Winning in the LSC

[Boohaha]

Re: Winning in the LSC

The top criteria is win percentage for DII games. If CWU gets in, it seems that they are following criteria.

[Runnin' Cat]

Re: Winning in the LSC

While not a written item in the handbook, past regional rankings have had a definitive slant towards the DII win percentage. Yes, there have been instances when it wasn't, but overwhelmingly, it has been the top criteria.

[Boohaha]

Re: Winning in the LSC

While not a written item in the handbook, past regional rankings have had a definitive slant towards the DII win percentage. Yes, there have been instances when it wasn't, but overwhelmingly, it has been the top criteria.

So its like i pointed to its whatever the committee feels like.....If they feel that every conference should be reped then thats it dang the criteria.

BTW ou guys think you have it bad Missouri S&T in region 3 has it worse they are a 1 loss d2 team that will have a few quality wins over teams at or above .500 is at 10, behind several 2 loss teams with no real prospect of getting in unless Indy loses again.

[Runnin' Cat]

Re: Winning in the LSC

So its like i pointed to its whatever the committee feels like.....If they feel that every conference should be reped then thats it dang the criteria.

BTW ou guys think you have it bad Missouri S&T in region 3 has it worse they are a 1 loss d2 team that will have a few quality wins over teams at or above .500 is at 10, behind several 2 loss teams with no real prospect of getting in unless Indy loses again.

Missouri S&T has not been a very good team. They left the MIAA in 2005, and have been at best mediocre with a break through last year to be 7-4. The GLVC is also one of the weaker DII conferences. I did see that they crept into the #10 slot in the RRs.

I never thought I would see Mo S&T put up as an example of a team being overlooked in the RRs.

[Boohaha]

Re: Winning in the LSC

Missouri S&T has not been a very good team. They left the MIAA in 2005, and have been at best mediocre with a break through last year to be 7-4. The GLVC is also one of the weaker DII conferences. I did see that they crept into the #10 slot in the RRs.

I never thought I would see Mo S&T put up as an example of a team being overlooked in the RRs.

Right and the GNAC is soooo hard!

2005 is 13 years ago, 13 years ago Commerced sucked!

The Gac was formed by a bunch of LSC north teams and others that were tired of getting smacked around by the LSC south etc. Harding from the GACwon SR3 made it in with 3 loses and went to the semis, a couple games deeper than CWU.

History doesnt matter, criteria does, it is either applied or not. If your application of the criteria means CWU should be in then so should S&T who has a demonstratably tougher schedule, sos, and same win%.

[Turbonium]

Re: Winning in the LSC

Missouri S&T SOS is 78th, CWU is 48th. Massey gives CWU a 75% chance of winning that head to head, I would agree with that. I know you think they are good cause they demolished ENMU, but so did Mesa and they are also not very good. ENMU surely improved since then, but it doesn't make S&T good.

[Boohaha]

Re: Winning in the LSC

Missouri S&T SOS is 78th, CWU is 48th. Massey gives CWU a 75% chance of winning that head to head, I would agree with that. I know you think they are good cause they demolished ENMU, but so did Mesa and they are also not very good. ENMU surely improved since then, but it doesn't make S&T good.

No, im going off NCAA criteria. i dont think they are good at all. Massey takes into account fcs games. NCAA sos numbers show S&t higher than cwu in sos.

Stop kicking my dogs!

[Runnin' Cat]

Re: Winning in the LSC

Right and the GNAC is soooo hard!

2005 is 13 years ago, 13 years ago Commerced sucked!

The Gac was formed by a bunch of LSC north teams and others that were tired of getting smacked around by the LSC south etc. Harding from the GACwon SR3 made it in with 3 loses and went to the semis, a couple games deeper than CWU.

History doesnt matter, criteria does, it is either applied or not. If your application of the criteria means CWU should be in then so should S&T who has a demonstratably tougher schedule, sos, and same win%.

Why do you enjoy logical fallacy arguments?

I did not say the GNAC was "soooo hard". What I have said is that while it is an easy schedule, CWU has averaged 35+ points more than their opponents in D2 games. While CWU should have won those games, they did so in a big fashion.

I was pointing out that S&T got killed in the MIAA, moved to the GLVC, and have had losing records until last year. They are just not a good team. S&T would be a significant underdog in any playoff game in any Region.

Comparing teams across regions is not really making a credible argument. Again, you make a logical fallacy argument.

I get that you have a hard on for CWU. Doesn't matter. While I would like to see the Wildcats in the playoffs, I am not blindly saying they should be. Time will tell.

[Boohaha]

Re: Winning in the LSC

Missouri S&T has not been a very good team. They left the MIAA in 2005, and have been at best mediocre with a break through last year to be 7-4. The GLVC is also one of the weaker DII conferences. I did see that they crept into the #10 slot in the RRs.

I never thought I would see Mo S&T put up as an example of a team being overlooked in the RRs.

Why do you enjoy logical fallacy arguments?

I did not say the GNAC was "soooo hard". What I have said is that while it is an easy schedule, CWU has averaged 35+ points more than their opponents in D2 games. While CWU should have won those games, they did so in a big fashion.

I was pointing out that S&T got killed in the MIAA, moved to the GLVC, and have had losing records until last year. They are just not a good team. S&T would be a significant underdog in any playoff game in any Region.

Comparing teams across regions is not really making a credible argument. Again, you make a logical fallacy argument.

I get that you have a hard on for CWU. Doesn't matter. While I would like to see the Wildcats in the playoffs, I am not blindly saying they should be. Time will tell.

Who brought up a team playing in a weak conference here?
"The GLVC is also one of the weaker DII conferences."

Who wanted to point back to 2005 when another team was in another conference and sucked, only to leave and be "at best mediocre." ?

My point about Harding was to show that things change, bad teams become good, and some bad teams become great, see Commerce last year. This idea that such and such conference is terrible/weak and their teams should be given more scrutiny is crap.


If according to you the Wildcats should be put in the POs because of the criteria, then so should the Miners except at this point and by season's end they will have a better resume per the criteria if both teams win out.

My argument about CWU is on the criteria, i dont think the committee should seed a team with an SOS over Midwestern or Commerce or what ever other 2 loss team ends up at 7th. If the goal of the playoffs is to put the best 7 teams from each region in the bracket it is not served placing CWU there over other 2 loss teams.

Has cwu performed well? in all but one game. Are they better thsn Midwestern or Commerce, or Pueblo? From the data most people would say no, thats what happens when 5 of your 10 d2 games are against opponents that have less than .250 record. 3 games vs winless teams.

[Runnin' Cat]

Re: Winning in the LSC

Who brought up a team playing in a weak conference here?
"The GLVC is also one of the weaker DII conferences."

Who wanted to point back to 2005 when another team was in another conference and sucked, only to leave and be "at best mediocre." ?

My point about Harding was to show that things change, bad teams become good, and some bad teams become great, see Commerce last year. This idea that such and such conference is terrible/weak and their teams should be given more scrutiny is crap.


If according to you the Wildcats should be put in the POs because of the criteria, then so should the Miners except at this point and by season's end they will have a better resume per the criteria if both teams win out.

My argument about CWU is on the criteria, i dont think the committee should seed a team with an SOS over Midwestern or Commerce or what ever other 2 loss team ends up at 7th. If the goal of the playoffs is to put the best 7 teams from each region in the bracket it is not served placing CWU there over other 2 loss teams.

Has cwu performed well? in all but one game. Are they better thsn Midwestern or Commerce, or Pueblo? From the data most people would say no, thats what happens when 5 of your 10 d2 games are against opponents that have less than .250 record. 3 games vs winless teams.

So you think thi syear S&T is a good team?

I pointed back to show that even by going to a weaker league, they still have not been a good team. Yes, things change, ala Harding. Why do you get to use that as an example for things getting better, but when I use it as showing that a team is still not good, it is a bad argument?

I ran the simulator for college games,supposedly based on data. All away games for CWU. CSUP wins 29-26, Midwestern wins 42-38,and CWU beats TAMUC 38-31. All very close games, so apparently some folks think CWU is okay. I will run that same bunch against Missouri S&T, or you can and report back sooner. I have an idea CWU would roll S&T.

http://www.compughterratings.com/CFB/simulations

[Boohaha]

Re: Winning in the LSC

So you think thi syear S&T is a good team?

I pointed back to show that even by going to a weaker league, they still have not been a good team. Yes, things change, ala Harding. Why do you get to use that as an example for things getting better, but when I use it as showing that a team is still not good, it is a bad argument?

I ran the simulator for college games,supposedly based on data. All away games for CWU. CSUP wins 29-26, Midwestern wins 42-38,and CWU beats TAMUC 38-31. All very close games, so apparently some folks think CWU is okay. I will run that same bunch against Missouri S&T, or you can and report back sooner. I have an idea CWU would roll S&T.

http://www.compughterratings.com/CFB/simulations

Those simulators are crap.

Im sure you checked but that simulator says CWU beats WT 40-20
And Eastern only beats them 21-15

Reality is WT beat CWU and were not eben close to eastern, they didnt even gain yard 100 till late in the third, and eastern took a knee with 40 seconds left at WT 3 yard line.

Again i dont think the miners are that good a team. But according to the criteria that the NCAA has set out they would be scandalously hypocritical to keep the miners out but include CWU. That is what i am saying, especially when Miners have and will have a better and improving SOS than CWU and more wins vs teams over .500 despite having the same d2 record.

[Boohaha]

Re: Winning in the LSC

So you think thi syear S&T is a good team?

I pointed back to show that even by going to a weaker league, they still have not been a good team. Yes, things change, ala Harding. Why do you get to use that as an example for things getting better, but when I use it as showing that a team is still not good, it is a bad argument?

I ran the simulator for college games,supposedly based on data. All away games for CWU. CSUP wins 29-26, Midwestern wins 42-38,and CWU beats TAMUC 38-31. All very close games, so apparently some folks think CWU is okay. I will run that same bunch against Missouri S&T, or you can and report back sooner. I have an idea CWU would roll S&T.

http://www.compughterratings.com/CFB/simulations

Also last year that same 7-4 tream lost by 4 to west florida and 9 to indy who beat Grand valley to open the season. That conference might just be getting stronger.


At least they didnt lose to WT! HA HA HA ;)