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

Top 30 below. All FCS at http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/fcs/fcs-srs-poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. They obviously deviated from it some. Charleston Southern is 16 in it but didn't get in. Samford's 25 but did.


RANK /TEA RECORD/NCAASRS
1 Eastern Ill. (11-1) 25.30
2 North Dakota St. (11-0) 23.17
3 Eastern Wash. (10-2) 19.05
4 Southeastern La. (10-2) 18.12
5 McNeese St. (10-2) 16.25
6 Fordham (11-1) 16.00
7 Coastal Caro. (10-2) 15.68
8 Montana (10-2) 15.64
9 Towson (10-2) 15.55
10 Maine (10-2) 15.54
11 Northern Ariz. (9-2) 14.54
12 Jacksonville St. (9-3) 13.50
13 Bethune-Cookman (10-2) 13.39
14 Harvard (9-1) 13.32
15 Tennessee St. (9-3) 13.09
16 Charleston So. (10-3) 11.81
17 South Dakota St. (8-4) 10.01
18 South Carolina St. (9-3) 9.38
19 Princeton (8-2) 9.37
20 Sacred Heart (10-2) 9.32
21 Southern Utah (8-4) 9.19
22 Tenn.-Martin (7-5) 9.03
23 Sam Houston St. (8-4) 8.69
24 Youngstown St. (8-4) 8.15
25 Samford (8-4) 7.85
26 Chattanooga (8-4) 7.70
27 Old Dominion (8-4) 7.20
28 Lehigh (8-3) 7.15
29 New Hampshire (7-4) 6.66
30 Central Ark. (7-5) 6.24

JohnStOnge wrote:Top 30 below. All FCS at http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/fcs/fcs-srs-poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. They obviously deviated from it some. Charleston Southern is 16 in it but didn't get in. Samford's 25 but did.


RANK /TEA RECORD/NCAASRS
1 Eastern Ill. (11-1) 25.30
2 North Dakota St. (11-0) 23.17
3 Eastern Wash. (10-2) 19.05
4 Southeastern La. (10-2) 18.12
5 McNeese St. (10-2) 16.25
6 Fordham (11-1) 16.00
7 Coastal Caro. (10-2) 15.68
8 Montana (10-2) 15.64
9 Towson (10-2) 15.55
10 Maine (10-2) 15.54
11 Northern Ariz. (9-2) 14.54
12 Jacksonville St. (9-3) 13.50
13 Bethune-Cookman (10-2) 13.39
14 Harvard (9-1) 13.32
15 Tennessee St. (9-3) 13.09
16 Charleston So. (10-3) 11.81
17 South Dakota St. (8-4) 10.01
18 South Carolina St. (9-3) 9.38
19 Princeton (8-2) 9.37
20 Sacred Heart (10-2) 9.32
21 Southern Utah (8-4) 9.19
22 Tenn.-Martin (7-5) 9.03
23 Sam Houston St. (8-4) 8.69
24 Youngstown St. (8-4) 8.15
25 Samford (8-4) 7.85
26 Chattanooga (8-4) 7.70
27 Old Dominion (8-4) 7.20
28 Lehigh (8-3) 7.15
29 New Hampshire (7-4) 6.66
30 Central Ark. (7-5) 6.24

A child could copy this formula. Basically, they just list the 10 win teams over the 9 win teams and 8 and so on. No SOS figures into this at all.

Hope my Nova team's AD takes note and schedules the patsie wins the committee seems to cherish. This is a disgrace. I know all of the computer models are challenged with football because there aren't as many games as basketball but by the end of the season thousands of games have been played and the computer models have a better idea of SOS than THIS! At least take the win percentage of opponents into consideration if you don't want to use the computers.

vutomcat wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Top 30 below. All FCS at http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/fcs/fcs-srs-poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. They obviously deviated from it some. Charleston Southern is 16 in it but didn't get in. Samford's 25 but did.


RANK /TEA RECORD/NCAASRS
1 Eastern Ill. (11-1) 25.30
2 North Dakota St. (11-0) 23.17
3 Eastern Wash. (10-2) 19.05
4 Southeastern La. (10-2) 18.12
5 McNeese St. (10-2) 16.25
6 Fordham (11-1) 16.00
7 Coastal Caro. (10-2) 15.68
8 Montana (10-2) 15.64
9 Towson (10-2) 15.55
10 Maine (10-2) 15.54
11 Northern Ariz. (9-2) 14.54
12 Jacksonville St. (9-3) 13.50
13 Bethune-Cookman (10-2) 13.39
14 Harvard (9-1) 13.32
15 Tennessee St. (9-3) 13.09
16 Charleston So. (10-3) 11.81
17 South Dakota St. (8-4) 10.01
18 South Carolina St. (9-3) 9.38
19 Princeton (8-2) 9.37
20 Sacred Heart (10-2) 9.32
21 Southern Utah (8-4) 9.19
22 Tenn.-Martin (7-5) 9.03
23 Sam Houston St. (8-4) 8.69
24 Youngstown St. (8-4) 8.15
25 Samford (8-4) 7.85
26 Chattanooga (8-4) 7.70
27 Old Dominion (8-4) 7.20
28 Lehigh (8-3) 7.15
29 New Hampshire (7-4) 6.66
30 Central Ark. (7-5) 6.24

A child could copy this formula. Basically, they just list the 10 win teams over the 9 win teams and 8 and so on. No SOS figures into this at all.

Hope my Nova team's AD takes note and schedules the patsie wins the committee seems to cherish. This is a disgrace. I know all of the computer models are challenged with football because there aren't as many games as basketball but by the end of the season thousands of games have been played and the computer models have a better idea of SOS than THIS! At least take the win percentage of opponents into consideration if you don't want to use the computers.

Dude, you had Penn and Fordham on the schedule - those were supposed to be your patsies. Penn complied and was a bad team, but Fordham was unfortunately better than the 1-10 team they were the season before they showed up on nova's schedule. And besides, it's not even about the patsies - nova probably would've gotten in at 7-5, but for some reason chose not to schedule a full 12 game season. The fact that your AD can't count to 12 isn't the committees fault.

This final looks a lot different than the previous week, doesn't it?

So if the SRS did pick the field the only change would be 22 Tenn.-Martin (7-5) 9.03 > 25 Samford (8-4) 7.85.

Its funny that I watched the selection show yesterday live on ESPNU including the interview with Jeff Bourne on the decision making process & SRS was never mentioned once.

GannonFan wrote:

vutomcat wrote:

A child could copy this formula. Basically, they just list the 10 win teams over the 9 win teams and 8 and so on. No SOS figures into this at all.

Hope my Nova team's AD takes note and schedules the patsie wins the committee seems to cherish. This is a disgrace. I know all of the computer models are challenged with football because there aren't as many games as basketball but by the end of the season thousands of games have been played and the computer models have a better idea of SOS than THIS! At least take the win percentage of opponents into consideration if you don't want to use the computers.

Dude, you had Penn and Fordham on the schedule - those were supposed to be your patsies. Penn complied and was a bad team, but Fordham was unfortunately better than the 1-10 team they were the season before they showed up on nova's schedule. And besides, it's not even about the patsies - nova probably would've gotten in at 7-5, but for some reason chose not to schedule a full 12 game season. The fact that your AD can't count to 12 isn't the committees fault.

yeah, we should have scheduled 12 games, you're right. Another patsy and maybe we get in. But, from what I can see 7 wins might not have been enough either. SOS doesn't seem to carry any weight. ( I see Saturday's result still stings). Catch ya' later.

CSU at 16 is laughable. They are not even a top 25 team. They are classy, they have great fans and their coach probably deserves COY, but 16?

bluehenbillk wrote:Its funny that I watched the selection show yesterday live on ESPNU including the interview with Jeff Bourne on the decision making process & SRS was never mentioned once.

The NCAA references SRS on it's FCS Playoff FAQ that came out last week. But I also heard that the SRS is in a trial mode right now, and the current poll is not a finished product and thus is not deemed fit for use. I have no idea whether it is actually being used or not, but someone from the Big Sky Conf claimed in a mailer that the NCAA had decided not to use it.

The NCAA references SRS on it's FCS Playoff FAQ that came out last week. But I also heard that the SRS is in a trial mode right now, and the current poll is not a finished product and thus is not deemed fit for use. I have no idea whether it is actually being used or not, but someone from the Big Sky Conf claimed in a mailer that the NCAA had decided not to use it.

If that's true they need to change what their site says about it. What they have up there was written beforehand and is in future tense so it's possible they decided at the last minute not the use it. But as of now the site still says:

Beginning with the 2013 football season, the NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee will use the NCAA Simple Rating System (NCAA SRS) as a tool for evaluating teams for selection into the 24-team championship.

The NCAA Simple Rating System (NCAA SRS) is a ranking system used to gauge team quality. Within the NCAA SRS, the rating of a team will be calculated largely by two components: a strength-of-schedule measure (SOS) and a win-loss differential (WL).

A team’s SOS measure is simply the average NCAA SRS rating of that team’s opponents for the season.

A team’s WL measure factors whether or not a game was won or lost; the location of the game (home/away/neutral site); and the NCAA (sub)division of the opponent.

One team’s rating depends on its opponents’ ratings, which depend on their opponents’ ratings, etc., based on the “network” of college football games played each week during the football season.

The final SRS standings will be posted Nov. 24.

Then, true to the final statement in that discussion, they posted their SRS ratings on November 24.