53 or not they have their pride. Top 55 and they did it without playing a money game.danefan wrote:I thought you'd like that.DetroitFlyer wrote:No way in you know where that JU can be 29 and UD is not even in the top 50. UD behind ODU, CCSU, Robert Morris, not a chance. Just proves to me that this measure is 100% completely useless....
Dayton is at 53.
The Duquesne loss kills them. Dukes at 70.
danefan wrote:Well technically the committee only uses the modified GPI for the Bridge AQ which won't come into play this year. So it really doesn't have to rely on the GPI at all for anything else.mcveyrl wrote:
So the question then becomes...what's the purpose of the GPI?
I would imagine its more likely that they use this Modified GPI then it is the Regular GPI. They obviously saw something they didn't like in the regular GPI and changed it.mcveyrl wrote:danefan wrote:
Well technically the committee only uses the modified GPI for the Bridge AQ which won't come into play this year. So it really doesn't have to rely on the GPI at all for anything else.
Yea, but I think we know they probably do. And even if it's just for the bridge then doesn't this year completely obliterate that, too?
The point of using it for the bridge is to make sure that a team "belongs" in the playoffs by being among the top teams. By saying that, they are implicitly saying that the GPI predicts the best FCS teams. And, if their goal at playoff time is to pick the ten best teams available and they go out and get two teams outside the Top 25 of the GPI, they have either 1) failed to do their job or 2) admitted the GPI is a horrible predictor of good teams.
By the way, I've never been one to bash the GPI, but this just seems to prove others' point that it may not be helpful. I will fully admit that this year is an anomaly in that there aren't a bunch of seven win teams in the mix, but that's not a hard and fast rule and if ever there was a year to break tradition this would be the one. I guess that's my point.
For those that think I'm angling for JMU's inclusion, I think they would be (at best) the 3rd or 4th team in line in this scenario.
Yea, I used the Modified GPI you posted on AGS for the analysis. And you may be right about #3. That would probably be the simplest explanation.danefan wrote:I would imagine its more likely that they use this Modified GPI then it is the Regular GPI. They obviously saw something they didn't like in the regular GPI and changed it.mcveyrl wrote:
Yea, but I think we know they probably do. And even if it's just for the bridge then doesn't this year completely obliterate that, too?
The point of using it for the bridge is to make sure that a team "belongs" in the playoffs by being among the top teams. By saying that, they are implicitly saying that the GPI predicts the best FCS teams. And, if their goal at playoff time is to pick the ten best teams available and they go out and get two teams outside the Top 25 of the GPI, they have either 1) failed to do their job or 2) admitted the GPI is a horrible predictor of good teams.
By the way, I've never been one to bash the GPI, but this just seems to prove others' point that it may not be helpful. I will fully admit that this year is an anomaly in that there aren't a bunch of seven win teams in the mix, but that's not a hard and fast rule and if ever there was a year to break tradition this would be the one. I guess that's my point.
For those that think I'm angling for JMU's inclusion, I think they would be (at best) the 3rd or 4th team in line in this scenario.
And I agree on your 1 and 2 and add a #3 - or they just don't use it at all.
