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

(STATS) - For any team that receives one of the last at-large bids in the FCS at-playoff field, there's usually a couple left on the outside feeling they have better resumes.

In New Hampshire's case Sunday, there were more than a couple, according to the NCAA's adopted Simple Ratings System.
The SRS is similar to the popular RPI rating of teams used in college basketball, a ranking system used to gauge team quality, including strength-of-measure and a win-loss differential.

Despite being designed as a tool to aid in the playoff selection (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/f ... ngs-system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), the Division I committee hasn't quite embraced the SRS since its inception in 2013, and the recurring theme has reflected poorly with New Hampshire.

read more - http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i ... m=&src=FCS


Your thoughts?

Harvard and Dartmouth are in the top 4 in the SRS, which don't pass the eye test. As STATS points out, The SRS was not predictive for UNH in past years (I'd love to see an analysis of past years for all teams). Richmond, #19 in the SRS, received a seed over many other teams. I suspect the committee officially uses it, but in practice puts it below other measurements.

Towson was better than UNH.

bluehenbillk wrote:Towson was better than UNH.

UND was better than both.

kalm wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Towson was better than UNH.

UND was better than both.

JFC...UND barely beat Dreck...uh...Drake. Whatever.

25 yards rushing against Drake.

Yup, the same Drake that got hosed 52-0 the next week against South Dakota.

Team Totals DU UND
FIRST DOWNS 15 12
Rushing 3 3
Passing 9 8
Penalty 3 1
NET YARDS RUSHING 38 25
Rushing Attempts 24 36
Average Per Rush 1.6 0.7
Rushing Touchdowns 1 0
Yards Gained Rushing 83 74
Yards Lost Rushing 45 49
NET YARDS PASSING 235 260
Completions-Attempts-Int 22-41-0 19-30-0
Average Per Attempt 5.7 8.7
Average Per Completion 10.7 13.7
Passing Touchdowns 1 3
TOTAL OFFENSE YARDS 273 285
Total offense plays 65 66
Average Gain Per Play 4.2 4.3
Fumbles: Number-Lost 2-0 4-3
Penalties: Number-Yards 7-60 6-52
PUNTS-YARDS 11-438 6-287
Average Yards Per Punt 39.8 47.8
Net Yards Per Punt 39.2 48.2
Inside 20 4 3
50+ Yards 1 3
Touchbacks 0 0
Fair catch 7 1
KICKOFFS-YARDS 2-122 5-301
Average Yards Per Kickoff 61.0 60.2
Net Yards Per Kickoff 30.0 42.8
Touchbacks 0 0
Punt returns: Number-Yards-TD 3--2-0 1-7-0
Average Per Return -0.7 7.0
Kickoff returns: Number-Yds-TD 5-87-0 2-62-0
Average Per Return 17.4 31.0
Interceptions: Number-Yds-TD 0-0-0 0-0-0
Fumble Returns: Number-Yds-TD 1-0-0 0-0-0
Miscellaneous Yards 0 0
Possession Time 28:08 31:52
1st Quarter 5:40 9:20
2nd Quarter 4:22 10:38
3rd Quarter 9:46 5:14
4th Quarter 8:20 6:40
Third-Down Conversions 3 of 17 4 of 18
Fourth-Down Conversions 0 of 0 2 of 2
Red-Zone Scores-Chances 3-4 1-2
Touchdowns 2-4 1-2
Field goals 1-4 0-2
Sacks By: Number-Yards 4-22 6-34
PAT Kicks 1-1 3-3
Field Goals 1-2 0-1
Points off turnovers 7 0

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
UND was better than both.

JFC...UND barely beat Dreck...uh...Drake. Whatever.

25 yards rushing against Drake.

Yup, the same Drake that got hosed 52-0 the next week against South Dakota.

Team Totals DU UND
FIRST DOWNS 15 12
Rushing 3 3
Passing 9 8
Penalty 3 1
NET YARDS RUSHING 38 25
Rushing Attempts 24 36
Average Per Rush 1.6 0.7
Rushing Touchdowns 1 0
Yards Gained Rushing 83 74
Yards Lost Rushing 45 49
NET YARDS PASSING 235 260
Completions-Attempts-Int 22-41-0 19-30-0
Average Per Attempt 5.7 8.7
Average Per Completion 10.7 13.7
Passing Touchdowns 1 3
TOTAL OFFENSE YARDS 273 285
Total offense plays 65 66
Average Gain Per Play 4.2 4.3
Fumbles: Number-Lost 2-0 4-3
Penalties: Number-Yards 7-60 6-52
PUNTS-YARDS 11-438 6-287
Average Yards Per Punt 39.8 47.8
Net Yards Per Punt 39.2 48.2
Inside 20 4 3
50+ Yards 1 3
Touchbacks 0 0
Fair catch 7 1
KICKOFFS-YARDS 2-122 5-301
Average Yards Per Kickoff 61.0 60.2
Net Yards Per Kickoff 30.0 42.8
Touchbacks 0 0
Punt returns: Number-Yards-TD 3--2-0 1-7-0
Average Per Return -0.7 7.0
Kickoff returns: Number-Yds-TD 5-87-0 2-62-0
Average Per Return 17.4 31.0
Interceptions: Number-Yds-TD 0-0-0 0-0-0
Fumble Returns: Number-Yds-TD 1-0-0 0-0-0
Miscellaneous Yards 0 0
Possession Time 28:08 31:52
1st Quarter 5:40 9:20
2nd Quarter 4:22 10:38
3rd Quarter 9:46 5:14
4th Quarter 8:20 6:40
Third-Down Conversions 3 of 17 4 of 18
Fourth-Down Conversions 0 of 0 2 of 2
Red-Zone Scores-Chances 3-4 1-2
Touchdowns 2-4 1-2
Field goals 1-4 0-2
Sacks By: Number-Yards 4-22 6-34
PAT Kicks 1-1 3-3
Field Goals 1-2 0-1
Points off turnovers 7 0

Yep...had a bad day againt Drake. And Drake is on par with the majority of CAA OOC opponents (see NEC, PL, Ivies).

Glad Towson was able to sneak by HC!

kalm wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Towson was better than UNH.

UND was better than both.

If you're looking for a team that wasn't deserving... Eastern Illinois. 0-3 OOC and best win is UT-Martin?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
UND was better than both.

If you're looking for a team that wasn't deserving... Eastern Illinois. 0-3 OOC and best win is UT-Martin?

Agreed. I would have had UNH as the last team in.

UNH is just about the most successful team (barring NDSU) in the playoffs. As long as that continues and they go 7-4 they are pretty much an easy selection for the committee.

vutomcat wrote:UNH is just about the most successful team (barring NDSU) in the playoffs. As long as that continues and they go 7-4 they are pretty much an easy selection for the committee.

Tough to escape human bias but that should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

kalm wrote:

vutomcat wrote:UNH is just about the most successful team (barring NDSU) in the playoffs. As long as that continues and they go 7-4 they are pretty much an easy selection for the committee.

Tough to escape human bias but that should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

If we know that one team is likely to compete well in the playoffs, why shouldn't that be taken into account? We certainly take into account that a 9-2 Pioneer team probably isn't that good because we know the Pioneer isn't historically good.

2013: UNH goes 7-4 and makes a run to the semis

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
Tough to escape human bias but that should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

If we know that one team is likely to compete well in the playoffs, why shouldn't that be taken into account? We certainly take into account that a 9-2 Pioneer team probably isn't that good because we know the Pioneer isn't historically good.

2013: UNH goes 7-4 and makes a run to the semis

Good points, especially when comparing a CAA to a Pioneer. It also applies if you're comparing UNH to UND. If they're close, the team who has been there before already knows how to manage the time better, deal with increased media exposure, travel, gameplan, etc.

Apply that to EIU and UND and it might be a different story. EIU has been there before but not with the current coaching staff. UND has never been there but Schweigert was while at SIU. The BSC has a much better playoff record than the OVC...etc.

kalm wrote:Good points, especially when comparing a CAA to a Pioneer. It also applies if you're comparing UNH to UND. If they're close, the team who has been there before already knows how to manage the time better, deal with increased media exposure, travel, gameplan, etc.

Of course, now that I've said all that, I think the NCAA also likes to spread it around a little. If ND didn't already have NDSU, they may have given consideration to exposing the state to the playoffs. I'm pretty sure it's happened in the past, but I can't recall which team I am thinking of where it seemed they were getting the nod because of a new audience... might have been a second MEAC team.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:Good points, especially when comparing a CAA to a Pioneer. It also applies if you're comparing UNH to UND. If they're close, the team who has been there before already knows how to manage the time better, deal with increased media exposure, travel, gameplan, etc.

Of course, now that I've said all that, I think the NCAA also likes to spread it around a little. If ND didn't already have NDSU, they may have given consideration to exposing the state to the playoffs. I'm pretty sure it's happened in the past, but I can't recall which team I am thinking of where it seemed they were getting the nod because of a new audience... might have been a second MEAC team.

If the NCAA wanted to "spread it around", then they would have picked Bethune Cookman to add exposure in Florida over yet another team in Illinois, wouldn't they?

kalm wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Towson was better than UNH.

UND was better than both.

And all 3 are better than EIU..Heck, WIU drilled EIU 33-5..

Edit: I see everyone already harped on EIU. If was up to me I would have not had in:
-EIU, for reason people already stated.
-WIU. I think they're probably better than ND & TU. I realize they played all 4 other MVFC playoff teams, going 2-2, and 2 playoff OOC (beat EIU & lost CCU), so played a whopping 6 other playoff teams, going 3-3, plus were drilled by Illinois & lost to non playoff YSU. I just don't like the new precedent of giving an at large to a 6-5, something that has never been done before.

Would have put in ND & TU..

TribeFanInNC wrote:

89Hen wrote: Of course, now that I've said all that, I think the NCAA also likes to spread it around a little. If ND didn't already have NDSU, they may have given consideration to exposing the state to the playoffs. I'm pretty sure it's happened in the past, but I can't recall which team I am thinking of where it seemed they were getting the nod because of a new audience... might have been a second MEAC team.

If the NCAA wanted to "spread it around", then they would have picked Bethune Cookman to add exposure in Florida over yet another team in Illinois, wouldn't they?

Bethune has been in many times recently, so that's really not a new market.

89Hen wrote:

TribeFanInNC wrote: If the NCAA wanted to "spread it around", then they would have picked Bethune Cookman to add exposure in Florida over yet another team in Illinois, wouldn't they?

Bethune has been in many times recently, so that's really not a new market.

Illinois has multiple teams making the playoffs in recent years, so it's really not a new market.

TribeFanInNC wrote:

89Hen wrote: Bethune has been in many times recently, so that's really not a new market.

Illinois has multiple teams making the playoffs in recent years, so it's really not a new market.

I'm not sure why you're harping on this. I never said it's THE way the NCAA picks teams. But I definitely remember in the past that a team or two may have been selected that way. Doesn't happen every year.

89Hen wrote:

TribeFanInNC wrote: Illinois has multiple teams making the playoffs in recent years, so it's really not a new market.

I'm not sure why you're harping on this. I never said it's THE way the NCAA picks teams. But I definitely remember in the past that a team or two may have been selected that way. Doesn't happen every year.

Two related responses in a thread is "harping". I will have to remember that.

In the end we are both grasping at straws trying to figure out how the committee differentiated between the 14th and 15th best at large teams.

Let's get to Saturday so we can talk football.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
UND was better than both.

And all 3 are better than EIU..Heck, WIU drilled EIU 33-5..

Edit: I see everyone already harped on EIU. If was up to me I would have not had in:
-EIU, for reason people already stated.
-WIU. I think they're probably better than ND & TU. I realize they played all 4 other MVFC playoff teams, going 2-2, and 2 playoff OOC (beat EIU & lost CCU), so played a whopping 6 other playoff teams, going 3-3, plus were drilled by Illinois & lost to non playoff YSU. I just don't like the new precedent of giving an at large to a 6-5, something that has never been done before.

Would have put in ND & TU..

Didn't know they were anal raped 59-7 by another I-AA. 5 losses, 4 IAA losses, one by 52 points ought to be an automatic DQ no matter how tough the schedule..

UNH is out and WIU is still in.

UNH blows. I don't think anybody disputed that, did they? I mean, they were smoked by Stony Brook and Delaware.

All this really showed is how watered down FCS is and how the field is way too large.

16 is where it should still be. Arguing over the 22nd, 23rd, 24th teams in FCS is silly. None of those teams belong in a playoff anyway.

UNH fucked UND!

SeattleGriz wrote:UNH fucked UND!

UND? The team that lost to Idaho State?

Again, arguing over teams that weak... who cares really? None will make the quarters.

93henfan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:UNH fucked UND!

UND? The team that lost to Idaho State?

Again, arguing over teams that weak... who cares really? None will make the quarters.

You fucked UND. Someone did! Isn't that our go to phrase this year?