Playoff Bracket Reaction

[Brandon]

That's my fault. I put them all in at the same time late last night. I'm not feeling well and messing up a lot lately.

[Brandon]

I understand. I just dont think there should have been that big of a change from numbers perspective except one, that is the total number of games played. Which hasnt been a hidden secret the entire season, we all knew GV would be punished for playing fewer games.

At the end of the day it is what it is, the NCAA will always prove to be incompetent and we will have to just deal with it. GV 56 Lindenwood 10

Let's pretend that Grand Valley game with Ferris was played on week 11. I think your perspective would be different. If GV were ranked #4 before that game and won, you'd want the rankings to reflect that. You likely wouldn't discount the results of the last week.

GV was "punished" for playing fewer games every week it was ranked below Harding.

The real travesty, in my opinion, was the failure to use D2 w/l and OWP as the primary criteria and make everything else tiebreakers. I have also come to like the Performance Index.

[GV Retired Bum]

Let's pretend that Grand Valley game with Ferris was played on week 11. I think your perspective would be different. If GV were ranked #4 before that game and won, you'd want the rankings to reflect that. You likely wouldn't discount the results of the last week.

GV was "punished" for playing fewer games every week it was ranked below Harding.

The real travesty, in my opinion, was the failure to use D2 w/l and OWP as the primary criteria and make everything else tiebreakers. I have also come to like the Performance Index.

100% agree. But NWMS played Emporia who is bad lol. All I'm looking for is the reason for the jump other than something that has been going all season which is the smaller sample size of games. Maybe I'm just completely lost on this but beating a 6-5 team doesn't warrant a jump in rankings. Maybe it did shift the data enough to put them ahead, but then that's a whole different argument of relying on the data too much, which we don't have to get into LOL

[KleShreen]

I thought of this late last night.

The counter would be, who has GV beaten?

I obviously don't agree with the ratings and believe I was correct this entire time, but I was just presenting the counter argument.

They beat 6-4 Pueblo, which doesn't even end up mattering because it isn't an in-region game, 6-2 Michigan Tech twice, and 7-3 Saginaw Valley.

But since Pueblo is out of region it doesn't matter for much, and since the GLVC and GAC have more hangers-on at the bottom of the regional rankings constantly which are never real playoff threats (and therefore get counted as "ranked regional opponents", anything besides the #1 team in the GLIAC is subject to this happening. It isn't GV's (or Ferris') fault that they are better than everyone else in the conference by such a large margin that it makes the record for everyone else look worse by comparison. Meanwhile, the GAC gets to have four different teams beat up on each other because nobody is actually good.

[Brandon]

100% agree. But NWMS played Emporia who is bad lol. All I'm looking for is the reason for the jump other than something that has been going all season which is the smaller sample size of games. Maybe I'm just completely lost on this but beating a 6-5 team doesn't warrant a jump in rankings. Maybe it did shift the data enough to put them ahead, but then that's a whole different argument of relying on the data too much, which we don't have to get into LOL

Emporia State has a winning record (#14 Massey). For reference, CSU-Pueblo is #43.

As I said in the other thread, it was the record v. 500+ that was keeping NW (2-1) behind Harding (4-1) and Grand Valley (4-1). After the last week of games, all four were now at 4-1.

Again to be clear, I'm arguing the application of the criteria, not the worth of the criteria itself.

[Brandon]

They beat 6-4 Pueblo, which doesn't even end up mattering because it isn't an in-region game, 6-2 Michigan Tech twice, and 7-3 Saginaw Valley.

But since Pueblo is out of region it doesn't matter for much, and since the GLVC and GAC have more hangers-on at the bottom of the regional rankings constantly which are never real playoff threats (and therefore get counted as "ranked regional opponents", anything besides the #1 team in the GLIAC is subject to this happening. It isn't GV's (or Ferris') fault that they are better than everyone else in the conference by such a large margin that it makes the record for everyone else look worse by comparison. Meanwhile, the GAC gets to have four different teams beat up on each other because nobody is actually good.

I hate the in-region component. Hopefully you saw me criticize it in our show.

[Inkblot]

I don't know that the in-region vs. out-of-region distinction matters all that much, especially with many games against teams in different super regions counting as in-region. The most important game this year that didn't count as in-region was Lindenwood vs. Angelo State, and it certainly doesn't appear that the loss hurt Lindenwood any less or that the win helped Angelo State any less.
EDIT: I forgot about New Haven vs. Bowie State. I think the same goes for that game.


In-region matters a bit more in basketball, where only in-region games are included in the RPI.

[champgymusa]

Just a thought...but how about we forget the seedings and just be f ing glad we are playing this fall? Teams have gone though a lot of **** to be able to play...at the end of the day someone always gets screwed by the NCAA..its their super power I think...anyway..win your games, be grateful for the season and have a great holiday....Anchor Up.

[Redwing]

I thought of this late last night.

The counter would be, who has GV beaten?

I obviously don't agree with the ratings and believe I was correct this entire time, but I was just presenting the counter argument.

Good question, but shouldn't SOS address it? I suspect that you're pointing to record against ranked or even teams over .500??? But if SOS/OWP is such a big metric... (I don't think anyone really knows how things are or should be weighted) why is a circular metric of top ranked teams used? Or even .500? There will always be debate as to what is tougher: Winning against a few better teams with the balance being dogs or beating a group of above avg teams. I know I may be shooting myself in the foot here, but I'll trump it back by saying SILO really messes up the metrics when comparing teams outside of the silo.

And I also get your earlier point that 1/10 of the season got played Saturday, but again it didn't mean that 10% of the data changed since many of the impacted teams won or more or less maintained performance. So actually the metric that were % base, improved for GV. SOS likely went NW's way a bit and v.500, but that's about it. I suspect fewer games and record vs ranked teams put GV where they are. But those metrics didn't change much from the previous week. And percentage wise the gap actually went GV's way.

[Redwing]

Just a thought...but how about we forget the seedings and just be f ing glad we are playing this fall? Teams have gone though a lot of **** to be able to play...at the end of the day someone always gets screwed by the NCAA..its their super power I think...anyway..win your games, be grateful for the season and have a great holiday....Anchor Up.

Nope, if that's the case, give the games where (name your favorite team) want. Yeah, that's impossible. I wonder how long each committee met to decide these seedings. Does one school deserve to get jobbed more than getting a break? Do other teams (name your favorite) deserve to typically get the breaks? And heck, I'm pretty sure the Bsdogs aren't jumping for joy to get GV coming off the bye (if GV wins.) I don't think any team will ever admit that they want to duck a competition, but if seedings aren't a big deal, let's just randomize the entire thing. Throw all the participants in a bingo ball and place em as they come out. I personally am accepting the seedings, but it doesn't mean I think that they are correct. And I think other regions/teams may have even bigger disparities.

[Brandon]

Good question, but shouldn't SOS address it? I suspect that you're pointing to record against ranked or even teams over .500??? But if SOS/OWP is such a big metric... (I don't think anyone really knows how things are or should be weighted) why is a circular metric of top ranked teams used? Or even .500? There will always be debate as to what is tougher: Winning against a few better teams with the balance being dogs or beating a group of above avg teams. I know I may shooting myself in the foot here, but I'll trump it back by saying SILO really messes up the metrics when comparing teams outside of the silo..

I was just thinking theoretically and yes, OWP is really the only thing that's needed. Just an unsolicited rhetorical response.

I think "v. ranked teams" is a ridiculous metric unless there is a 100% tie through hundreds of other criteria. Funny anecdote, an NAIA school was selected over another. Virtual tie the entire way. The team was selected based on "fewest points given up against conference teams." One had given up 276. The other 272.

[Brandon]

I don't know that the in-region vs. out-of-region distinction matters all that much, especially with many games against teams in different super regions counting as in-region. The most important game this year that didn't count as in-region was Lindenwood vs. Angelo State, and it certainly doesn't appear that the loss hurt Lindenwood any less or that the win helped Angelo State any less.
EDIT: I forgot about New Haven vs. Bowie State. I think the same goes for that game.


In-region matters a bit more in basketball, where only in-region games are included in the RPI.

The in-region metric was created to incentivize D2 teams playing D2 teams rather than taking FCS games. It was intended to make scheduling easier for all, but has had the opposite effect.

[Brandon]

Just a thought...but how about we forget the seedings and just be f ing glad we are playing this fall?

There is no doubt about that.

[Inkblot]

The in-region metric was created to incentivize D2 teams playing D2 teams rather than taking FCS games. It was intended to make scheduling easier for all, but has had the opposite effect.

D3 used to have the same rules on in-region and out-of-region games... Eventually they just gave up and started counting all D3 games as in-region.

[Redwing]

I do wonder how D3 and FCS do their seedings. I think one or both give automatics to conf champs, but I have no idea how they pick the at large and seed the pool. I do like having one pot and then have geographical match ups as opposed to D2 forced regions. Many a time we hear in D2 that the product isn't as visible so it's difficult to measure one team vs another.. I counter that with.. Like D3 and FCS have more Bcast or streamed games? Not likely. Even if they do, are they really being watched/evaluated?

Suffice to say, change to selections seem to move at a glacier's pace, but I guess they do move.