Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If Richmond beats W&M and App St beats Elon, Northern Iowa could end up in the Top 6.

Five Big Sky teams in the top 25.

43rd place! In your face FCS fans!

We can bag on the GPI all day long, and not without good reason, but I think the GPI has done a better job placing the Big Sky schools, Delaware, UMass, Holy Cross, Lafayette and Liberty than most (wink, nod, nudge) of the human polls.

bench wrote:We can bag on the GPI all day long, and not without good reason, but I think the GPI has done a better job placing the Big Sky schools, Delaware, UMass, Holy Cross, Lafayette and Liberty than most (wink, nod, nudge) of the human polls.

Agreed. The GPI is very close to my ranking actually.

bench wrote:We can bag on the GPI all day long, and not without good reason, but I think the GPI has done a better job placing the Big Sky schools, Delaware, UMass, Holy Cross, Lafayette and Liberty than most (wink, nod, nudge) of the human polls.

The individual elements of the GPI sometimes are really screwy...IMHO...

But taken together, it tends to...again IMHO...be the most realistic ranking...

But as you hinted at, Bench, there are people who will trash it all day long...

I don't like computer rankings in general so that's my beef with the GPI.

I also don't like that the guy who runs cannot grasp the concept that it may not be perfect.

Well damn, we moved up 5 places.

danefan wrote: I also don't like that the guy who runs cannot grasp the concept that it may not be perfect.

Exactly..!!!!

(This just in: It ain't perfect)

Although I don't have a problem with it...

I note that AGS has Delaware ranked 20, and the GPI has them ranked 14.

I wonder if some AGS voters penalize the Hens because Delaware AGS posters, rather than the actual play of the team?

Or does the GPI give Delaware too much credit for being is the CAA?






I don't really care either way, the Hens probably have to win their last 2 games in order to make the playoffs, regardless of poll rankings.

bench wrote:We can bag on the GPI all day long, and not without good reason, but I think the GPI has done a better job placing the Big Sky schools, Delaware, UMass, Holy Cross, Lafayette and Liberty than most (wink, nod, nudge) of the human polls.

At least we can agree on something, benchie. The GPI may not be "fair," but it is much more accurate than the polls.

We moved up to 85. For a first year program, I'll take it.

Col Hogan wrote:

bench wrote:We can bag on the GPI all day long, and not without good reason, but I think the GPI has done a better job placing the Big Sky schools, Delaware, UMass, Holy Cross, Lafayette and Liberty than most (wink, nod, nudge) of the human polls.

The individual elements of the GPI sometimes are really screwy...IMHO...

But taken together, it tends to...again IMHO...be the most realistic ranking...

But as you hinted at, Bench, there are people who will trash it all day long...

I'm fairly ambivalent towards the GPI, myself. Those who hate it usually feel that way because at some point it didn't confirm their own personal opinions and biases, and frankly you just don't get the same satisfaction cursing at an algorithm as you do a human pollster. Those who love it and want to conceive its digital offspring — and we've known a few — think that you shouldn't be allowed to question it under penalty of death. So on one hand you have a bunch of dumb-ass homers, and you got your fucking know-it-alls on the other.

I just noticed something in the NCAA D-I Football handbook:

For 2009, the media poll will be the Sports Network Poll, the coaches poll will be the FCS Coaches poll and the computer poll will be a variation of the Gridiron Power Index – using only the following computer rankings: The Massey Ratings, Wolfe Rankings, Ashburn Rankings, Self Rankings and the Laz Index

Granted, the paragraph in question was talking about the requisites for "a guaranteed at-large position for those conferences that qualify for automatic qualification but do not receive it" (i.e. the ones that will be getting AQs next year), but I have to wonder if that is the formula that the committee looks at when determining other things in the playoff selections/seedings as well.

It's different from the regular GPI, since it includes fewer computer rankings, plus the GPI doesn't even use the "Wolfe Rankings", I don't believe.

JayJ79 wrote:I just noticed something in the NCAA D-I Football handbook:

For 2009, the media poll will be the Sports Network Poll, the coaches poll will be the FCS Coaches poll and the computer poll will be a variation of the Gridiron Power Index – using only the following computer rankings: The Massey Ratings, Wolfe Rankings, Ashburn Rankings, Self Rankings and the Laz Index

Granted, the paragraph in question was talking about the requisites for "a guaranteed at-large position for those conferences that qualify for automatic qualification but do not receive it" (i.e. the ones that will be getting AQs next year), but I have to wonder if that is the formula that the committee looks at when determining other things in the playoff selections/seedings as well.

It's different from the regular GPI, since it includes fewer computer rankings, plus the GPI doesn't even use the "Wolfe Rankings", I don't believe.

The Committee only officially uses that criteria for the bridge AQ (to determine whether the NEC champion gets guaranteed AQ).

This new "Modified GPI" was developed last year when the Bridge AQ was introduced and it is not publicly released. I highly doubt they use the Modified GPI considering it didn't even exist prior to last year.

The Commitee has said they have their own rankings system which they update on their weekly conference calls.

BlueHen86 wrote:Or does the GPI give Delaware too much credit for being is the CAA?

EVERY CAA team is given too much credit for being in the CAA....

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Or does the GPI give Delaware too much credit for being is the CAA?

EVERY CAA team is given too much credit for being in the CAA....

As well they should.

Seriously though,
I think Richmond and Villanova deserve the credit that they have been given. Probably UNH and W&M as well. I'm not sure about UMass or UD. I think the GPI overrates UD - so far UD's best results have been a win over UMass and a close loss to Richmond, I'm not real impressed.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Or does the GPI give Delaware too much credit for being is the CAA?

EVERY CAA team is given too much credit for being in the CAA....

CatMom wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
EVERY CAA team is given too much credit for being in the CAA....

Towson...Rhode Island...Northeastern. Yeah, they sure do get a lot of credit.

bench wrote: I'm fairly ambivalent towards the GPI, myself. Those who hate it usually feel that way because at some point it didn't confirm their own personal opinions and biases, and frankly you just don't get the same satisfaction cursing at an algorithm as you do a human pollster. Those who love it and want to conceive its digital offspring — and we've known a few — think that you shouldn't be allowed to question it under penalty of death. So on one hand you have a bunch of dumb-ass homers, and you got your fucking know-it-alls on the other.

The above is a fairly concise definition of LIFE as well...