Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why are some MIAA schools fighting so hard to keep silo scheduling?

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Hornetfan View Post

    If those four teams should have been in the playoffs what four teams should not have made it?
    I understand wanting to get the best teams in the playoffs, but that will not happen with regionalization. There will always be one region where the first team out is better than any team in another region.

    Plus I'm not sure three loss teams really belong in the playoffs. You play to win the game.

    The last three loss team to win the national championship was Northern Colorado in 1996. In the 22 years since then only three, three loss teams (NWMSU in 2005, Wayne St. (Mich.) in 2011, and West Florida in 2017) have made the national championship game. Out of 94 championship game participants since 1973 only 7 three loss teams have made the championship game.
    Just trying to get the best teams in the region right now.

    Number of losses is a horrible marker. If it's two losses or less, teams will only schedule 10 games to reduce their chances of picking up losses. Plus, we're talking about making the playoffs, not winning the championship. In most years, I can tell you the true championship contenders. If we're doing that, let's reduce the playoffs to eight selections.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by TSU_Mike59 View Post

      See, this continues to be the problem. You can't "easily" make the case that those teams should have been in. You can't "easily" make the case that a 3-loss MWSU or FHSU team, because of silo scheduling, should have been in this year over Lindenwood or Harding or Indianapolis (or Wayne State or Grand Valley in your example). You can only do that if part of your argument is that "well, the MIAA is better than the GAC or the GLVC or the GLIAC." Each year is unique, and you can't do it. Computer sites like Massey can't even figure it out for teams in silo schedules because there is absolutely nothing to go on for cross reference.

      If it's so easy, I'd argue then that FHSU shouldn't have been even considered because the GLVC champ last year was better on the field than the MIAA co-champ last year. So, see, now I have an argument against it.

      As long as there are at-larges, it will be a messed up debacle until there's a common opponent or some kind of cross reference ability. Want clarity? Four conferences in a region. Four conference championships. You start at the sweet 16 level and play down. Can't win your league? You don't get in. (Yes, I know that's ridiculous too).
      I absolutely can make the case. I saw it with my own eyes.

      The "each year is unique" thing is something that people say every single year. To an extent, it's true, but it's also intellectually dishonest to pretend that results proven over a long period of time mean nothing, and that's what the attempt of the "each year is unique" crowd tries to do. I understand better than anyone that teams can improve over time, but it's time to stop being courteous denying reality. The SEC might not be the best every year, but it's better than the MAC every year.

      By the way, Lindenwood was a three-loss team. Just because they gamed the system doesn't mean that loss should not count. They lost to Davenport and Midwestern State. That should have factored in. In a perfect scenario, maybe they schedule Lincoln and they finish 9-2 and we have a different conversation.

      If the MIAA had two non-con games to open the season, maybe Missouri Western and Fort Hays only have two losses. After all, they both lost their season opener. It's easy to argue that MWSU and FHSU had three losses because of the inbed scheduling, which I think we both agree needs to be eliminated.

      I'll look at 2018 because you very well may be correct.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Hornetfan View Post

        I haven't taken the time to break it out by regions since they have changed so much over the years, but I really think regionalization is a bigger problem than silo scheduling.
        They are both issues that need to be addressed.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by EveryCatAWildman View Post
          Funny enough if the 'better' team Mo West or FHSU had made the playoffs, Ouachita is probably at least makes the quarters
          I say this believing on resume Lindenwood should not have been in the playoffs but since they did win their conference absolutely had the right to be in the playoffs...so I don't think any team in SRIII should have been replaced with any team on the outside looking in; this year anyway. Even expanding outside the region I don't think MO West, FHSU, or Henderson deserved in over the 7 SRIV teams either.

          Comment


          • #95
            Silo works for my nsicand gac top tier bevsuse the top heavy nature of thier cinfetecon and that they don't play every tram every year. Gac top four have three challenging games a year and then cruise .

            Miaa middle is so good that it's 7-9 games of just brutual slugging anfig leafs to losses. Loss losses lead to lower seeds in the playoffs and no home field advantage in the second and third round. And that is something they need to fix, you don't want to go to north in December. That is aa hugedvantage for the northern schools . The SEC tems build three wins if not four into schedules. The best in FCS is Missouri valley with two or three non conference.

            Silo hurts the conf except in the ease of scheduling. And if they don't do something quick there will be no teams to schedule if they do change mind .


            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by EveryCatAWildman View Post

              I say this believing on resume Lindenwood should not have been in the playoffs but since they did win their conference absolutely had the right to be in the playoffs...so I don't think any team in SRIII should have been replaced with any team on the outside looking in; this year anyway. Even expanding outside the region I don't think MO West, FHSU, or Henderson deserved in over the 7 SRIV teams either.
              Sure. That's according to a criteria that you set.

              Do you think Fort Hays or Western were better teams than any that made the playoffs?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                Sure. That's according to a criteria that you set.

                Do you think Fort Hays or Western were better teams than any that made the playoffs?
                Yes, but I don't think their absence changed the outcome of the tournament in any way.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Some data as best as I could come up with it.

                  2019

                  1. Ferris State 10-0
                  2. Ouachita Baptist 11-0
                  3. Northwest Missouri 10-1
                  4. Central Missouri 10-1
                  5. Indianapolis 9-1
                  6. Harding 10-1
                  7. Lindenwood 8-3

                  Henderson State 9-2
                  Grand Valley 8-3
                  Wayne State 8-3
                  Missouri Western 8-3
                  Fort Hays 8-3

                  Postseason Results

                  Central Missouri 37
                  Indianapolis 27

                  Northwest Missouri 7
                  Harding 6

                  Lindenwood 41
                  Ouachita Baptist 38

                  Ferris State 37
                  Central Missouri 10

                  Northwest Missouri 63
                  Lindenwood 7

                  Ferris State 25
                  Northwest Missouri 3

                  ---

                  Missouri Western (8-3) 35
                  Henderson State (9-2) 14

                  Nebraska-Kearney (6-5) 50
                  Winona State (8-3) 33

                  Eastern New Mexico (7-4) 20
                  Southern Arkansas (8-3) 13

                  Truman State (9-2) 21
                  Ohio Dominican (7-2) 7

                  2018

                  1. Ouachita Baptist 11-0
                  2. Ferris State 11-0
                  3. Grand Valley 10-1
                  4. Indianapolis 9-1
                  5. Fort Hays 9-2
                  6. Northwest Missouri 9-2
                  7. Harding 9-2

                  Southern Arkansas 8-3
                  Missouri S&T 9-2
                  Pittsburg State 8-3

                  Indianapolis 38
                  Fort Hays 27

                  Ferris State 21
                  Harding 19

                  Northwest Missouri 42
                  Grand Valley 17

                  Ouachita Baptist 35
                  Indianapolis 7

                  Ferris State 27
                  Northwest Missouri 21

                  Ferris State 38
                  Ouachita Baptist 14

                  ----

                  Missouri Western (6-5) 30
                  Southern Arkansas (8-3) 25

                  Emporia State (7-4) 30
                  Arkansas-Monticello (6-5) 22

                  Central Oklahoma (7-4) 41
                  Angelo State (6-5) 34

                  Missouri S&T (9-2) 51
                  MSU Moorhead (8-3) 16

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Predatory Primates View Post

                    Yes, but I don't think their absence changed the outcome of the tournament in any way.
                    Agreed. The SR3 playoffs were a one team affair.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                      Just trying to get the best teams in the region right now.

                      Number of losses is a horrible marker. If it's two losses or less, teams will only schedule 10 games to reduce their chances of picking up losses. Plus, we're talking about making the playoffs, not winning the championship. In most years, I can tell you the true championship contenders. If we're doing that, let's reduce the playoffs to eight selections.
                      One could argue that teams are already doing this. There have been at least nine teams that played ten or fewer D2 games make the playoffs in each of the last five years.
                      2019 -10
                      2018 - 9
                      2017 - 10
                      2016 - 10
                      2015 - 15

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                        I absolutely can make the case. I saw it with my own eyes.

                        The "each year is unique" thing is something that people say every single year. To an extent, it's true, but it's also intellectually dishonest to pretend that results proven over a long period of time mean nothing, and that's what the attempt of the "each year is unique" crowd tries to do. I understand better than anyone that teams can improve over time, but it's time to stop being courteous denying reality. The SEC might not be the best every year, but it's better than the MAC every year.

                        By the way, Lindenwood was a three-loss team. Just because they gamed the system doesn't mean that loss should not count. They lost to Davenport and Midwestern State. That should have factored in. In a perfect scenario, maybe they schedule Lincoln and they finish 9-2 and we have a different conversation.

                        If the MIAA had two non-con games to open the season, maybe Missouri Western and Fort Hays only have two losses. After all, they both lost their season opener. It's easy to argue that MWSU and FHSU had three losses because of the inbed scheduling, which I think we both agree needs to be eliminated.

                        I'll look at 2018 because you very well may be correct.
                        Couldn't that be considered gaming the system? Play someone not as good as your conference opponent in order to get a win?

                        Also just because you win another game doesn't mean that will help you get in the playoffs. Since 1989 - when PSU, WU, MSSU and MWSU joined the MIAA - there have been six two loss MIAA teams not make the playoffs
                        PSU (9-2) in 2013
                        ESU (9-2) in 2012
                        PSU (9-2) in 2006
                        UCM (9-2) in 2003
                        UCM (9-2) in 2001
                        ESU (9-2) in 1998
                        Five of those teams played non-conference games in the regular season.

                        In 2012-13 the MIAA schedule was set up for 16 team silo schedule but the defections of UNO and TSU opened slots for some teams to get non-conference games.
                        In 2013 Pitt played ACU (6-5) and NWOSU (2-9) They did not play ESU (9-1), WU (7-3), FHSU (6-5) or UNK (3-8) in MIAA that year. SOS was .467
                        In 2012 ESU was one of four MIAA teams that played a full 11 game conference schedule. They did not play PSU (7-3), MSSU (6-5) or UCM (6-4) in MIAA that year. SOS was still .500)

                        The MIAA played a full round robin schedule with room for two non-con games in these years.
                        In 2006 Pitt played Panhandle State (1-9) and East Central (2-8)
                        In 2003 UCM played Langston (2-9) and Lincoln (1-9)
                        In 2001 UCM played Lincoln (0-9) and NAIA Ottawa (6-4)
                        In 1998 ESU played at NDSU (7-4) and FHSU (6-5)

                        The narrative has become "playing non-con games will get the best teams in the playoffs" and I don't think that's true.
                        You can try to schedule good teams but sometimes they don't end up being good - ACU for Pitt State in 2013 - and that can hurt you. If ACU wins the three games they lost by less than 7 points maybe that's gives PSU a good enough SOS to get them in the playoffs but they didn't win those games.
                        And sometimes you just can't get a good team to play you. If Pitt had played someone other than Panhandle State and East Central in 2006 - not even good teams, just someone who went 4-7, 3-8 - it might have been enough to get them in the playoffs in front of ACU who went 8-2 that year. Same thing for UCM in 2001 and 2003.
                        And then there is the time that you go out and play good teams with winning records and it's still not enough to get you in like ESU in 1998. Although that was a year when only four teams per region got in.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hornetfan View Post

                          One could argue that teams are already doing this. There have been at least nine teams that played ten or fewer D2 games make the playoffs in each of the last five years.
                          2019 -10
                          2018 - 9
                          2017 - 10
                          2016 - 10
                          2015 - 15
                          IMO, this is a bigger problem for D2 football than imbalanced regions or silo scheduling. Taking the easy way out is rewarded/incentivized.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GorillaBred View Post

                            IMO, this is a bigger problem for D2 football than imbalanced regions or silo scheduling. Taking the easy way out is rewarded/incentivized.
                            Full disclosure - I based those numbers on what the NCAA lists on the bracket so some of those teams may have played an FCS money game or taken on an NAIA team. Sometimes they just can't find the right game to fill out the schedule.
                            This is where silo scheduling can become a problem, but I doubt Kutztown (Penn.), West Chester (Penn.), LIUPost (NY), New Haven (Conn.), or Bowie State (Md.) would be breaking down the door trying to schedule teams in the Midwest on a yearly basis.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hornetfan View Post

                              Couldn't that be considered gaming the system? Play someone not as good as your conference opponent in order to get a win?

                              Also just because you win another game doesn't mean that will help you get in the playoffs. Since 1989 - when PSU, WU, MSSU and MWSU joined the MIAA - there have been six two loss MIAA teams not make the playoffs
                              PSU (9-2) in 2013
                              ESU (9-2) in 2012
                              PSU (9-2) in 2006
                              UCM (9-2) in 2003
                              UCM (9-2) in 2001
                              ESU (9-2) in 1998
                              Five of those teams played non-conference games in the regular season.

                              In 2012-13 the MIAA schedule was set up for 16 team silo schedule but the defections of UNO and TSU opened slots for some teams to get non-conference games.
                              In 2013 Pitt played ACU (6-5) and NWOSU (2-9) They did not play ESU (9-1), WU (7-3), FHSU (6-5) or UNK (3-8) in MIAA that year. SOS was .467
                              In 2012 ESU was one of four MIAA teams that played a full 11 game conference schedule. They did not play PSU (7-3), MSSU (6-5) or UCM (6-4) in MIAA that year. SOS was still .500)

                              The MIAA played a full round robin schedule with room for two non-con games in these years.
                              In 2006 Pitt played Panhandle State (1-9) and East Central (2-8)
                              In 2003 UCM played Langston (2-9) and Lincoln (1-9)
                              In 2001 UCM played Lincoln (0-9) and NAIA Ottawa (6-4)
                              In 1998 ESU played at NDSU (7-4) and FHSU (6-5)

                              The narrative has become "playing non-con games will get the best teams in the playoffs" and I don't think that's true.
                              You can try to schedule good teams but sometimes they don't end up being good - ACU for Pitt State in 2013 - and that can hurt you. If ACU wins the three games they lost by less than 7 points maybe that's gives PSU a good enough SOS to get them in the playoffs but they didn't win those games.
                              And sometimes you just can't get a good team to play you. If Pitt had played someone other than Panhandle State and East Central in 2006 - not even good teams, just someone who went 4-7, 3-8 - it might have been enough to get them in the playoffs in front of ACU who went 8-2 that year. Same thing for UCM in 2001 and 2003.
                              And then there is the time that you go out and play good teams with winning records and it's still not enough to get you in like ESU in 1998. Although that was a year when only four teams per region got in.
                              The three pre-04 teams all would've gotten in using today's format.

                              However, the two teams that have the best gripes here are 2006 Pitt State and 2012 ESU. Both of them only lost to PO teams.

                              2006 Pitt State had the unfortunate occurrence of both ECU being worse than anticipated. The home and home with ECU was scheduled following the 2004 season when ECU had just gone 6-4 under a new head coach and seemed like they were turning a corner into respectability. We weren't thinking we were scheduling a team that was going to go 10-1 with their only loss to us, but that game was scheduled under a belief that it wasn't going to be an anchor on our SOS. Panhandle State was scheduled because we had to have a home game. Nothing else to it. While never married to 6 in a given year, Pitt State has always made a point of trying to always have at least 11 home regular season games over every two year span (since the stadium expansion) and the Arrowhead era meant that we couldn't only schedule home and homes.

                              2012 ESU is probably the only PO victim of silo scheduling that the conference has had.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hornetfan View Post

                                Full disclosure - I based those numbers on what the NCAA lists on the bracket so some of those teams may have played an FCS money game or taken on an NAIA team. Sometimes they just can't find the right game to fill out the schedule.
                                This is where silo scheduling can become a problem, but I doubt Kutztown (Penn.), West Chester (Penn.), LIUPost (NY), New Haven (Conn.), or Bowie State (Md.) would be breaking down the door trying to schedule teams in the Midwest on a yearly basis.
                                West Chester came to Maryville within my memory - which admittedly is getting to be a long time anymore, but still.

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X