My Poll - 10/11/09

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Not to mention when a cock is in Ursus.



I know, pure hackery but I did it anyway.

YOU DIRTY FOTHER MUCKER!!

Man, didn't even see that one coming.

[wkuhillhound]

1) Richmond (1)
2) Northern Iowa (2)
3) New Hampshire (5)
4) Montana (4)
5) Southern Illinois (6)
6) Elon (9)
7) William & Mary (7)
8) Central Arkansas (10)
9) Villanova (3)
10) Appalachian State (11)
11) Jacksonville State (18)
12) South Dakota State (16)
13) Weber State (19)
14) South Carolina State (20)
15) McNeese State (8)
16) Colgate (22)
17) Cal Poly (14)
18) Northern Arizona (-)
19) Massachusetts (13)
20) James Madison (12)
21) Stephen F. Austin (-)
22) Eastern Washington (15)
23) Furman (-)
24) Delaware (-)
25) Eastern Kentucky (17)

There were so many teams in the middle of my last week's poll that lost it was extremely difficult to even put it together Monday night. Colgate, South Carolina State, Weber State, and Jacksonville State made huge leaps up as a result. This one was a headscratcher this week.

[SeattleGriz]

Myth? Who besides Montana has made even the semifinals in the last 10 years?

Honestly, if you went back to the old AOL I-AA boards you would find us CAA (Yankee/A10 at the time) posters making this same arguement with SoCon and Gateway folks, so I know where you are coming from. It wasn't until 1998 > that the CAA really made a push in the playoffs. The Big Sky has certainly done better recently, but until it gets somebody besides Montana deep into the playoffs, the "myth" is still truth.

I think it is more of a consistency thing. Montana, NAU, and EWU have all beaten the #1 playoff seed on the road in the playoffs, yet everyone keeps hanging thier hat on "deep into the playoffs". You do realize that there is only one more win to qualify for that distinction IYO. EWU lost to App in a tough game by 3 (yes, I have heard all the arguments about the game never being in doubt but it was with your special team struggles) and they beat SIU when everyone thought they would run the table and were nipped by SHSU at the buzzer in the next game. You are molding the argument to fit you point. Fact is the Big Sky reps, other than Montana, have played pretty well in the playoffs the past few yeas but people's perception keeps them from voting for other teams when comparing their resume' against eastern teams.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Since most teams out in the West need to schedule a money game, they start off with a loss. Teams on the East, have many more FCS teams to choose from, so they can get a win to start off the season. So, when you start ranking teams what do you have? A ton of teams out in the West that start off 0-1 and teams in the East that start off 1-0 with an FCS win.

It's easy to see how the East teams always start out higher in the rankings and the West plays catch up all season.

[Cap'n Cat]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Since most teams out in the West need to schedule a money game, they start off with a loss. Teams on the East, have many more FCS teams to choose from, so they can get a win to start off the season. So, when you start ranking teams what do you have? A ton of teams out in the West that start off 0-1 and teams in the East that start off 1-0 with an FCS win.

It's easy to see how the East teams always start out higher in the rankings and the West plays catch up all season.

If you could back that up with stats, SeaTac, I might be sympathetic.

[AZGrizFan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Since most teams out in the West need to schedule a money game, they start off with a loss. Teams on the East, have many more FCS teams to choose from, so they can get a win to start off the season. So, when you start ranking teams what do you have? A ton of teams out in the West that start off 0-1 and teams in the East that start off 1-0 with an FCS win.

It's easy to see how the East teams always start out higher in the rankings and the West plays catch up all season.

Uh....nope. EVERY CAA team played a "money" game this year, SG (in fact UD will play two with the Navy game). Right now they're 4-7, so the 4 good teams all started with a WIN...an FBS win, in fact. Now, 3/9 BSC teams did play TWO FBS games, but the BSC is 0-10 with one more game (NAU vs Mississippi). Granted, the BSC FBS games are against much stiffer competition (outside of Wyoming & Colorado State), but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is fundamentally wrong.

[SeattleGriz]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Since most teams out in the West need to schedule a money game, they start off with a loss. Teams on the East, have many more FCS teams to choose from, so they can get a win to start off the season. So, when you start ranking teams what do you have? A ton of teams out in the West that start off 0-1 and teams in the East that start off 1-0 with an FCS win.

It's easy to see how the East teams always start out higher in the rankings and the West plays catch up all season.

Uh....nope. EVERY CAA team played a "money" game this year, SG (in fact UD will play two with the Navy game). Right now they're 4-7, so the 4 good teams all started with a WIN...an FBS win, in fact. Now, 3/9 BSC teams did play TWO FBS games, but the BSC is 0-10 with one more game (NAU vs Mississippi). Granted, the BSC FBS games are against much stiffer competition (outside of Wyoming & Colorado State), but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is fundamentally wrong.

Temple, Ball State, Virginia, and Duke are money games? U of Cal, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Arizona State, Oregon State and U of Arizona paid the same?

[D1B]

None of you girls played the game, so you don't what your talkin bout. Trust me.

[SeattleGriz]

Uh....nope. EVERY CAA team played a "money" game this year, SG (in fact UD will play two with the Navy game). Right now they're 4-7, so the 4 good teams all started with a WIN...an FBS win, in fact. Now, 3/9 BSC teams did play TWO FBS games, but the BSC is 0-10 with one more game (NAU vs Mississippi). Granted, the BSC FBS games are against much stiffer competition (outside of Wyoming & Colorado State), but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is fundamentally wrong.

Temple, Ball State, Virginia, and Duke are money games? U of Cal, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Arizona State, Oregon State and U of Arizona paid the same?

That is correct Seattle. Temple, Ball State, UVa and Duke did pony up the same amount of monies that were offered by the Pac 10, Big 12 and Big 10.