WSU Scoring Average

[weberwildcat]

Last season over the 11 games: 27 ppg

This season over 6 games: 37 ppg

From game 8 of last season to current (last 10 games): 44 ppg

 

[native]

Last season over the 11 games: 27 ppg

This season over 6 games: 37 ppg

From game 8 of last season to current (last 10 games): 44 ppg

Even more impressive to me:

This season against D1 opponents incl #14 Utah: 29 ppg
This season against FCS opponents incl #2 Montana: 39 ppg

 

[native]

:idea: Here are some more numbers to put our scoring average into context:

The computer ranks our strength of schedule against other D1 teams through 04 October at 67th among all 245 D1 teams (FBS and FCS), TOPS in the Big Sky Conference by a large margin.

Eastern Washington's schedule is ranked 105th (includes FBS #10 Texas Tech, FBS Colorado), Montana State's 131st (includes FBS Kansas State, FBS Minnesota and FCS South Dakota), Sacramento State's 135th (includes FBS Colorado State and Weber), Idaho State's 138th, Montana's 149th (includes FCS Cal Poly and FCS UC Davis but NO FBS opponents), Northern Colorado's 153rd, Northern Arizona's 156th (includes FBS Arizona State and FCS Southern Utah) and Portland's 160th.

The strength of schedule ranking considers all cumulative D1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponents played. Non-D1 opponents such as Western Montana are dropped from consideration. Over the course of the season the differences between the strength of schedule rankings of Big Sky teams should diminish as we all play each other, and the rankings should become lower as more games against lower-ranked FBS opponents are played and and the early season FBS matches do not contribute such a large portion of the ranking results.

It obviously made a difference to our WSU ranking that we played FBS Hawaii and FBS #14 Utah. Hopefully they also helped prepare us to win the Big Sky and earn a higher seed in the playoffs and thus home field advantage. :!: THANKS Mac! :!:

 

[cats25061]

:idea: Here are some more numbers to put our scoring average into context:

The computer ranks our strength of schedule against other D1 teams through 04 October at 67th among all 245 D1 teams (FBS and FCS), TOPS in the Big Sky Conference by a large margin.

Eastern Washington's schedule is ranked 105th (includes FBS #10 Texas Tech, FBS Colorado), Montana State's 131st (includes FBS Kansas State, FBS Minnesota and FCS South Dakota), Sacramento State's 135th (includes FBS Colorado State and Weber), Idaho State's 138th, Montana's 149th (includes FCS Cal Poly and FCS UC Davis but NO FBS opponents), Northern Colorado's 153rd, Northern Arizona's 156th (includes FBS Arizona State and FCS Southern Utah) and Portland's 160th.

The strength of schedule ranking considers all cumulative D1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponents played. Non-D1 opponents such as Western Montana are dropped from consideration. Over the course of the season the differences between the strength of schedule rankings of Big Sky teams should diminish as we all play each other, and the rankings should become lower as more games against lower-ranked FBS opponents are played and and the early season FBS matches do not contribute such a large portion of the ranking results.

It obviously made a difference to our WSU ranking that we played FBS Hawaii and FBS #14 Utah. Hopefully they also helped prepare us to win the Big Sky and earn a higher seed in the playoffs and thus home field advantage. :!: THANKS Mac! :!:

All good points except homefield playoffs are awarded based on the bid ($$$ and attendence) unless you make it as one of the top 4 seeds.

 

[weberwildcat]

:idea: Here are some more numbers to put our scoring average into context:

The computer ranks our strength of schedule against other D1 teams through 04 October at 67th among all 245 D1 teams (FBS and FCS), TOPS in the Big Sky Conference by a large margin.

Eastern Washington's schedule is ranked 105th (includes FBS #10 Texas Tech, FBS Colorado), Montana State's 131st (includes FBS Kansas State, FBS Minnesota and FCS South Dakota), Sacramento State's 135th (includes FBS Colorado State and Weber), Idaho State's 138th, Montana's 149th (includes FCS Cal Poly and FCS UC Davis but NO FBS opponents), Northern Colorado's 153rd, Northern Arizona's 156th (includes FBS Arizona State and FCS Southern Utah) and Portland's 160th.

The strength of schedule ranking considers all cumulative D1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponents played. Non-D1 opponents such as Western Montana are dropped from consideration. Over the course of the season the differences between the strength of schedule rankings of Big Sky teams should diminish as we all play each other, and the rankings should become lower as more games against lower-ranked FBS opponents are played and and the early season FBS matches do not contribute such a large portion of the ranking results.

It obviously made a difference to our WSU ranking that we played FBS Hawaii and FBS #14 Utah. Hopefully they also helped prepare us to win the Big Sky and earn a higher seed in the playoffs and thus home field advantage. :!: THANKS Mac! :!:

All good points except homefield playoffs are awarded based on the bid ($$$ and attendence) unless you make it as one of the top 4 seeds.

So basically ur saying WSU needs to be a top 4 seed!!

 

[cats25061]

:idea: Here are some more numbers to put our scoring average into context:

The computer ranks our strength of schedule against other D1 teams through 04 October at 67th among all 245 D1 teams (FBS and FCS), TOPS in the Big Sky Conference by a large margin.

Eastern Washington's schedule is ranked 105th (includes FBS #10 Texas Tech, FBS Colorado), Montana State's 131st (includes FBS Kansas State, FBS Minnesota and FCS South Dakota), Sacramento State's 135th (includes FBS Colorado State and Weber), Idaho State's 138th, Montana's 149th (includes FCS Cal Poly and FCS UC Davis but NO FBS opponents), Northern Colorado's 153rd, Northern Arizona's 156th (includes FBS Arizona State and FCS Southern Utah) and Portland's 160th.

The strength of schedule ranking considers all cumulative D1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponents played. Non-D1 opponents such as Western Montana are dropped from consideration. Over the course of the season the differences between the strength of schedule rankings of Big Sky teams should diminish as we all play each other, and the rankings should become lower as more games against lower-ranked FBS opponents are played and and the early season FBS matches do not contribute such a large portion of the ranking results.

It obviously made a difference to our WSU ranking that we played FBS Hawaii and FBS #14 Utah. Hopefully they also helped prepare us to win the Big Sky and earn a higher seed in the playoffs and thus home field advantage. :!: THANKS Mac! :!:

All good points except homefield playoffs are awarded based on the bid ($$$ and attendence) unless you make it as one of the top 4 seeds.

So basically ur saying WSU needs to be a top 4 seed!!

Unfourtunatly, with your attendence history I doubt that your AD could place a bid high enough to get a home game, of course you could get matched with a team that has a simular attendence but it isnt likly since the NCAA wants $$$.

I agree that the system sucks, but it is what it is.

 

[weberwildcat]

:idea: Here are some more numbers to put our scoring average into context:

The computer ranks our strength of schedule against other D1 teams through 04 October at 67th among all 245 D1 teams (FBS and FCS), TOPS in the Big Sky Conference by a large margin.

Eastern Washington's schedule is ranked 105th (includes FBS #10 Texas Tech, FBS Colorado), Montana State's 131st (includes FBS Kansas State, FBS Minnesota and FCS South Dakota), Sacramento State's 135th (includes FBS Colorado State and Weber), Idaho State's 138th, Montana's 149th (includes FCS Cal Poly and FCS UC Davis but NO FBS opponents), Northern Colorado's 153rd, Northern Arizona's 156th (includes FBS Arizona State and FCS Southern Utah) and Portland's 160th.

The strength of schedule ranking considers all cumulative D1 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponents played. Non-D1 opponents such as Western Montana are dropped from consideration. Over the course of the season the differences between the strength of schedule rankings of Big Sky teams should diminish as we all play each other, and the rankings should become lower as more games against lower-ranked FBS opponents are played and and the early season FBS matches do not contribute such a large portion of the ranking results.

It obviously made a difference to our WSU ranking that we played FBS Hawaii and FBS #14 Utah. Hopefully they also helped prepare us to win the Big Sky and earn a higher seed in the playoffs and thus home field advantage. :!: THANKS Mac! :!:

All good points except homefield playoffs are awarded based on the bid ($$$ and attendence) unless you make it as one of the top 4 seeds.

So basically ur saying WSU needs to be a top 4 seed!!

Unfourtunatly, with your attendence history I doubt that your AD could place a bid high enough to get a home game, of course you could get matched with a team that has a simular attendence but it isnt likly since the NCAA wants $$$.

I agree that the system sucks, but it is what it is.

Where the game is located with be the least of our worries...since our last appearnce was '91.

 

[native]

...The computer ranks our strength of schedule against other D1 teams through 04 October at 67th among all 245 D1 teams (FBS and FCS), TOPS in the Big Sky Conference by a large margin...

All good points except homefield playoffs are awarded based on the bid ($$$ and attendence) unless you make it as one of the top 4 seeds.

Well, we SHOULD be a top four seed!

After whupping Montana State 35-12, as of 11 October the computer now ranks Weber State 79th among all 245 Division 1 FBS and FCS teams, ahead of 43 FBS ("I-A") teams and behind only one other FBS ("I-AA") team. Thus, WSU is the #2 computer-ranked Football Championship Subdivision team, behind ONLY James Madison among FCS ratees.

The WSU strength of schedule rating is also second among FCS ratees, at 82nd. Only Chattanooga, which played an early season money game against Oklahoma, has a higher strength of schedule rating, at 70.

63rd ranked James Madison (#1 among FCS ranked teams) has a strength of schedule rating of 143, 84th ranked Montana (#4 among FCS ranked teams) has a strength of schedule of 139...

If the top 16 FCS playoff seeds were made by the computer as of this weekend, this is what they would look like:
(1) 63 James Madison
(2) 79 Weber State
(3) 81 Villanova
(4) 84 Montana
(5) 88 Richmond
(6) 99 Massachusetts
(7) 100 Appalachian State
(8) 103 Wofford
(9) 105 Cal Poly-SLO
(10) 112 Western Illinois
(11) 113 Northern Arizona
(12) 114 Northern Iowa
(13) 115 Elon
(14) 116 William & Mary
(15) 118 New Hampshire
(16) 122 Liberty

BUT the computer does not select playoff participants OR seed the matchups. Besides, we probably need the $$$ as badly as does the NCAA.

However, if the Weber ratings hold up on the computer and start to show up in the polls, I wonder if we could put in a bid to hold our first couple of playoff games at Utah? It would give the charged-up Utah fans some local college football while awaiting the #13 Utes' post-season Bowl appearance, projected by espn to be in the 20 December Pioneer Bowl in Las Vegas, and would certainly provide a big venue in a big metropolitan area, connected to both Weber and Mac.

Would local Ogden businesses support such a scheme with advertising and ticket sponsorship?

 

[weberwildcat]

...The computer ranks our strength of schedule against other D1 teams through 04 October at 67th among all 245 D1 teams (FBS and FCS), TOPS in the Big Sky Conference by a large margin...

All good points except homefield playoffs are awarded based on the bid ($$$ and attendence) unless you make it as one of the top 4 seeds.

Well, we SHOULD be a top four seed!

After whupping Montana State 35-12, as of 11 October the computer now ranks Weber State 79th among all 245 Division 1 FBS and FCS teams, ahead of 43 FBS ("I-A") teams and behind only one other FBS ("I-AA") team. Thus, WSU is the #2 computer-ranked Football Championship Subdivision team, behind ONLY James Madison among FCS ratees.

The WSU strength of schedule rating is also second among FCS ratees, at 82nd. Only Chattanooga, which played an early season money game against Oklahoma, has a higher strength of schedule rating, at 70.

63rd ranked James Madison (#1 among FCS ranked teams) has a strength of schedule rating of 143, 84th ranked Montana (#4 among FCS ranked teams) has a strength of schedule of 139...

If the top 16 FCS playoff seeds were made by the computer as of this weekend, this is what they would look like:
(1) 63 James Madison
(2) 79 Weber State
(3) 81 Villanova
(4) 84 Montana
(5) 88 Richmond
(6) 99 Massachusetts
(7) 100 Appalachian State
(8) 103 Wofford
(9) 105 Cal Poly-SLO
(10) 112 Western Illinois
(11) 113 Northern Arizona
(12) 114 Northern Iowa
(13) 115 Elon
(14) 116 William & Mary
(15) 118 New Hampshire
(16) 122 Liberty

BUT the computer does not select playoff participants OR seed the matchups. Besides, we probably need the $$$ as badly as does the NCAA.

However, if the Weber ratings hold up on the computer and start to show up in the polls, I wonder if we could put in a bid to hold our first couple of playoff games at Utah? It would give the charged-up Utah fans some local college football while awaiting the #13 Utes' post-season Bowl appearance, projected by espn to be in the 20 December Pioneer Bowl in Las Vegas, and would certainly provide a big venue in a big metropolitan area, connected to both Weber and Mac.

Would local Ogden businesses support such a scheme with advertising and ticket sponsorship?

My only rebuttal to that would be Chattanooga only holds 20,000 people so I think it would be ok if played a playoff game in Ogden. I really don't think we would struggle for attendance in the playoffs. When our basketball team is awesome we can get 10,000 at a game, and people like football more overall. Mac's first season the high was 17,593 (1st game) and the low was 7,600 (last game) and finished 6-5.

But I think we need to beat NAU first...

I don't think last games 35 pts hurt our scoring average too much. Still averaging almost 40 ppg this season.


After week 7: WSU 36.6 ppg, Opponent 21.9 ppg

 

[native]

I don't think last games 35 pts hurt our scoring average too much. Still averaging almost 40 ppg this season. After week 7: WSU 36.6 ppg, Opponent 21.9 ppg

Yah, Baby! :!: :!: :!:

 

[weberwildcat]

As of Oct 19:

http://64.246.64.33/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/conf/bigsky/standings.aspx?season=2008,sc=AG,conf=Big%20Sky

WSU #2 Scoring offense in conf play and #1 overall
WSU #3 Scoring defense conf and overall

WSU ppg 34.1
WSU ppg allowed 20.4