Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 384

Thread: Would be a joke

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    2,640
    Contribute to D2
    Rep Power
    64618

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat N Mav View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, I tailgated with Redready last year before the Championship game.
    Yes sir we tailgated and I appreciate the hospitality I receive from the group there. I have attended that very tailgate, Thank You to the host/crew of that particular tailgate. I am in great hopes we have an opportunity to meet again this year.

  2. #182

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by GrifFan View Post
    Certain programs and conferences undeniably perform well in the playoffs. But wouldn't it have been a shame if Shepherd and WT had been denied the opportunity to compete so that we could have more of the same old guard? I know that's not exactly what you're arguing for, but that could be the result if we give weight to historic success. The playoffs become a little less distinguishable from the beauty pageant/popularity contest that is FBS
    Actually, at that point, I think Shepherd and WT were part of the "same ole" teams. Shepherd has done a lot previous to the 2004 season, but since I used that as the start of the data I will continue with that. This was their playoff history prior to their run:

    2004: Missed
    2005: #1 Seed
    2006: #1 Seed
    2007: #2 Seed
    2008: Missed
    2009: Missed
    2010: #4 Shepherd (Regional Champion)

    This was WT's:

    2004: Missed
    2005: #1 Seed
    2006: #4 Seed
    2007: #3 Seed
    2008: #4 Seed
    2009: Missed
    2010: #4 Seed
    2011: Missed
    2012: #6 Seed

    To me, that shows that both teams had had some successful teams before they overachieved. And even though I'm not arguing the point, it appears that it took them a while to actually justify being ranked highly in successful seasons.

    Again, I am not trying to take away the high seed of Indianapolis when they finished 11-0. I am simply saying when a few teams are on the edge of participating/not participating, I'd err on the side of a team with the better playoff success or playing in a conference with better playoff success.

  3. #183

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Redready View Post
    Yes sir we tailgated and I appreciate the hospitality I receive from the group there. I have attended that very tailgate, Thank You to the host/crew of that particular tailgate. I am in great hopes we have an opportunity to meet again this year.
    Pray for 2015 weather not 2016 weather!

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    2,640
    Rep Power
    64618

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    Pray for 2015 weather not 2016 weather!
    Amen. My feet are still cold.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    17,903
    Rep Power
    754807

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    Actually, at that point, I think Shepherd and WT were part of the "same ole" teams. Shepherd has done a lot previous to the 2004 season, but since I used that as the start of the data I will continue with that. This was their playoff history prior to their run:

    2004: Missed
    2005: #1 Seed
    2006: #1 Seed
    2007: #2 Seed
    2008: Missed
    2009: Missed
    2010: #4 Shepherd (Regional Champion)

    This was WT's:

    2004: Missed
    2005: #1 Seed
    2006: #4 Seed
    2007: #3 Seed
    2008: #4 Seed
    2009: Missed
    2010: #4 Seed
    2011: Missed
    2012: #6 Seed

    To me, that shows that both teams had had some successful teams before they overachieved. And even though I'm not arguing the point, it appears that it took them a while to actually justify being ranked highly in successful seasons.

    Again, I am not trying to take away the high seed of Indianapolis when they finished 11-0. I am simply saying when a few teams are on the edge of participating/not participating, I'd err on the side of a team with the better playoff success or playing in a conference with better playoff success.
    Maybe "same old guard" wasn't the best way to put it, just that giving their low seed to somebody from a more prestigious conference would have denied their program a great opportunity that they had earned. If we're going to err with those teams on the edge, I'd rather err on the side of broader representation.

    And if we're going to consider history, in this particular case the fact that Harding advanced to the regional final last year seems relevant. Yes, Grand Valley did too, and has a longer record of success - my point is that Harding is not as unworthy as some have argued here.

  6. Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorilla John 92 View Post
    Maybe we can combine the UMD got hosed thread in Region 4 with the one? UMD (with 2 loses) got "hosed" by an RMAC team (Pueblo) that lost two games to sub .500 teams in the RMAC. A stinking RMAC TEAM.....Now that's a travesty! Come on.....GV lost to Indy, a former bottom feeder in the GLIAC who went to the GLVC. We all know that the GLVC is not that good and GV didn't get it done. Heck, UCM was one play away from making NW an 8-3 team. UCM lost all three of their games on the road too. (Count arrowhead as a road game because NW fans outnumber UCM fans) UCM beat more teams with winning records too but are UCM fans whining? Nope because we were 8 - 3 and didn't get it done. Heck, I'll even go so far to say that UCO would give Indy all they wanted and call it a pick 'em game. Furthermore, Indy would not make the playoffs if they were in either the GLIAC or MIAA. However, they aren't. Instead they are 11-0, with a win over Grand Valley and in the playoffs. Come on GV fans! Your team, like the Mules, didn't get it done. That's reality. Enough said.

    Now, let's get back on topic; the GV "Whine Fest".
    Again, GV fan here and I'm 100% on board with this post. Please don't lump us all together. Refer to my previous post about "winning the games". The talent GV had should have not only made the playoffs but had a home game. But, they didn't because they slacked off for huge portions of games all year and our coaching staff thinks throwing the ball deep down the sidelines on 30% of our offensive plays is a recipe for success (despite all evidence to the contrary).

    Earn the playoff spot or go home. The players and coaches need to do better - the rankings were in plain site and rather than take control of their destiny they decided to sleep walk through the first half of the Ashland game and the fourth quarter of the Ferris game. The only thing this team earned was a seat on the couch.

  7. Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
    No glee here. Your SOS was REALLY bad last year, and that's what cost you. The crappy part is you couldn't do anything about it. You almost would have benefitted from not picking up KWC or Mercyhurst and applying for a waiver instead. It's part of what blows about the system...you guys fill out your schedule, win the games, and it ends up costing you. It's friggin' lunacy. Everyone and their brother that knows anything about D2 ball knew you should have gotten in all day over Southwest Baptist (among others)...sheesh, I still shake my head that they were in the field.

    All of that said, you guys more than passed the eye-test (like GV does this year, and your point is akin to what I have been saying...if anyone is betting something they value on your hypothetical game, they sure aren't taking Harding).
    I'm glad you pointed out what a screw job it was leaving Ashland out last year. We lost two road games against decent teams (Tiffin and MTU) that there's no doubt we should have won. But we also beat Ferris State on the road. So Ashland went 9-2 and beat FSU and didn't get in. I didn't see near the uproar as opposed to GVSU not getting in this year at 8-3 with no big wins. This was an Ashland team that had Adam Shaheen, a 2nd round NFL Tight End on the roster than could take over a game single handily and the committee still didn't put them in over weaker teams.

    I'm not dogging GVSU at all. I know they got jobbed this year. I'm simply pointing out that until the entire system is blown up there are going to be deserving teams left out every year. Two years in a row it's happened to a GLIAC school.

  8. #188

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by GrifFan View Post
    Maybe "same old guard" wasn't the best way to put it, just that giving their low seed to somebody from a more prestigious conference would have denied their program a great opportunity that they had earned. If we're going to err with those teams on the edge, I'd rather err on the side of broader representation.

    And if we're going to consider history, in this particular case the fact that Harding advanced to the regional final last year seems relevant. Yes, Grand Valley did too, and has a longer record of success - my point is that Harding is not as unworthy as some have argued here.
    Fair enough. It's a difference of opinion is all.

    But again, if we're arguing two three-loss teams, did either "earn" something? Ouachita Baptist earned the GAC title and I don't think anyone is claiming they shouldn't be in the playoffs. Certain teams/conferences have shown that they can get it done when given the benefit of the doubt on lower seeds. Others have not. One day they might and maybe this will be a moot point. Until then....

    I also have some thoughts on how ridiculously stupid the "road w/l" criteria is.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    17,903
    Rep Power
    754807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    Fair enough. It's a difference of opinion is all.

    But again, if we're arguing two three-loss teams, did either "earn" something? Ouachita Baptist earned the GAC title and I don't think anyone is claiming they shouldn't be in the playoffs. Certain teams/conferences have shown that they can get it done when given the benefit of the doubt on lower seeds. Others have not. One day they might and maybe this will be a moot point. Until then....

    I also have some thoughts on how ridiculously stupid the "road w/l" criteria is.

    "Earned" it as much as the traditional power with three losses, imo.

    We'd probably agree on the road record criteria, but it's what we have.

  10. #190

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by adamnldt View Post
    Again, GV fan here and I'm 100% on board with this post. Please don't lump us all together. Refer to my previous post about "winning the games". The talent GV had should have not only made the playoffs but had a home game. But, they didn't because they slacked off for huge portions of games all year and our coaching staff thinks throwing the ball deep down the sidelines on 30% of our offensive plays is a recipe for success (despite all evidence to the contrary).
    .

    I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who notice this. I've never seen a team who preferred to go deep on 3rd and short/medium. I loved this about GV. I could count on them running on first down and then going deep on 2nd and 3rd and giving us the ball back. Tell MM to keep up the good work!

  11. #191
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    I'm generally not in favor of using selections to justify other selections.

    Question: Why is IUP the #1 ranked team in the D2Football.com Poll?
    Answer: Because they beat #3 Ashland to start the season.
    Question: OK then, why is Ashland #3 in your poll?
    Answer: Because their only loss was to the #1 ranked team to start the season.

    In my opinion, citing playoff selections to justify selections creates a circular argument. I could really expand on this but I think you get my point.
    Fair enough, but it doesn't answer the question. Who did they actually beat? A 7-3 Northwood team?

    And I get that the GLIAC has had more success historically, but let's talk about this year. GV had a chance to play three playoff teams and lost. Including, not coincidentally, the one that they would have matched up with if Harding had gotten hosed in the selections.

    Arguments disagreeing with the criteria are fair. Arguments disagreeing with the selection based on the criteria aren't. The committee got it absolutely right based on what they have to measure the success on. GVSU had a weak resume this year. Sure, if they turned one of those losses everything would be different, but along those lines, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by oldweevil View Post
    Fair enough, but it doesn't answer the question. Who did they actually beat? A 7-3 Northwood team?

    And I get that the GLIAC has had more success historically, but let's talk about this year. GV had a chance to play three playoff teams and lost. Including, not coincidentally, the one that they would have matched up with if Harding had gotten hosed in the selections.

    Arguments disagreeing with the criteria are fair. Arguments disagreeing with the selection based on the criteria aren't. The committee got it absolutely right based on what they have to measure the success on. GVSU had a weak resume this year. Sure, if they turned one of those losses everything would be different, but along those lines, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
    I think the point that we are making is that two of those three playoff teams GV lost by a combined 4 points to are head and shoulders better than the #5 team that Harding beat by a TD.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    I think the point that we are making is that two of those three playoff teams GV lost by a combined 4 points to are head and shoulders better than the #5 team that Harding beat by a TD.
    I think the point I'm trying to make is that plenty of teams lost to the three playoff teams GV lost to. Arguing the quality of your losses doesn't separate you from the crowd. The quality of your wins does. And at the end of the day, the best team GV beat was a 7-4 Northwood team.

    Scoreboard.

  14. #194
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by oldweevil View Post
    I think the point I'm trying to make is that plenty of teams lost to the three playoff teams GV lost to. Arguing the quality of your losses doesn't separate you from the crowd. The quality of your wins does. And at the end of the day, the best team GV beat was a 7-4 Northwood team.

    Scoreboard.
    So you find no value in the idea that GV's only three losses came at the hands of the #2, #3 and #4 teams, while Harding's 3 losses to non-playoff teams somehow is trumped by a victory over the #5 playoff team? Give me a break.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    10,075
    Rep Power
    561677

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    So you find no value in the idea that GV's only three losses came at the hands of the #2, #3 and #4 teams, while Harding's 3 losses to non-playoff teams somehow is trumped by a victory over the #5 playoff team? Give me a break.
    Why would you ask a question like this when you already had an answer?

    "Our losses were better losses" is a really poor argument.

  16. #196
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Runnin' Cat View Post
    Why would you ask a question like this when you already had an answer?

    "Our losses were better losses" is a really poor argument.
    Neither team had good wins. OBU is not a good win. They are a playoff team by default because they happened to actually beat the bad teams that Harding lost to. GV did not lose to any bad teams. Harding lost to THREE of them. One win over a fringe playoff team does not outweigh getting beat by three teams who were not even close to the playoffs.

    The point you and other people are arguing is that if Fort Hays had one loss on the year, and it was to a team that finished 1-10, that the 1-10 team should now be in the playoffs as long as Fort Hays was the only playoff team they faced.
    Last edited by KleShreen; 11-14-2017 at 02:05 PM.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    10,075
    Rep Power
    561677

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    Neither team had good wins. OBU is not a good win. They are a playoff team by default because they happened to actually beat the bad teams that Harding lost to. GV did not lose to any bad teams. Harding lost to THREE of them. One win over a fringe playoff team does not outweigh getting beat by three teams who were not even close to the playoffs.

    The point you and other people are arguing is that if Fort Hays had one loss on the year, and it was to a team that finished 1-10, that the 1-10 team should now be in the playoffs as long as Fort Hays was the only playoff team they faced.
    No. That is a silly argument you are deriving.

    My whole point is that if you have to use your losses as an argument, then you don't have a good argument. I think I have said that several times now.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    571
    Blog Entries
    85
    Rep Power
    29104

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Redready View Post
    It's just comparing apples to oranges. I think you can state what you what of course. I just think you are guessing and trying to use "reasonable" as a way of describing your feeling. I think reasonable would be to quantify what you are trying to compare. I believe that you feel the conference you represent is one of the better conferences and I admire you for standing for the conference. Other than that, I haven't seen anything that is justifying the selection committee made and error. Maybe they did. But it's done. I also have not seen a "reasonable" explanation that a specific team out of a conference is better than a team from another conference without playing the game. I think you know that. I don't question if you know that.

    We will see soon enough what teams are capable of beating the other. I think at that time we can have a reasonable argument.
    1) I would urge you to re-read Bradon's post from last night. That historical perspective on how conferences earn cred is absolutely part of my thinking. Like it or not, it is trend-based and is accurate more often than it isn't.
    2) You mention that you "haven't seen anything that is justifying the selection committee made an error". Go back and read my posts, and point out where I indicated that the committee made an error.
    3) I still have not seen anyone from the GAC offer some sort of salient perspective to sway me that their conference's play (or their members' play prior to 2011) denotes that they are a consistently more powerful league than the GLIAC.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Runnin' Cat View Post
    No. That is a silly argument you are deriving.

    My whole point is that if you have to use your losses as an argument, then you don't have a good argument. I think I have said that several times now.
    So why do we even count losses? If you want to only award playoff spots based on how many wins have been accumulated and who they were against, then fine. But that isn't how it is done. If you want to tell me that the only games we can look at are the victories, and both teams had 8 wins and Harding had the best single win over those 16 games, then fine, albeit by not much of a margin. But there are three other games for each team that also are taken in to account. At what point does it matter? If Harding is 8-3 but those 3 losses came to teams that went a combined 3-30, is that relevant then? Or no, because they still beat a playoff team and GV didn't?

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    571
    Blog Entries
    85
    Rep Power
    29104

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by oldweevil View Post
    I think the point I'm trying to make is that plenty of teams lost to the three playoff teams GV lost to. Arguing the quality of your losses doesn't separate you from the crowd. The quality of your wins does. And at the end of the day, the best team GV beat was a 7-4 Northwood team.

    Scoreboard.
    Let me start this post by, once again, stating for the record that I am NOT lobbying the premise that GV should be in over Harding. At no point in this thread have I said that should be so. HOWEVER, I still contend the case can be made the GV is a better team, and that everyone on the committee knew it to be true. That does not make Harding's selection wrong, and again, I have not once stated as such.

    As for your "scoreboard" nonsense, Harding and GAC followers were as surprised as everyone else that Harding was seeded above GV entering Week 11. Everyone knew that the SOS component overwhelmingly favored GV after week 10 (not to mention again after Week 11). And since the committee never tells anyone how they are doing things, the premise that Harding's "quality of wins...particularly on the road" would outweigh GV's SOS advantage was perhaps guessed as a possibility, but it was hardly a concrete eventuality. Frankly, the argument of the premise only exists BECAUSE things shook out this way. SOS has often been such a large determinant previously that if GV was ahead of Harding, I wager very few (if any) would have even made a peep.

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •