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

...in terms of inclusion/dismissal.

What's the diff?

Eastern played Washington and beat the Sioux head-to-head. The Sioux didn't have an FBS game. The Sioux also lost to the Bungles, who the Eagles beat.

I don't see how the Sioux got in and Eastern didn't. Makes no sense....

UND’s win over a seeded MSU was greater in the eyes of the committee than EWU’s over UND. The Davis and SHSU wins we’re also better than EWU’s next two best wins which were PSU and NAU.

EWU wasn’t even one of the first 4 out.

EWU only had 6 D-1 wins.

AZGrizFan wrote:EWU only had 6 D-1 wins.

Invalid given that we've already established that the Committee was supposed to accept D-II wins.

kalm wrote:UND’s win over a seeded MSU was greater in the eyes of the committee than EWU’s over UND. The Davis and SHSU wins we’re also better than EWU’s next two best wins which were PSU and NAU.

EWU wasn’t even one of the first 4 out.

OK. THIS I'll grant. Thank you, kalm.

SuperHornet wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:EWU only had 6 D-1 wins.

Invalid given that we've already established that the Committee was supposed to accept D-II wins.

Huh? Technically, not completely inaccurate because the committee does consider the overall record but then also scrutinizes the record versus DI opponents. So, 7-4 > 7-5 overall favoring UND and 7-4 > 6-5 versus DI competition, also favoring UND.

This info (directly from the committee) might be helpful in the future (it also mentions H2H but it's farther down the list, suggesting less importance or in case of a tiebreaker for similar arguments up until that point):

Interestingly, at :20 of this vid, they show a white board listing priorities in selections.

Comparative Data:
-Overall Record
-Record vs. DI Opponents
-Record vs. Opponents from AQ Conferences
-Record vs. FBS Opponents
-Head-to-head Record
-Common Opponents Record
-FCS Coaches' Poll
-NCAA SRS
-Input from R.A.C.'s (Regional Advisory Committee, I assume?)

Bylaw 31:
1. (illegible...maybe "Won-Loss Record")
2. Strength of Schedule
3. Eligibility/Availability of Student Athletes

DoubleNicks wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Invalid given that we've already established that the Committee was supposed to accept D-II wins.

Huh? Technically, not completely inaccurate because the committee does consider the overall record but then also scrutinizes the record versus DI opponents. So, 7-4 > 7-5 overall favoring UND and 7-4 > 6-5 versus DI competition, also favoring UND.

This info (directly from the committee) might be helpful in the future (it also mentions H2H but it's farther down the list, suggesting less importance or in case of a tiebreaker for similar arguments up until that point):

Interestingly, at :20 of this vid, they show a white board listing priorities in selections.

We interviewed Montana AD Kent Haslam for the FCS Wedge Podcast a couple of weeks ago and asked him if the quality of DII opponents was considered. They are. EG: SHSU a few years back lost to a DII but it was the eventual DII champ so that loss didn’t hurt the Bearkats as much.

The priority or whether and how they apply the guidelines is debatable. You see instances where H2H appears to be more heavily considered like with SDSU vs UNI seeded this year or UNH getting in ahead of an Albany team 3 years ago that beat them in Durham the 2nd to last game of the season and had an equal record and better SoS. But there are also instances like the one being discussed here.

Number of DI wins has been diminished as a metric from 7 to 6 in the wording of the guidelines as it should for obvious reasons (but perhaps not enough yet) So should prioritizing all DI schedules. You can play an all DI schedule that still ranks above 100 in strength like CCSU did this year. But KSU’s schedule included two NAIA’s. EWU’s DII opponent is in the quarterfinals and rated 100 spots in the Massey Composite ahead of the Drake team who UND beat. They’d probably be the 3rd best team KSU faced this year.