Your Honest Opinion, Please...

[superhornet]

Team X (7-4)

Best wins -- Pac-12 (with 1 win), #11
Ranked Losses -- #1, #3 (at time of game) by a combined 6 points
Bad Win -- Beat 1-win in-conference foe by 5
Bad Loss -- 6-5 in-conference game

Team Y (8-3)

Best Win -- MAC (with 1 win), #14 (at time of game)
Ranked Losses -- None
Bad Win -- Beat 1-win in-conference foe by FG
Bad Losses -- 6-5 in-conference, 3-8 or 4-7 in-conference game

There are no D-II games to cloud the picture.

Who gets the nod?

 

[StungAlum2]

Team X (7-4)

Best wins -- Pac-12 (with 1 win), #11
Ranked Losses -- #1, #3 (at time of game) by a combined 6 points
Bad Win -- Beat 1-win in-conference foe by 5
Bad Loss -- 6-5 in-conference game

Team Y (8-3)

Best Win -- MAC (with 1 win), #14 (at time of game)
Ranked Losses -- None
Bad Win -- Beat 1-win in-conference foe by FG
Bad Losses -- 6-5 in-conference, 3-8 or 4-7 in-conference game

There are no D-II games to cloud the picture.

Who gets the nod?

Gotta say the 8-3 team. There are just too many east coast schools with 8 or more wins to put a 7-4 team in. Not saying it couldnt happen, just saying its highly unlikely.

 

[superhornet]

I know that's probably the way it will go. But it sure seems like the quailty of the 7 wins is better than the quality of the 8 wins, and the quality of the 4 losses is better than the quality of the 3 losses. But ECBers (not to mention those who think that the MVC is the be-all and end-all of FCS, which isn't necessarily the same thing) may well come out on top (and probably will, given the prevalence of Eastern votes)....

 

[Green Laser]

I think that it would be unlikely that we would be selected over a 8-3 east coast team. I do think it would be rational to select 7-4 Sac State over 8-3 Cal Poly if they lose to NAU, The head to head has to count for something and our schedule was harder.

 

[SDHornet]

I haven’t (and probably won’t) looked at the playoff picture in depth but I don’t think 7-4 gets us in. “Quality losses” is not a reason to be considered for the playoffs. As it stands our best win is over a CP team (whose best wins thus far is against a bad FBS team and a middle of the road UND team), followed by a win over a 1 win FBS program and a bunch of wins over middle of the road and below BSC teams. I just don’t know how that stacks up against some of the other programs around the nation but IMO it we don’t have that great of a resume’. :twocents:

 

[superhornet]

If you'll look, SD, I think you'll see that we have the best resume among 7-4 programs. Whether or not it gets us past an 8-3 remains to be seen. There are those who think that their conference gets them in automatically "just because." I don't go by that. There's something wrong when an 8-3 that is comparable to another team's 7-4 gets in "just because" of conference....

 

[BuckeyeHornetFan]

I gotta ask, is there much of a precedent for selecting a team with a worse record over a team with a better record? The only time that ever happens in professional sports is when a division winner has a worse record than a non-division winner. It never happens otherwise. Same logic basically applies to the NCAA tournament. Conference winners with automatic bids often have a worse record than an at-large team. But when competing for the same at-large birth, don't they usually go with the team with the better record unless their is a HUGE discrepancy between the strength of their conferences / schedules?

 

[superhornet]

Actually, it happens all the time in college football, BHF. Just look at bowl selections. A .500 Big Ten/SEC school gets in over an 8-3 MWC program. A two-loss SEC team gets a shot at a title over an undefeated Boise State. Or look at FCS playoffs. There have always been years when a 7-4 CAA team wil get a bid over an 8-3 Big South team. I remember a time when 10-0 Cal Poly was snubbed over concerns that they hadn't "played anybody." Nobody from the Pioneer ever gets in regardless of record because they don't have enough schollies to be competitive. It's all about perceived SOS, and certain conferences back East think that their conference is the be-all and end-all of SOS, and everyone out West sucks by definition.

Now, not everyone is like that, I'll grant you. But there are enough loud mouths with that attitude to make life miserable for for people in conferences that want to get a taste of the action.

 

[GoAgs72]

I think going to 20 teams and eventually 24 teams in the playoffs will help teams like Sac State this year get into the playoffs where they can show their stuff against some weaker autobid teams. Some people on AGS and CS think too many weak teams will get in and dilute the playoffs but I'm willing to put a few weak teams in to avoid overlooking good teams in tougher conferences.

 

[SactoHornetAlum]

I think going to 20 teams and eventually 24 teams in the playoffs will help teams like Sac State this year get into the playoffs where they can show their stuff against some weaker autobid teams. Some people on AGS and CS think too many weak teams will get in and dilute the playoffs but I'm willing to put a few weak teams in to avoid overlooking good teams in tougher conferences.

Exactly. Teams like Albany, Lehigh, etc have been through the war that is the Big Sky, CAA, SoCon, MVFC, etc week in and week out like we all do. That's why you play the games (and thank God for a playoff to settle it!).