Page 1 of 1
Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:40 am
by ToTheLeft
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/stat ... 09gpi.html
1. Villanova (1.63)
2. S Illinois (2.75)
3. Richmond (2.88)
4T. Montana (3.75)
4T. William & Mary (3.75)
6. Elon (6.63)
7. New Hampshire (8.25)
8. Northern Iowa (8.50)
9. S Dakota St (9.00)
10. Appalachian St (11.50)
11. S Carolina St (12.75)
12. Jacksonville St (13.25)
13. E Washington (14.38)
14. Delaware (15.75)
15. E Illinois (16.63)
16. Weber St (18.50)
17. McNeese St (18.88)
18. James Madison (19.25)
19T. SF Austin (19.38)
19T. N Arizona (19.38)
21. Liberty (19.75)
22. Massachusetts (20.50)
23. Montana St (22.00)
24. Lafayette (22.13)
25. Holy Cross (22.75)
We're less than a full point from being 17th... compared to where we were last year, we're sitting pretty.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:40 am
by jcmanson
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:45 am
by ToTheLeft
Also, if you take this poll literally, here is the realistic playoff field based on GPI alone...
1. Villanova (1.63) CAA AQ
2. S Illinois (2.75) MVFC AQ
3. Richmond (2.88) At-Large #1
4T. Montana (3.75) Big Sky AQ
4T. William & Mary (3.75) At-Large #2
6. Elon (6.63) SoCon AQ
7. New Hampshire (8.25) At-Large #3
8. Northern Iowa (8.50) At-Large #4
9. S Dakota St (9.00) At-Large #5
10. Appalachian St (11.50) At-Large #6
11. S Carolina St (12.75) MEAC AQ
12. Jacksonville St (13.25) Ineligble
13. E Washington (14.38) At-Large #7
14. Delaware (15.75) At-Large #8
15. E Illinois (16.63) OVC AQ
16. Weber St (18.50) Bubble Team #1
17. McNeese St (18.88) SLC AQ
18. James Madison (19.25) Will not reach 7 DI wins
19T. SF Austin (19.38) Bubble Team #2
19T. N Arizona (19.38) Bubble Team #3
21. Liberty (19.75) Bubble Team #4
22. Massachusetts (20.50)
23. Montana St (22.00)
24. Lafayette (22.13) (PL AQ)
25. Holy Cross (22.75)
Since UD will more than likely (beating Navy just doesn't seem that feasible) fail to make it to 7 DI wins, we bump up to #3. Since NAU and EWU play an elimination game, you can bump us up to #2. If we win out, we'll be putting ourselves in a situation where we will force the committee to consider putting us into the field.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:49 am
by jcmanson
I cant seem to find it on here, does anyone have a link to what we were ranked this time last year?
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:51 am
by ToTheLeft
Tied for 33rd.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:53 am
by ToTheLeft
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:53 am
by jcmanson
ToTheLeft wrote:Tied for 33rd.
Yeah I just found the thread:
http://www.flamefans.com/forums/viewtop ... &start=250
With 2 games to play last year we were ranked #22 in coaches, #22 in TSN, #24 in AGS, & tied for #33 in GPI.
Compare that to this year:
#16 coaches, #16 TSN, #16 AGS, #21 GPI
Granted we won't have a win like Elon's at the end of the year to bump us up, but we look better than we did last year.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:54 am
by ToTheLeft
Our last two games, if they are strong wins, will only help. SBU and G-W are ranked higher than anyone we've played in weeks, so they will give us a little boost.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 11:07 am
by Sivart
But is enough to boost in to the playoffs? Stupid Big South for having bad teams!
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 11:08 am
by ToTheLeft
Sivart wrote:But is enough to boost in to the playoffs? Stupid Big South for having bad teams!
Stupid LU for losing to JMU!
We'd be top 10 right now if we won that game. Probably higher than that.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 11:17 am
by jcmanson
ToTheLeft wrote:Sivart wrote:But is enough to boost in to the playoffs? Stupid Big South for having bad teams!
Stupid LU for losing to JMU!
We'd be top 10 right now if we won that game. Probably higher than that.
Yeah it sucks, if we would have beat JMU we'd be talking about WHO we're playing rather than IF we're playing.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 11:24 am
by Rooster Cogburn
Someone refresh me, where were we last year at this time?
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 11:26 am
by ToTheLeft
ToTheLeft wrote:Tied for 33rd.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 11:32 am
by Rooster Cogburn
ToTheLeft wrote:ToTheLeft wrote:Tied for 33rd.
Sorry, I didn't see that. So, if we win out, where do you think we'll be?
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 11:33 am
by jcmanson
Rooster Cogburn wrote:ToTheLeft wrote:ToTheLeft wrote:Tied for 33rd.
Sorry, I didn't see that. So, if we win out, where do you think we'll be?
There's too many "ifs" involved in that to really guess, but I'll say 17.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 4:27 pm
by coastalfan1
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 7:12 pm
by rueful
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 10th, 2009, 10:48 pm
by PAmedic
ahhhh...yes.
I don't know art- but I know what I like.
and THAT is it.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 11th, 2009, 2:57 pm
by coastalfan1
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 12th, 2009, 2:23 pm
by PAmedic
I did make a coastal one. Hmmm. Have to find that.
I would consider selling the rights of that one to you- but not the Lib one.
You understand, of course.
Re: Flames Begin To Climb GPI Ladder
Posted: November 13th, 2009, 1:31 am
by coastalfan1
PAmedic wrote:I did make a coastal one. Hmmm. Have to find that.
I would consider selling the rights of that one to you- but not the Lib one.
You understand, of course.
Im interested, show me kind sir
