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

Rank School Votes Prev
1 Jacksonville State (7-1) 3953 (139) 1
2 Illinois State (7-1) 3825 (18) 3
3 Chattanooga (7-1) 3540 4
4 Eastern Washington (6-2) 3275 5
5 Richmond (7-1) 3240 6
6 North Dakota State (6-2) 3097 7
7 Sam Houston State (6-2) 2843 8
8 Coastal Carolina (7-1) 2753 2
9 McNeese State (8-0) 2710 (1) 10
10 Portland State (7-1) 2699 (1) 12
11 South Dakota State (6-2) 2280 14
12 William & Mary (6-2) 2268 16
13 Harvard (7-0) 1964 15
14 James Madison (7-2) 1841 9
15 Charleston Southern (7-1) 1738 24
16 Fordham (7-2) 1349 11
17 UNI (4-4) 1282 18
18 Eastern Kentucky (5-3) 1227 13
19 North Carolina A&T (7-1) 1176 20
20 Southern Utah (6-2) 799 NR
21 Youngstown State (4-4) 670 25
22 Montana (4-4) 609 17
23 Indiana State (4-4) 436 21
24 Dartmouth (6-1) 335 22
25 Citadel (6-2)



El Cid making a rare appearance in the Top 25.

Ugh....we aren't used to complaining about rankings here...but was hoping we'd be around 12. Especially with that Citadel win looking better and better. But...if we beat KSU we win the BSC auto bid and it won't matter much. Hope the team is thinking of nothing but KSU. They're a good squad.


Yeah...how about that....3 top 25 teams all on the SC coast.

I'm going to have to agree with Buc90 here-

CSU is way too low.

This year's polls are showing a LOT of historical bias. Case in point is the .500 teams still in the poll this late in the season. Strength of sked doesn't mean jack when you are 4-4.

There are at least 6 teams that should not be ranked.

CID1990 wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Buc90 here-

CSU is way too low.

This year's polls are showing a LOT of historical bias. Case in point is the .500 teams still in the poll this late in the season. Strength of sked doesn't mean jack when you are 4-4.

There are at least 6 teams that should not be ranked.

At what point exactly does SOS stop meaning Jack?

And who are you a fan of again?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Buc90 here-

CSU is way too low.

This year's polls are showing a LOT of historical bias. Case in point is the .500 teams still in the poll this late in the season. Strength of sked doesn't mean jack when you are 4-4.

There are at least 6 teams that should not be ranked.

At what point exactly does SOS stop meaning Jack?

And who are you a fan of again?

Keep reading, klam... "WHEN YOU ARE 4-4". Too many rewards for moral victories in these polls. If CSU loses one of their next two they will probably drop 10 places. Teams in the top 10 lose to a lower ranked team and they drop 5. There's bias there regardless of arguments to the contrary.

Plenty of teams can claim good losses in a bid to say they should be ranked. See PaladinFan on AGS claiming Furman should get a look for the playoffs.

CID1990 wrote:This year's polls are showing a LOT of historical bias.

You call it historical bias, I call it wisdom.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
At what point exactly does SOS stop meaning Jack?

And who are you a fan of again?

Keep reading, klam... "WHEN YOU ARE 4-4". Too many rewards for moral victories in these polls. If CSU loses one of their next two they will probably drop 10 places. Teams in the top 10 lose to a lower ranked team and they drop 5. There's bias there regardless of arguments to the contrary.

Plenty of teams can claim good losses in a bid to say they should be ranked. See PaladinFan on AGS claiming Furman should get a look for the playoffs.

Oh good. So at 3-3 SOS still matters as it does at 5-3.

BTW, if Furman wins out they'd be 7-4 with no bad losses, an FBS win, and a decent win against WCU. They'd be deservedly in the discussion.

Harvard and Dartmouth would finish in bottom 5 of the Big Sky, bottom two of MVFC. Would finish in bottom half of Big South or Southern.

SUU is way too low. If it was Montana or MSU that had exact same record/schedule, they would be top 10.

No love for undefeated Dayton?

dbackjon wrote:Harvard and Dartmouth would finish in bottom 5 of the Big Sky, bottom two of MVFC. Would finish in bottom half of Big South or Southern.

SUU is way too low. If it was Montana or MSU that had exact same record/schedule, they would be top 10.

No no Jon

These polls are as pure as the wind driven snow (especially when it comes to teams that can't finish, but are in the right conferences)

CID1990 wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Buc90 here-

CSU is way too low.

This year's polls are showing a LOT of historical bias. Case in point is the .500 teams still in the poll this late in the season. Strength of sked doesn't mean jack when you are 4-4.

There are at least 6 teams that should not be ranked.

I agree. Citadel and CSU both have an FBS loss and played each other...which now is ending up as a match up of two top 25 teams and was a great game.

The FCS poll seems to have a slight bias towards the schools up North and in the Midwest. Citadel may lose to an SEC school and drop 7 spots....while Northern Midwest Directional State somewhere up there is 5-3 and loses to a conference member and drops 1 spot.


Whatever. Our state has 3 top 25 teams and I hope all 3 end up in the playoffs. Pretty good shot at it too. CSU and Citadel are both 1 win away. And #8 Coastal can win out and get an at large. Plus....especially in CSUs case we don't have any name recognition so we're basically new kid on the block. Coastal at #8 is about right. Citadel is a better team right now than #25.

CID1990 wrote:There are at least 6 teams that should not be ranked.

BTW, let's see your list of 6 replacements.

89Hen wrote:

CID1990 wrote:There are at least 6 teams that should not be ranked.

BTW, let's see your list of 6 replacements.

I wouldn't say replacements. But Citadel at 6-2 has a loss vs FBS Georgia Southern and #15 CSU (great competitive game) and they are behind 4 teams with .500 records. Really??? And they're beating strong programs Iike Furman, Wofford, Samford, etc.

May sound weird...me defending the Citadel....but it's true. They're a top 20 team right now...sitting behind a handful of 4-4 teams. They'll beat VMI to be 7-2...probably lose to South Carolina...and has #3 Chattanooga in between.

Let's say they finish 8-3 SoCon champs....with 2 FBS losses and loss to CSU...who may be top 10 BSC champ by the . I put money on it that Citadel will be ranked below several 7-4 runner ups from conferences up North and Midwest. Just from bias. Just my 2 cents.

bucs90 wrote:

89Hen wrote: BTW, let's see your list of 6 replacements.

I wouldn't say replacements. But Citadel at 7-2 has a loss vs FBS Georgia Southern and #15 CSU (great competitive game) and they are behind 4 teams with .500 records. Really??? And they're beating strong programs Iike Furman, Wofford, Samford, etc.

May sound weird...me defending the Citadel....but it's true. They're a top 20 team right now...sitting behind a handful of 4-4 teams.

CID did say there were six teams that should not be ranked, so we need six others that should.

bucs90 wrote:And they're beating strong programs Iike Furman, Wofford, Samford, etc.

BTW, now you're being historical.

89Hen wrote:

bucs90 wrote:
I wouldn't say replacements. But Citadel at 7-2 has a loss vs FBS Georgia Southern and #15 CSU (great competitive game) and they are behind 4 teams with .500 records. Really??? And they're beating strong programs Iike Furman, Wofford, Samford, etc.

May sound weird...me defending the Citadel....but it's true. They're a top 20 team right now...sitting behind a handful of 4-4 teams.

CID did say there were six teams that should not be ranked, so we need six others that should.

Ok....I will name one from our conference. Liberty. They're 4-4....just like 4 other top 25 teams. They beat 1 FBS team (GA State) and lost to 1 (West Virginia).

Liberty BEAT Montana....who is 4-4 and still ranked...while 4-4 Liberty isnt.

But...Liberty lost 2 games in the Big South. Which gets no respect.

So 4-4 Liberty, 2014 playoff team, is unranked while 4-4 Montana....who they beat....is ranked. Because "Montana" sounds better than Liberty. Even though it's proven on the field this year they arent.

See? One example of the bias.

Citadel has more of a gripe than we do...because we have very little history. Although I thought we'd be around 10...I'm not sweating it.

Citadel has more history and name recognition. They're on a roll....and are stuck behind some 4-4 teams...one which has lost 3 of its last 5...but has a fancy name that everyone knows.

bucs90 wrote:

89Hen wrote: CID did say there were six teams that should not be ranked, so we need six others that should.

Ok....I will name one from our conference. Liberty. They're 4-4....just like 4 other top 25 teams. They beat 1 FBS team (GA State) and lost to 1 (West Virginia).

Liberty BEAT Montana....who is 4-4 and still ranked...while 4-4 Liberty isnt.

But...Liberty lost 2 games in the Big South. Which gets no respect.

So 4-4 Liberty, 2014 playoff team, is unranked while 4-4 Montana....who they beat....is ranked. Because "Montana" sounds better than Liberty. Even though it's proven on the field this year they arent.

See? One example of the bias.

Montana also has wins over NDSU, UND and NAU.

Liberty's signature wins are Montana and...Georgia State? Along with bad losses to SIU, Gardner-Webb and Monmouth.

Try again.

Grizalltheway wrote:

bucs90 wrote:
Ok....I will name one from our conference. Liberty. They're 4-4....just like 4 other top 25 teams. They beat 1 FBS team (GA State) and lost to 1 (West Virginia).

Liberty BEAT Montana....who is 4-4 and still ranked...while 4-4 Liberty isnt.

But...Liberty lost 2 games in the Big South. Which gets no respect.

So 4-4 Liberty, 2014 playoff team, is unranked while 4-4 Montana....who they beat....is ranked. Because "Montana" sounds better than Liberty. Even though it's proven on the field this year they arent.

See? One example of the bias.

Montana also has wins over NDSU, UND and NAU.

Liberty's signature wins are Montana and...Georgia State? Along with bad losses to SIU, Gardner-Webb and Monmouth.

Try again.

This year...Liberty is better than Montana. Beat em head to head on the field and both are 4-4. How LU is ranked (well...unranked) below them doesn't make sense. Wouldn't a 10 point loss to Liberty be a "bad loss" for Montana?? It really is just name brand recognition. But I get it....same thing happens in FBS and D2 so I'm not that surprised or upset about it.

Dayton is 8-0 and unranked. Just my opinion...but winning matters and head to head matters.

Grizalltheway wrote:

bucs90 wrote:
Ok....I will name one from our conference. Liberty. They're 4-4....just like 4 other top 25 teams. They beat 1 FBS team (GA State) and lost to 1 (West Virginia).

Liberty BEAT Montana....who is 4-4 and still ranked...while 4-4 Liberty isnt.

But...Liberty lost 2 games in the Big South. Which gets no respect.

So 4-4 Liberty, 2014 playoff team, is unranked while 4-4 Montana....who they beat....is ranked. Because "Montana" sounds better than Liberty. Even though it's proven on the field this year they arent.

See? One example of the bias.

Montana also has wins over NDSU, UND and NAU.

Liberty's signature wins are Montana and...Georgia State? Along with bad losses to SIU, Gardner-Webb and Monmouth.

Try again.

Agreed.

But, then, I just don't like Liberty because of the Jesus bullshit.

I'd say put money on this if it happens.

IF...big IF...Charleston Southern and The Citadel win the Big South and SoCon...it'll be settled November 14th. November 21st...they play 2 SEC schools (CSU vs Bama, Citadel vs S Carolina), and both likely lose.

Guarantee both with suffer significant drops in the polls and be screwed out of seeding or home games in the playoffs....whereas if some more recognizable FCS teams up there played Iowa or Utah or someone and lost...they wouldn't drop as far if any and get the same playoff situation they would have before.

bucs90 wrote:Guarantee both with suffer significant drops in the polls and be screwed out of seeding or home games in the playoffs....whereas if some more recognizable FCS teams up there played Iowa or Utah or someone and lost...they wouldn't drop as far if any and get the same playoff situation they would have before.

They won't drop with I-A losses.

89Hen wrote:

bucs90 wrote:Guarantee both with suffer significant drops in the polls and be screwed out of seeding or home games in the playoffs....whereas if some more recognizable FCS teams up there played Iowa or Utah or someone and lost...they wouldn't drop as far if any and get the same playoff situation they would have before.

They won't drop with I-A losses.

You don't think so? I do. But as I said...just my 2 cents. I don't have a huge gripe with my teams rank at 15. But I do think Citadel belongs at 16-20 and Liberty at 4-4 with a win over Montana should be ranked ahead of 4-4 Montana. Same record. Head to head happened.

bucs90 wrote:

89Hen wrote: They won't drop with I-A losses.

You don't think so? I do.

We will most likely get a chance to find out.

89Hen wrote:

CID1990 wrote:There are at least 6 teams that should not be ranked.

BTW, let's see your list of 6 replacements.

Its like I said on the other forum, hen - its real easy

you drop down the teams that cant finish and are therefore .500 in November and you move up the ones under them

adjusting slightly for SOS (yes that should count for something) but not going entirely on it - which is the only reason ISU, UNI, and YSU are ranked, and holy cow Montana