Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Playoff Pairings

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    16,048
    Contribute to D2
    Rep Power
    1000000

    Default Playoff Pairings

    Now released.

    1. Ouachita Baptist with a bye

    2. Ferris State hosts 7. Harding

    3. Grand Valley State hosts 6. NW Missouri State

    4. Indianapolis hosts 5. Fort Hays State

    They did mention directly in the video that the nullification penalty was applied to Ferris and that is why they fell from #1 to #2.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northville, MI (after over 35 yrs in Midland, MI)
    Posts
    6,998
    Rep Power
    88199

    Default Re: Playoff Pairings

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    Now released.

    1. Ouachita Baptist with a bye

    2. Ferris State hosts 7. Harding

    3. Grand Valley State hosts 6. NW Missouri State

    4. Indianapolis hosts 5. Fort Hays State

    They did mention directly in the video that the nullification penalty was applied to Ferris and that is why they fell from #1 to #2.
    Pretty weak sauce as to how NCAA communicates the penalty. Glad they acted before PO's though.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    680
    Blog Entries
    85
    Rep Power
    36750

    Default Re: Playoff Pairings

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    They did mention directly in the video that the nullification penalty was applied to Ferris and that is why they fell from #1 to #2.
    The other thing I heard the committee guy from the MEC specifically mention was how "quality wins" were heavily valued and important. I get it, but the other message to take away from that is "if you're going to lose, lose to a crappy team".

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    59
    Rep Power
    495956

    Default Re: Playoff Pairings

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
    The other thing I heard the committee guy from the MEC specifically mention was how "quality wins" were heavily valued and important. I get it, but the other message to take away from that is "if you're going to lose, lose to a crappy team".
    Didn’t we all learn that last year?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northville, MI (after over 35 yrs in Midland, MI)
    Posts
    6,998
    Rep Power
    88199

    Default Re: Playoff Pairings

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Carlson View Post
    Didn’t we all learn that last year?
    Maybe, but I thought it was losing at home is better than losing on the road. Is quality win a win against a .500 team or better, or is it just subjective? The shadow knows.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    59
    Rep Power
    495956

    Default Re: Playoff Pairings

    Quote Originally Posted by Redwing View Post
    Maybe, but I thought it was losing at home is better than losing on the road. Is quality win a win against a .500 team or better, or is it just subjective? The shadow knows.
    It’s the .500 thing. And you’re right, it’s better to lose at home than on the road. I won’t argue the ridiculousness of that logic.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    680
    Blog Entries
    85
    Rep Power
    36750

    Default Re: Playoff Pairings

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Carlson View Post
    It’s the .500 thing. And you’re right, it’s better to lose at home than on the road. I won’t argue the ridiculousness of that logic.
    Yeah, we learned it last year...I guess for it to be outwardly said again is just so dumb. It's a flawed way to handle things, and yet the NCAA doubles down on it.

    You're right...I should know better than to be surprised...

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
  •