Quote from: AUPepBand on January 20, 2012, 04:15:35 PM
Pep would like to go on record as questioning the ECAC North selections for Field Goal Specialist. Pep is wondering what factors were used to determine the selections:
FIRST TEAM -- Dylan Rushe (Endicott), 17 field goals (17 of 26 attempts) made .654 of kicks, 1.55 field goals per game

Rushe hit a 55 yd FG this past season, and so it might be relevant to examine more detailed stats for these kickers -- longest FG, and pct converted at various distances for starters.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2011, 05:52:23 PM

Quote from: SJFF82 on December 05, 2011, 02:17:51 PM
BTW...The Tommies are for real....I really thought we got MUCinized on saterday.

That is the first time since 2002 SJF got pistol whipped by a team that was undisputedly better than SJF (other than MUC of course)

I like that.

MUCinization  (accent on the first syallable) --   turning something into mucin.

+1! 

Shouldn't it be UMUinization?  UMUnched-up?  UMULched?  Hmmm.

Quote from: euleria on November 26, 2011, 09:29:40 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2011, 02:02:34 AM
I am not aware of live video at Delaware Valley.

The SJFC website points to this link for the video feed:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/delaware-valley-football-2011

Cheers!

Hmmm.  SJFC calls it a video link, but the DVC website implies this might be audio only.  Sigh.  I'll take what I can get, I suppose.

Go Cards!!!

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2011, 02:02:34 AM
I am not aware of live video at Delaware Valley.

The SJFC website points to this link for the video feed:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/delaware-valley-football-2011

Cheers!

I'm trying to understand the distinction between "primary criteria" and "secondary criteria".

If SJFC is out because of their in-region winning pct (6-1) is too low, then no two loss team would be considered either.

If SJFC is out because of their 2 out-of-region losses, then that suggests that overall winning percentage is being used as a primary criterion, not a secondary one.

The primary criteria, all based on in-region record and the record of ones in-region opponents and opponents' opponents, appear to favor SJFC over any of the "two loss in region" teams.  And with the exception of in-region winning percentage, SJFC comes out ahead of most of the other one-loss teams under consideration.

Leading back to:  does in-region winning pct trump the other primary criteria, or is overall winning pct being used as a primary criterion instead of a secondary criterion?

I'm not advocating for SJFC as a pool C team, but I think their example might shed light on how the criteria were applied to other teams with a less tenuous claim to being on the bubble.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2009, 03:39:41 PM

You're still not addressing what IMO is the key issue - they have a list of primary criteria, but do not state how they are to be weighed.  It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that this year ONE criterion overrode all the other criteria - winning %.  If ANY one-loss team is automatically preferred to ANY two-loss team (to the point that the two-loss teams will not even be considered), say so.  Don't pretend that there are five primary criteria, if there is really only one and the rest are de facto secondary criteria.

No one has mentioned one other one-loss team in all this:  SJFC.  If the primary criteria really are *primary*, then what of SJFC?   A 6-1 team in their region,  they have the second best opponent's winning pct among all 1 loss teams (.613), and the third best opp-opp winning pct among all 1 loss teams (.568).   SJFC falls apart on most of the secondary criteria, and I don't know of any fans who expected them to contend for pool C, but looking at the published criteria, one would think they're in the mix.

So in practice, were the  criteria:  overall winning %, regional winning %, and then a series of secondary (or tertiary) criteria?

If there are published criteria, they should match actual practice.