is today - I'm sure not very. People love the Golden Gophers... PJ Fleck, "Row the Boat," undefeated, etc... Nobody cares that they have played likely the worst schedule of any Power 5 team. The front running sports media cares about wins. That's it. Right or wrong - that's the reality. You don't get College Gameday to show up to your school by scheduling tough opponents that you lose to in a nail biter. Programs are better served to just simply schedule cupcakes and try to stack wins. That's why rivalries are dying in major college football. Texas and Texas A&M aren't in a hurry to renew their rivalry. Had Penn State not lost to Pitt in 2016, that series probably keeps going. But it's too much of a risk in their eyes to potentially lose that game. There's others out there too, but you see my point. LSU might lose to Alabama today and they would likely be held out of the playoff given the other scenarios that exist in 2019. So how much did that Texas win really benefit them in the long run? They just prolonged the inevitable elimination loss to Alabama another 9 weeks.

I don't think any of this is right, I just think that this is the way it is now. I want to see regional and historical rivalry games. I want to see matchups between top schools out of conference. Heck, I'd love to see IUP play somebody like Grand Valley in a home and home. But that's not what the media has told us is important. Win more games than everybody else. That's all people care about. That's all the voters care about for the polls. And I think all of this is relative to this level now too. The formula for any team, IUP included, is to win more games than everybody else. Because that's truly all that matters.

[IUP24]

College football has changed significantly from the years you are mentioning. The "perception" angle I referenced has forced that change. We used to love Cinderella teams like UCF. Nobody does now - including the front running media. Why has UCF not gotten the media love and general public rooting interest that Boise State got 10 or so years ago? Because they are threats to the establishment.

Don't you think that that it's odd that when we talk about the few elite teams in college football nobody ever cares about their strength of schedule, but when the topic of UCF or whoever emerges, the conversation shifts to "well who have they played?" The NCAA doesn't want those teams in the mix, because there is no benefit for them unseating an established blue blood. Strength of schedule is irrelevant to the handful of teams that the media - and the NCAA - wants us to care about. The 10-15 schools with the big fan bases and all the money/resources is what drives the NCAA train. They steer the ship if you will. It's okay for those schools to play nobody, because the NCAA wants those selected schools to win and win and win so that they are guaranteed to fill the stadium for the major bowl games.

There's no benefit for the NCAA to have one of the schools in the remaining 90% of college football crash the playoff party. They don't want a Baylor or Minnesota, etc. getting a bid or NY6 bowl game and not selling their ticket allotment. I think this is all BS, but it's what they NCAA wants. I just think this created the perception of W/L being all that matters and that has matriculated down to the D2 level as well.

[IUPNation]

College football has changed significantly from the years you are mentioning. The "perception" angle I referenced has forced that change. We used to love Cinderella teams like UCF. Nobody does now - including the front running media. Why has UCF not gotten the media love and general public rooting interest that Boise State got 10 or so years ago? Because they are threats to the establishment.

Don't you think that that it's odd that when we talk about the few elite teams in college football nobody ever cares about their strength of schedule, but when the topic of UCF or whoever emerges, the conversation shifts to "well who have they played?" The NCAA doesn't want those teams in the mix, because there is no benefit for them unseating an established blue blood. Strength of schedule is irrelevant to the handful of teams that the media - and the NCAA - wants us to care about. The 10-15 schools with the big fan bases and all the money/resources is what drives the NCAA train. They steer the ship if you will. It's okay for those schools to play nobody, because the NCAA wants those selected schools to win and win and win so that they are guaranteed to fill the stadium for the major bowl games.

There's no benefit for the NCAA to have one of the schools in the remaining 90% of college football crash the playoff party. They don't want a Baylor or Minnesota, etc. getting a bid or NY6 bowl game and not selling their ticket allotment. I think this is all BS, but it's what they NCAA wants. I just think this created the perception of W/L being all that matters and that has matriculated down to the D2 level as well.

You are probably right.

[TJ85]

Yeah Notre Dame!!!! You guys are looking like even bigger goofs now.

[TJ85]

Oh yeah, who could forget such intelligent contributions as:







Very wise. We have so much to learn from you.

Yeah what happened to your precious Notre Dame today big fella

[IUPNation]

So the State Game is for not only the Pee Sack title but who gets to to be 1 and 2. IUP should be 3 if they beat Ship.

[RockNation]

State game is for 1 and 2 seed. WVSU-ND, Tiffin-Findlay, CalU-WCU are big playoff implication games.

IUP and Shep win to get their spots. ODU, Findlay, CalU are on the bubble.

[EastStroud13]

Yeah what happened to your precious Notre Dame today big fella

My precious Notre Dame? All I said is that they deserved to be top 3 as long as they were unbeaten. How mentally fragile are you?