FB: Empire 8

[maxpower]

2) I think games played later in the season should be looked at compared to games played earlier in a season.  I don't want to put a formula on it, but teams that win their first 8 games and lose their last two should be looked at different than a team that loses their first 2 and wins their last 8.  Again, I dont want to put a formula on it, but this is a sport where teams get better throughout the season, sometimes players get found, and others get benched, and the team simply plays better.  And my explanation for Pats ballot had more to do with score differential than what weeks the games were played. 

Have to really disagree with you here Jonny. You're basically building playoffs into the regular season; every game you play is now by default more important than the last game you played. This is the great thing about regular seasons; you can build yourself up early in the year, and by doing so you have made room to falter a little, or you can make it up at the end if you sucked at the beginning. Should touchdowns in the fourth quarter count for more points than those in the first?

And if you're going to propose something like this, you'd damn well better put a formula on it, because otherwise there will be ZERO agreement on just how to decide things. Sure this is a sport where teams get better the more the play; what the hell sport isn't? That's why the best teams are the ones that realize that and make extra sure they were ready to play from the beginning.

What if Fisher had lost to Mount by the same score in week 11? It now looks worse on their record, even though both teams have been playing the same amount? This makes no sense to me.

[Jonny Utah]

2) I think games played later in the season should be looked at compared to games played earlier in a season.  I don't want to put a formula on it, but teams that win their first 8 games and lose their last two should be looked at different than a team that loses their first 2 and wins their last 8.  Again, I dont want to put a formula on it, but this is a sport where teams get better throughout the season, sometimes players get found, and others get benched, and the team simply plays better.  And my explanation for Pats ballot had more to do with score differential than what weeks the games were played. 

Have to really disagree with you here Jonny. You're basically building playoffs into the regular season; every game you play is now by default more important than the last game you played. This is the great thing about regular seasons; you can build yourself up early in the year, and by doing so you have made room to falter a little, or you can make it up at the end if you sucked at the beginning. Should touchdowns in the fourth quarter count for more points than those in the first?

And if you're going to propose something like this, you'd damn well better put a formula on it, because otherwise there will be ZERO agreement on just how to decide things. Sure this is a sport where teams get better the more the play; what the hell sport isn't? That's why the best teams are the ones that realize that and make extra sure they were ready to play from the beginning.

What if Fisher had lost to Mount by the same score in week 11? It now looks worse on their record, even though both teams have been playing the same amount? This makes no sense to me.

Lets put it this way, what do you think Michigan would have been ranked if you reversed their schedule last year? 

I think if teams beat better teams late in the season, it means more than if they beat them earlier in the season.  It can be and should be a factor.

[Frank Rossi]

I think if teams beat better teams late in the season, it means more than if they beat them earlier in the season.  It can be and should be a factor.

For the eighth time, it IS a factor -- but not primary and usually only used when all other analysis fails.  This is how it is stated (as the last point in "Secondary Criteria" in the 2007 Handbook):

• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee.

The NCAA understands that if this were a primary consideration, everyone would try to invert their schedules in a way that would place NEFC and cupcake games at the bottom of their schedules.  It's not fair to do this and to penalize a team for playing a tough team late unless there is no other way to differentiate the teams discussed.  You have not explained well, to this point, why we should make should a penalty exist. 

You just keep using the Michigan/App State game to make your point.  My answer to you is this:  was Michigan's dropoff based on the loss to App State and subsequent rise based on factoring out the App State game?  Or was it perhaps because the dropoff was from the first game of the season forcing voters to rethink what their 2007 view of Michigan was prior to any games played, and their subsequent games provided some level of confidence in 2007 Michigan as more data was available?  The App State game always gave voters reservations about Michigan, even at the end of the season.  It was always a black mark on Michigan's season.  It didn't just disappear after Game 10 because it was in Game 1.  Your assessment is far from dead-on, and that's why I give this rationale for your argument no merit.

[AUPepBand]

Perhaps it's just Pep, but the current discussion is way over Pep's head. 

Nevertheless, Pep is not at all surprised at the progress being made at Utica this year. Out of the gate, a loss to Becker is downright embarrassing. Pep has more respect for Husson (than other posters) because he's seen them firsthand. They are no New England slouch, but still a loss for the Pioneers. Much growth seen week-to-week, however, as evidence in a close loss to unbeaten (and perhaps untested) RPI. Then they put it to a Mt. Ida team 40-8 that BEAT Becker and BEAT a 5-1 Plymouth State team.

So, Pep figures either of two things are going to happen....
1) Utica wins out and takes the conference with a perfect 6-0 slate and an overall 7-3 slate
...and this in Blaise Faggiano's first year of coaching the Pioneers!

2) Alfred wins out to finish 5-1 in E8 play, 8-2 overall, while Utica tops Hartwick 82-80 in 4 OTs, leaving Fisher, Ithaca, Hartwick and Utica each with at least 2 conference losses
...and this in a rebuilding year at Mayberry! Aunt Bee will be dancing a jig!

The Saxons and Pioneers play for the E8 title at Charles A. Gaetano Stadium this Saturday!!

[Jonny Utah]

I think if teams beat better teams late in the season, it means more than if they beat them earlier in the season.  It can be and should be a factor.

For the eighth time, it IS a factor -- but not primary and usually only used when all other analysis fails.  This is how it is stated (as the last point in "Secondary Criteria" in the 2007 Handbook):

• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee.

The NCAA understands that if this were a primary consideration, everyone would try to invert their schedules in a way that would place NEFC and cupcake games at the bottom of their schedules.  It's not fair to do this and to penalize a team for playing a tough team late unless there is no other way to differentiate the teams discussed.  You have not explained well, to this point, why we should make should a penalty exist. 

You just keep using the Michigan/App State game to make your point.  My answer to you is this:  was Michigan's dropoff based on the loss to App State and subsequent rise based on factoring out the App State game?  Or was it perhaps because the dropoff was from the first game of the season forcing voters to rethink what their 2007 view of Michigan was prior to any games played, and their subsequent games provided some level of confidence in 2007 Michigan as more data was available?  The App State game always gave voters reservations about Michigan, even at the end of the season.  It was always a black mark on Michigan's season.  It didn't just disappear after Game 10 because it was in Game 1.  Your assessment is far from dead-on, and that's why I give this rationale for your argument no merit.

now your taking the words you put in U89s mouth, and putting them in mine.

My point about the App St. game is that Michigan was the better team even after they lost to them, and the rankings would have shown it.  And the reverse schedule is about beating Florida in the last game while losing to a bad team in the first.  I never said that when teams play other teams should be a major factor did I? 

My problem is that the NCAA is using some criteria (games versus in region teams) that really has nothing to do with anything.  The only reason they have that criteria is so that d3 teams will be encouraged to play teams within their regions and not leave teams struggling for games.  When you have factors like that involved, (and no, Im not saying they are major factors), then they are flawed.

[Tags]

You guys are killing me.

I love when this time of year rolls around & Frank whips out the formulas 8)

[Frank Rossi]

My point about the App St. game is that Michigan was the better team even after they lost to them, and the rankings would have shown it.   

Perhaps some people think, based on this, that Hartwick is actually better than Ithaca, then.  Is that not possible?  Could this explain some people's ballots in various polls?  When we compare teams, we do not do it in a vacuum like you seem to be suggesting -- i.e., placing so much emphasis on a quarter-by-quarter view of each game.  Some voters are looking at Hartwick's performance this SEASON and voting based on their quality wins (they have 2 vs. potentially 2 by Ithaca and 1 by SJF).  Some of Ithaca's scores have caused concern -- like the King's score and Lycoming score; enough to place a little more focus on the season Hartwick is enjoying.

I can't fault a voter giving a nod to Hartwick.  Do I agree personally?  No.  But as long as they can back up their assessment with some solid criteria, then I appreciate their voice.  Diving into halftime of games isn't solid -- it's micromanaging a process that can't be micromanaged for all teams.

[superman57]

pep your thoughts are flawed... as there is almost no way all those teams end with two losses and utica still has to play fisher, wick and ithaca

[Knightstalker]

You guys are killing me.

I love when this time of year rolls around & Frank whips out the formulas 8)

I'm glad that is all Frank is whipping out.

[Jonny Utah]

My point about the App St. game is that Michigan was the better team even after they lost to them, and the rankings would have shown it.   

Perhaps some people think, based on this, that Hartwick is actually better than Ithaca, then.  Is that not possible?  Could this explain some people's ballots in various polls?  

No because App St. needed to block a kick to win it while IC dominated Hartwick.  Theres the difference between the two. 

And are the Lycoming and Kings scores that out of whack?

[AUPepBand]

pep your thoughts are flawed... as there is almost no way all those teams end with two losses and utica still has to play fisher, wick and ithaca

Supes....your spelling is flawed and Pep, although he is an editor, never complains about that.  Can you give Pep the privilege of possessing flawed thoughts?

Those two suggested scenarios are POSSIBLE. After all, who'd have THUNK Hartwick would go 2-1 against Ithaca, Fisher and Alfred in two consecutive years? Or that Utica would hang 70 (albeit with OTs) on Hartwick in '07? Pep will admit his thoughts are unlikely to happen, but until the games are played, they remain a possibility. That's Pep's story and he's sticking to it. 

[Frank Rossi]

My point about the App St. game is that Michigan was the better team even after they lost to them, and the rankings would have shown it.   

Perhaps some people think, based on this, that Hartwick is actually better than Ithaca, then.  Is that not possible?  Could this explain some people's ballots in various polls?  

No because App St. needed to block a kick to win it while IC dominated Hartwick.  Theres the difference between the two. 

And are the Lycoming and Kings scores that out of whack?

King's and Lycoming in back-to-back weeks didn't give Ithaca much momentum early -- but Lycoming's strength right now is helping explain some of that competitiveness now. 

As I said in the LLPP - a 69-42 score isn't "domination."  That's a shootout.  Domination is a 69-7 score.  So, be careful with your adjectives.

[dewcrew88]

2) I think games played later in the season should be looked at compared to games played earlier in a season.  I don't want to put a formula on it, but teams that win their first 8 games and lose their last two should be looked at different than a team that loses their first 2 and wins their last 8.  Again, I dont want to put a formula on it, but this is a sport where teams get better throughout the season, sometimes players get found, and others get benched, and the team simply plays better.  And my explanation for Pats ballot had more to do with score differential than what weeks the games were played. 

Have to really disagree with you here Jonny. You're basically building playoffs into the regular season; every game you play is now by default more important than the last game you played. This is the great thing about regular seasons; you can build yourself up early in the year, and by doing so you have made room to falter a little, or you can make it up at the end if you sucked at the beginning. Should touchdowns in the fourth quarter count for more points than those in the first?

And if you're going to propose something like this, you'd damn well better put a formula on it, because otherwise there will be ZERO agreement on just how to decide things. Sure this is a sport where teams get better the more the play; what the hell sport isn't? That's why the best teams are the ones that realize that and make extra sure they were ready to play from the beginning.

What if Fisher had lost to Mount by the same score in week 11? It now looks worse on their record, even though both teams have been playing the same amount? This makes no sense to me.

Good example of this: WPI 2007. Started 4-0 OOC, finished 0-6 against the LL.

[dewcrew88]

Perhaps it's just Pep, but the current discussion is way over Pep's head. 

Nevertheless, Pep is not at all surprised at the progress being made at Utica this year. Out of the gate, a loss to Becker is downright embarrassing. Pep has more respect for Husson (than other posters) because he's seen them firsthand. They are no New England slouch, but still a loss for the Pioneers. Much growth seen week-to-week, however, as evidence in a close loss to unbeaten (and perhaps untested) RPI. Then they put it to a Mt. Ida team 40-8 that BEAT Becker and BEAT a 5-1 Plymouth State team.

So, Pep figures either of two things are going to happen....
1) Utica wins out and takes the conference with a perfect 6-0 slate and an overall 7-3 slate
...and this in Blaise Faggiano's first year of coaching the Pioneers!

2) Alfred wins out to finish 5-1 in E8 play, 8-2 overall, while Utica tops Hartwick 82-80 in 4 OTs, leaving Fisher, Ithaca, Hartwick and Utica each with at least 2 conference losses
...and this in a rebuilding year at Mayberry! Aunt Bee will be dancing a jig!

The Saxons and Pioneers play for the E8 title at Charles A. Gaetano Stadium this Saturday!!

Pep, I could only hope. Please, God, let no. 1 happen. Thank you. Amen. 

[dewcrew88]

Perhaps it's just Pep, but the current discussion is way over Pep's head. 

Nevertheless, Pep is not at all surprised at the progress being made at Utica this year. Out of the gate, a loss to Becker is downright embarrassing. Pep has more respect for Husson (than other posters) because he's seen them firsthand. They are no New England slouch, but still a loss for the Pioneers. Much growth seen week-to-week, however, as evidence in a close loss to unbeaten (and perhaps untested) RPI. Then they put it to a Mt. Ida team 40-8 that BEAT Becker and BEAT a 5-1 Plymouth State team.

So, Pep figures either of two things are going to happen....
1) Utica wins out and takes the conference with a perfect 6-0 slate and an overall 7-3 slate
...and this in Blaise Faggiano's first year of coaching the Pioneers!

2) Alfred wins out to finish 5-1 in E8 play, 8-2 overall, while Utica tops Hartwick 82-80 in 4 OTs, leaving Fisher, Ithaca, Hartwick and Utica each with at least 2 conference losses
...and this in a rebuilding year at Mayberry! Aunt Bee will be dancing a jig!

The Saxons and Pioneers play for the E8 title at Charles A. Gaetano Stadium this Saturday!!

Pep, you going to be at the game? I'm thinking about it.