skinny_uncle wrote:Someone else predicting SDSU over SIU? Sorry, but I think our second string QB may be stronger than theirs. That is what the Valley race has come down to. Homefield advantage is being overrated by a lot of people (mostly the same people who picked UNI over SIU a couple of Saturdays ago).
Im mildly curious as to why SDSU should be the predicted losers in every game with a good to decent team in every prognostication? Do you really think that they aren't that good because of what everyone who played us has said?
Huh? I'm not hearing anyone but SIU fans predicting an SIU victory against SDSU. Most people here are saying SDSU will be the MVC AQ. The only folks I've heard saying SDSU isn't that good are UNI fans; they said the same about us a few weeks ago.
Have you started soaking the field yet?
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
mcveyrl wrote:Using my (probably flawed) reasoning above, wouldn't ASU be closest to UR? Are we not sending them there because we know about the NCAA's hard-on for money?
ASU to UR - about 315 miles
Elon to UR - about 190 miles
Thumper 76 wrote:
Im mildly curious as to why SDSU should be the predicted losers in every game with a good to decent team in every prognostication? Do you really think that they aren't that good because of what everyone who played us has said?
Huh? I'm not hearing anyone but SIU fans predicting an SIU victory against SDSU. Most people here are saying SDSU will be the MVC AQ. The only folks I've heard saying SDSU isn't that good are UNI fans; they said the same about us a few weeks ago.
Have you started soaking the field yet?
Well thats not really up to anyone around here about the field getting wet, but for the most part I hear people giving you guys the edge even with it being at CAS.
Please don't tell Obama what comes after a Trillion.
houndawg wrote:
Huh? I'm not hearing anyone but SIU fans predicting an SIU victory against SDSU. Most people here are saying SDSU will be the MVC AQ. The only folks I've heard saying SDSU isn't that good are UNI fans; they said the same about us a few weeks ago.
Have you started soaking the field yet?
Well thats not really up to anyone around here about the field getting wet, but for the most part I hear people giving you guys the edge even with it being at CAS.
You beat UNI by more than we did. And you get Crawford back.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
UNHWildCats wrote:bidding has nothing to do with pairings.
Not "officially", at least.
And I think I might have heard somewhere along the lines that the actual bidding info isn't even made known to the committee until after the pairings are arranged.
However, certain teams have a history of high bids (and it can be somewhat judged by attendance records and whatnot), so I wouldn't be at all surprised if likely high bids aren't factored in "unofficially" by the committee, in an effort to minimize the amount of money that is lost by the NCAA.
Thumper 76 wrote:
Im mildly curious as to why SDSU should be the predicted losers in every game with a good to decent team in every prognostication? Do you really think that they aren't that good because of what everyone who played us has said?
Huh? I'm not hearing anyone but SIU fans predicting an SIU victory against SDSU. Most people here are saying SDSU will be the MVC AQ. The only folks I've heard saying SDSU isn't that good are UNI fans; they said the same about us a few weeks ago.
Have you started soaking the field yet?
The SIU-SDSU game is a coin flip, winner based on homefield at the moment. That could change with other developments. Good thing the game is on the field and not in prognostications. Don't get too worked up.
UNHWildCats wrote:bidding has nothing to do with pairings.
Not "officially", at least.
And I think I might have heard somewhere along the lines that the actual bidding info isn't even made known to the committee until after the pairings are arranged.
However, certain teams have a history of high bids (and it can be somewhat judged by attendance records and whatnot), so I wouldn't be at all surprised if likely high bids aren't factored in "unofficially" by the committee, in an effort to minimize the amount of money that is lost by the NCAA.
Can anyone name a first round host who was not a big draw OR seed? If that is official, it's BS.
Thumper 76 wrote:
Well thats not really up to anyone around here about the field getting wet, but for the most part I hear people giving you guys the edge even with it being at CAS.
You beat UNI by more than we did. And you get Crawford back.
True, we did beat them by more, but do you realize how long i was at that field with my garden hose? good lord it was cold too. Besides, we're just big and slow, you shouldn't have a problem with us
Please don't tell Obama what comes after a Trillion.
2. The remaining teams will be paired according to geographic proximity and placed in
the bracket according to geographic proximity of the four pairings previously placed
in the bracket.
They need to get rid of this rule. A western team flying 1200 miles vs 1000 miles is an irrelevent difference.
JayJ79 wrote:Not "officially", at least.
And I think I might have heard somewhere along the lines that the actual bidding info isn't even made known to the committee until after the pairings are arranged.
However, certain teams have a history of high bids (and it can be somewhat judged by attendance records and whatnot), so I wouldn't be at all surprised if likely high bids aren't factored in "unofficially" by the committee, in an effort to minimize the amount of money that is lost by the NCAA.
Can anyone name a first round host who was not a big draw OR seed? If that is official, it's BS.
I can't think of one, and a quick look at the playoff history backs that up. When logic is applied that makes sense. Who would bid high enough to get home field advantage, if ticket and concessions wouldn't even break even?
dbackjon wrote:2. The remaining teams will be paired according to geographic proximity and placed in
the bracket according to geographic proximity of the four pairings previously placed
in the bracket.
They need to get rid of this rule. A western team flying 1200 miles vs 1000 miles is an irrelevent difference.
"according to geographic proximity" doesn't automatically mean teams will get sent to the closest opponent. The main rule for determine whether or not two teams are "within proximity" is whether or not they're within the bussing threshhold (distances under a certain amount, the NCAA only pays for bus travel, where as distances over that amount, they pay air travel).
If there aren't any teams within that range, I don't think geography plays as much of a role.
FCS Update wrote:
I can't think of one, and a quick look at the playoff history backs that up. When logic is applied that makes sense. Who would bid high enough to get home field advantage, if ticket and concessions wouldn't even break even?
Well UR bids high everytime, and I am pretty sure that they do not always break even. The joys of being a wealthy school. But Richmond has definitely outbid schools that in general draw more fans to their home games than the Spiders do.
dbackjon wrote:2. The remaining teams will be paired according to geographic proximity and placed in
the bracket according to geographic proximity of the four pairings previously placed
in the bracket.
They need to get rid of this rule. A western team flying 1200 miles vs 1000 miles is an irrelevent difference.
"according to geographic proximity" doesn't automatically mean teams will get sent to the closest opponent. The main rule for determine whether or not two teams are "within proximity" is whether or not they're within the bussing threshhold (distances under a certain amount, the NCAA only pays for bus travel, where as distances over that amount, they pay air travel).
If there aren't any teams within that range, I don't think geography plays as much of a role.
That's correct. Ok this is making more sense to me now.
Seed the top 4. Go from 1 down to 4 with the closest team to each (within 300 miles).
Pair the rest to getting bussing games first. Then put everyone else on a plane, trying to get bussing games in the 2nd round.
The 5 CAA teams screws it up and provides for a lot of potential variation, but here is what I can get following that logic:
Not being an uberfan here, but, regardless of whether UNI finishes third, I can't see them being excluded being ranked in, potentially, the top ten (with a little help from key losses).
Cap'n Cat wrote:Not being an uberfan here, but, regardless of whether UNI finishes third, I can't see them being excluded being ranked in, potentially, the top ten (with a little help from key losses).
dbackjon wrote:2. The remaining teams will be paired according to geographic proximity and placed in
the bracket according to geographic proximity of the four pairings previously placed
in the bracket.
They need to get rid of this rule. A western team flying 1200 miles vs 1000 miles is an irrelevent difference.
"according to geographic proximity" doesn't automatically mean teams will get sent to the closest opponent. The main rule for determine whether or not two teams are "within proximity" is whether or not they're within the bussing threshhold (distances under a certain amount, the NCAA only pays for bus travel, where as distances over that amount, they pay air travel).
If there aren't any teams within that range, I don't think geography plays as much of a role.
Could of fooled me last year, when all three Western teams were in the same bracket of 4
Cap'n Cat wrote:Not being an uberfan here, but, regardless of whether UNI finishes third, I can't see them being excluded being ranked in, potentially, the top ten (with a little help from key losses).
Would they get in over a 7-3 Delaware?
Maybe over an 8-3 Umass.
Maybe even over 8-2 McNeese?
Don't know, just sayin'. Know what I'm sayin'? I would feel the same way about them if they were in the situation UNI may likely be in.
JayJ79 wrote:"according to geographic proximity" doesn't automatically mean teams will get sent to the closest opponent. The main rule for determine whether or not two teams are "within proximity" is whether or not they're within the bussing threshhold (distances under a certain amount, the NCAA only pays for bus travel, where as distances over that amount, they pay air travel).
If there aren't any teams within that range, I don't think geography plays as much of a role.
Could of fooled me last year, when all three Western teams were in the same bracket of 4
That wasn't "by rule". That was the choice of the committee.
Probably so that the Western teams would knock each other out and minimize the cross-country flights that needed to be made.
JayJ79 wrote:
"according to geographic proximity" doesn't automatically mean teams will get sent to the closest opponent. The main rule for determine whether or not two teams are "within proximity" is whether or not they're within the bussing threshhold (distances under a certain amount, the NCAA only pays for bus travel, where as distances over that amount, they pay air travel).
If there aren't any teams within that range, I don't think geography plays as much of a role.
That's correct. Ok this is making more sense to me now.
Seed the top 4. Go from 1 down to 4 with the closest team to each (within 300 miles).
Pair the rest to getting bussing games first. Then put everyone else on a plane, trying to get bussing games in the 2nd round.
The 5 CAA teams screws it up and provides for a lot of potential variation, but here is what I can get following that logic:
Well UR bids high everytime, and I am pretty sure that they do not always break even. The joys of being a wealthy school. But Richmond has definitely outbid schools that in general draw more fans to their home games than the Spiders do.
Last year Richmond hosted one round. I can't think of any team that went on the road that is a big draw at home.
Let's start by suggesting that the Patriot, MEAC and OVC are 1-bid leagues (no good teams in the OVC, DSU knocked Morgan State off last week and FAMU doesn't have a good win, Colgate and Lafayette have no signature wins). That means that between the AQ for the BSC, MVC, CAA, SLC and SoCon and the 8 at-large bids, 13 teams will make it from those 5 conferences, and potentially the Great West.
These teams look like real sure bets to be in the field of 16:
Montana (wins over UCD, NAU, EWU and CP, need to go 2-2 down the stretch with ISU/NoCO on the plate)
Richmond (wins over Duke, UMass and UD, 7 DI wins)
Villanova (wins over Temple and W&M, 7 DI wins)
New Hampshire (wins over Ball State and Villanova, 6 DI wins, URI, NU remain on schedule)
William and Mary (wins over UD and Virginia, 6 DI wins, Towson and URI remain on schedule)
Southern Illinois (win over UNI, 5 DI wins, Indiana State and SeMO on schedule)
Stephen F Austin (wins over McNeese State, UCA, 5 DI wins but games left v 0-7 NWst and 1-6 Nicholls)
It's hard to foresee a situation that these teams would not make it, given their remaining schedules.
Now, for the last 6 spots, these are the six teams I'd favor to get them:
Elon (6 DI wins, wins over Furman and GSU, remaining games at Wofford, at Samford and App at home. With no quality wins, I'd be a little leery of this team at 8-3 with a loss to App and a loss to either Samford or Wofford).
App State (Win over Georgia Southern, lost to McNeese, and if they lose to Furman this weekend, Elon is an elimination game for them. Need 3 of the final 4, but would be uncomfortable with a loss to Elon and winning out because of the lack of quality wins)
South Dakota State (win over UNI, tough remaining schedule (FBS Minnesota, SIU, at WIU, at YSU, need to split to feel comfortable about the playoffs)
UMass (good losses, quality win over UNH, favorite in final 4 games, need to win them all).
UNI (pains me to say this, but I don't like any of the remaining schedules for other teams, and I think UNI is a good bet to win the rest of their games and get to 8-3, which may be good enough)
Eastern Washington (have the easiest remaining tough schedule, where they should be favored against PSU, SUU, and a split against NAU, but at NAU)
I think these teams have an uphill climb, but could force their way in:
Weber (need to beat Montana this week, and have a tough schedule after that)
NAU (Need to beat both Weber and EWU assuming a loss to Minn)
Montana State (need to beat Montana)
UD (need to beat 'Nova and Navy)
Cal Poly (need to win at Weber and at UCD)
Missouri State (need to win at SIU)
Everyone else should or will have 4 losses. I actually think Missouri State may be the best bet to sub in for EWU, though there's no way that conference gets 4 teams, since UNI is unlikely. UNI and EWU are in the tenuous positions in this area, and will be bumped if the teams below them perform. I just don't think it's wise to pick teams that won't be favored to do it.
..forgot McNeese, but with UCA and @ TXST, I like their chances slightly less than EWU. If they can win one of those two, and win the rest, they'll be in the playoffs.
