A Sea Of Red

Liberty and the BSC fell in this week's GPI. Our conference strength is hurting us.

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/cont ... 10-20-2010

Welcome to the torture we have endured since joining the league nearly a decade ago. Thankfully it won't likely have much impact on us since we are probably only getting into the playoffs with an auto bid. But in past years it was a key factor in keeping us out.

Yeah. Saw it in action in 2008. Went 10-2 and they picked Maine, 5th in the conference, instead of LU.

I think the one thing that the conference lacks is probably something that its lacked since it started...competition...its been one team and then everybody else battling for second place. Look at the Missouri Valley this year...youve got 6 teams within 1-2 games of each other with 4 or 5 games to go and the team at the bottom has just as much chance to beat the team at the top. right now the Big South isnt at that point. if we can pick up a South Carolina State or a Florida A&M who are extablished programs or up and coming programs like Kennesaw State or Charlotte that can potentially give a much needed upgrade in conference strength which can help us down the road, especially when we are able to potentially take a step up

Have you heard on any expansion to the BSC? That would be one way to get a higher rating by adding established teams or moving to a conference that would provide more competition.




BJ. noticed your signature line. did you forget 2009 or not counting it since we co shared the title?

Our conference strength can't be killing us after one game.

Our current resume just isn't as good as people think. 3 Cupcake wins, a win over a shaky FBS team, and 0-2 vs. top 50 FCS.

It’s not even a shaky FBS team. It’s a BAD FBS team.

BigAl57 wrote:Have you heard on any expansion to the BSC? That would be one way to get a higher rating by adding established teams or moving to a conference that would provide more competition.




BJ. noticed your signature line. did you forget 2009 or not counting it since we co shared the title?

If you go through this board youll find various sundry discussions on expanding the conference. Its something that comes up once a season along with the talk of going FBS

As for the second part...yes.

BJWilliams wrote:

BigAl57 wrote:
BJ. noticed your signature line. did you forget 2009 or not counting it since we co shared the title?

...yes.

I asked Kallander about the Kennesaw and Charlotte rumors last week at media day. He said there has been no invite offered to Kennesaw and that there no one from Charlotte has contacted the Big South, and that the Big South hasn't talked to Charlotte.

Chris Lang wrote:I asked Kallander about the Kennesaw and Charlotte rumors last week at media day. He said there has been no invite offered to Kennesaw and that there no one from Charlotte has contacted the Big South, and that the Big South hasn't talked to Charlotte.

If we haven't been in contact with Charlotte, then Kallander needs to be fired. Same with Kennesaw State.

phoenix wrote:

Chris Lang wrote:I asked Kallander about the Kennesaw and Charlotte rumors last week at media day. He said there has been no invite offered to Kennesaw and that there no one from Charlotte has contacted the Big South, and that the Big South hasn't talked to Charlotte.

If we haven't been in contact with Charlotte, then Kallander needs to be fired. Same with Kennesaw State.

KSU has been in contact with him. some friends in the athletic department over their have confirmed that one. charlotte really doesn't seem like they'd be interested. i'm thinking they replace ODU and GSU in the CAA.

Liberty ranks 26th in GPI. Updated link can be found here http://www.collegesportingnews.com/cont ... 6f26a84320

GPI shows exactly why we need a new conference. Only 3 of our opponents are in the top 50 of the GPI, and I would say that that's a big part of why LU is rated so low there.

I'm one of the bigger BSC haters here but the GPI is not a reason to want a new conference. The BSC gives us a shot at an autobid (one of the easiest ones at that) and that's all we need it to do.

But with a stronger conference the chance for an at large bids opens up if we don't run the table every year. Just look at the CAA, they are going to put 4-5 teams in with 8-3 ot possibly 7-4 records. A lot of that comes fromt he strength of the conference.

phoenix wrote:GPI shows exactly why we need a new conference. Only 3 of our opponents are in the top 50 of the GPI, and I would say that that's a big part of why LU is rated so low there.

Assuming Ball State would be in the top 50 GPI, correct?

Only the conference games played count in the rankings....so the other BSC teams we have yet to play would only indirectly affect us. It also means our rankings will continue to drop each week.

It's a good thing we don't need to get an at-large

Oh, and the MEAC is grossly overrated. Holy cow.

Greatest Human Bias = Computer Poll AVG - Human Poll AVG
Positive numbers indicate voters overrate teams, negative numbers indicate voters don't give them enough credit

Top 5 Underrated Teams
N Arizona............-13.57
W Illinois............-12.62
S Dakota St.........-6.71
Chattanooga........-6.67
Northern Iowa.......-4.52

Top 6 Overrated Teams
S Carolina St.........33.29
Penn..................21.00
Bethune-Cookman..17.86
Liberty................16.67
Richmond.............13.29
Grambling............13.19

So you're saying the computers give the best rankings, and the human polls should be edited to match them?

So you have South Alabama in your top 25, right? Sagarin does.

Computers are not the end-all, be-all. If App St. was placed in the MEAC this season they'd be on your "overrated" list... would they be deserving?

I agree that some people (me included) have us too high. I also think that "We're so overrated" is a bit much.

Right now we have...

1. A road win against a very bad FBS. However, this same very bad FBS beat Central Michigan, who was more equally competitive against Temple as top FCS team Villanova was. I hate these linking team things like I just did, but to just say "Ball State wouldn't even be top 25 in FCS" is ridiculous. Let them keep their extra schollys and take a spot in the OVC and they're neck and neck with Jax St. to determine who gets the autobid. The proved that by beating SEMO St. by a good margin before they played us.

2. 2 road losses to top 25 teams by a combined total of 2 touchdowns. What other teams get "OVERRATED, CAST THEM AWAY" for losses to teams like that? You know who else has 2 losses on the road to top 25 teams. MONTANA. (and one of those losses, Cal Poly, is either out of many top 25's or should be...).

3. Big wins over cupcakes. Games where the result displays an obviously better team dominating an obviously weaker one. The CSU game is a bit of a misleading score, but the margin was still enough to qualify as a big win without the last touchdown.

Speaking of Montana, let's compare.

Montana wins:
Western State (Worse than any team on our schedule by a mile, and that includes SSU.)
Sac State by 3 (Tough to compare them to anyone on our schedule, but they're really not an amazing team or anything.)
@No. Colorado by a lot (NoCo is baddd. I'd say they compare to a middle of the road Big South team.)
ISU by a lot (ISU is badddddddd. Middle/basement Big South team.)
@Portland State by 2 (PSU might be good, but they haven't shown it yet. Lost to Ariz St and Oregon by combined 114 points)
NAU by 3 (Scored with 5 seconds left on an allegedly controversial catch to beat the Lumberjacks. NAU is probably just below JMU's level this year.)

So what am I missing that makes us the one to be picked on?

Both teams have lost twice on the road at top 25 schools, and both teams have won fairly unimpressive games otherwise.

But the computers would tell you Montana is wayyy better. Because teams like ISU and NoCo get boosted by SoS, not because they're actually better teams. And because Western State doesn't count since they're non-DI, but SSU counts in the computers for us since they're DI.

So believe who you want. The computers would tell you that 0-6 versus DI Idaho State is better than 2-4 vs. DI Stony Brook. (Sagarin says that). Or that Nothern Colorado at 1-6 versus DI (and that one win is against Idaho State) is virtually the same as FBS Memphis (Memphis isn't good, but they're sure as heck better than NoCo) or South Carolina State, and better than 8 other FBS schools. So if that's what you want to believe, stick to your numbers. Usually I'm all about computers but taking a look at this more closely reveals it's a bunch of crap.

I agree that SC State is overrated. Penn is likely overrated too. And we might be overrated by a spot or two, but not by 17 spots.

ToTheLeft wrote:So you're saying the computers give the best rankings, and the human polls should be edited to match them?
So you have South Alabama in your top 25, right? Sagarin does.

Computers are not the end-all, be-all. If App St. was placed in the MEAC this season they'd be on your "overrated" list... would they be deserving?

I agree that some people (me included) have us too high. I also think that "We're so overrated" is a bit much.

Right now we have...

1. A road win against a very bad FBS. However, this same very bad FBS beat Central Michigan, who was more equally competitive against Temple as top FCS team Villanova was. I hate these linking team things like I just did, but to just say "Ball State wouldn't even be top 25 in FCS" is ridiculous. Let them keep their extra schollys and take a spot in the OVC and they're neck and neck with Jax St. to determine who gets the autobid. The proved that by beating SEMO St. by a good margin before they played us.

2. 2 road losses to top 25 teams by a combined total of 2 touchdowns. What other teams get "OVERRATED, CAST THEM AWAY" for losses to teams like that? You know who else has 2 losses on the road to top 25 teams. MONTANA. (and one of those losses, Cal Poly, is either out of many top 25's or should be...) Robert Morris is not Top 25.


Speaking of Montana, let's compare.

Montana wins:
Western State (Worse than any team on our schedule by a mile, and that includes SSU.)
Sac State by 3 (Tough to compare them to anyone on our schedule, but they're really not an amazing team or anything.)
@No. Colorado by a lot (NoCo is baddd. I'd say they compare to a middle of the road Big South team.)
ISU by a lot (ISU is badddddddd. Middle/basement Big South team.)
@Portland State by 2 (PSU might be good, but they haven't shown it yet. Lost to Ariz St and Oregon by combined 114 points)
NAU by 3 (Scored with 5 seconds left on an allegedly controversial catch to beat the Lumberjacks. NAU is probably just below JMU's level this year.)



Both teams have lost twice on the road at top 25 schools, and both teams have won fairly unimpressive games otherwise.

But the computers would tell you Montana is wayyy better. Because teams like ISU and NoCo get boosted by SoS, not because they're actually better teams. And because Western State doesn't count since they're non-DI, but SSU counts in the computers for us since they're DI.

So believe who you want. The computers would tell you that 0-6 versus DI Idaho State is better than 2-4 vs. DI Stony Brook. (Sagarin says that). Or that Nothern Colorado at 1-6 versus DI (and that one win is against Idaho State) is virtually the same as FBS Memphis (Memphis isn't good, but they're sure as heck better than NoCo) or South Carolina State, and better than 8 other FBS schools. So if that's what you want to believe, stick to your numbers. Usually I'm all about computers but taking a look at this more closely reveals it's a bunch of crap.

I agree that SC State is overrated. Penn is likely overrated too. And we might be overrated by a spot or two, but not by 17 spots.

No - but you can see the difference between the specific resume of a team and how voters view them. Of all the computer polls to pick on, the Sagarin has one of the better rankings for LU. You would never hear me say any one of these are perfect. South Alabama also plays one division I game. Their ranking is similar to that of the Basketball GPI after November. If App State played BCU's schedule, who would they have beaten? So no, they would not be deserving of a #2 ranking. You have determined the quality of these teams. How many have you seen play? You can say - well this team beat that team, but how can you qualify what teams are good other than 1)knowing the scores of every single game or 2)watching every single game. As for SB Idaho State - ONLY Sagarin says that. And the computers don't(with the exception of Sagarin) predict games. They do calculate a team's overall resume. Stony Brook v. Lafayette would be a better argument for you, since SB has a stronger resume....but we all know how that worked out.

I never said Liberty should be 17 spots further down. I think they're better than their resume suggests, and that's all a computer can do - calculate a resume. It can't tell you which teams are better on the field because it can't see the games. At the same time, voters see maybe 3 games on a weekend and rely on name value for the rest of the scores. Neither are perfect, but by comparing the two you can see how voters give teams more credit(ABILITY) than they truly deserve(RESUME).

Looking back - Overrated was the wrong word to use. And Robert Morris is not ranked...outside of the AGS poll. I don't know which one is most official.

Schfourteenteen wrote: No - but you can see the difference between the specific resume of a team and how voters view them.

What I gather from your post is that you believe that computer rankings should figure into the resume, but not the perception of a team?

Schfourteenteen wrote: Neither are perfect, but by comparing the two you can see how voters give teams more credit(ABILITY) than they truly deserve(RESUME).

That's what I got from this.

So yes, voters will have the human element of being able to say "hey, a win over Stony Brook IS better than a win over Idaho State, and that game against JMU was pretty competitive for Liberty. And wow, they dominated their bad opponents, really showed they were the better team." Whereas the computers will just process "Played VMI, VMI has weak schedule, no wins, lower ranking." and even if Margin of Victory is in the formula, it doesn't balance out the terrible SoS that the whole conference has. So it doesn't determine our resume, because it's inherently flawed. Every team in the Big South has it's SoS exponentially decreased by the other teams in the Big South (because VMI has a weak schedule and a bad record, and they play Presby who has a weak schedule and a bad record, and those two add each other to their SoS which makes it even worse). If there were 6 Idaho State's in the Big Sky, Montana would be right down with us.

Schfourteenteen wrote:If App State played BCU's schedule, who would they have beaten? So no, they would not be deserving of a #2 ranking.

Their playoff opponents.

Schfourteenteen wrote:How many have you seen play? You can say - well this team beat that team, but how can you qualify what teams are good other than 1)knowing the scores of every single game or 2)watching every single game.

A good number, actually. And isn't that what we do when we make a poll, just in a condensed way? Isn't that what I did when evaluating Montana? I didn't look at every single game point by point, but I did look at every game, the same way I've looked at basic info on every game of every team in my top 35ish.

Schfourteenteen wrote:I think they're better than their resume suggests, and that's all a computer can do - calculate a resume.

I addressed this before, but I think you're wrong here. A computer can give you data that you can use to form a resume, but all it has is data. Jacksonville could win every PFL game by 100, lose to App State, and be a top 15 team. They'd be abusing the system (not on purpose, just a byproduct), but that happens sometimes. (Boise).

Schfourteenteen wrote: At the same time, voters see maybe 3 games on a weekend and rely on name value for the rest of the scores. Neither are perfect, but by comparing the two you can see how voters give teams more credit(ABILITY) than they truly deserve(RESUME).

I am a voter, tho not in any poll that means anything, but I can tell you I watch 3 or 4 games, and look over box scores of many more, and read fans interpretations of what went on at the games on message boards, and take everything in perspective and try to make my poll. I don't say "Liberty beat VMI who beat Presby and Presby has a bad record so LU doesn't get any credit for the win."

I dunno, the more I look into computer rankings, the less I like them, at least in FCS where there's such a disparity in the conferences.

Schfourteenteen wrote:Looking back - Overrated was the wrong word to use. And Robert Morris is not ranked...outside of the AGS poll. I don't know which one is most official.

I've had them ranked for a while, so I assume them ranked. I never checked to make sure.

Here's the interesting thing about the polls right now.

Montana is ranked in the top 10 because it is Montana, and it has a history. Nothing the Griz have done on the field this season suggest they are a top-10 team.

Liberty is ranked in the top 16 because it is Liberty, and it has a recent history of being a perennial Top-25 team. If you step back and take Liberty's name out and put Gardner-Webb's in that spot, I don't think there's any chance Gardner-Webb is ranked with a 5-2 record and that schedule. That's a good sign for Liberty, because it means the school has kind of seeped into the subconscious of the people who follow and vote on FCS football.

Chris Lang wrote:Here's the interesting thing about the polls right now.

Montana is ranked in the top 10 because it is Montana, and it has a history. Nothing the Griz have done on the field this season suggest they are a top-10 team.

Liberty is ranked in the top 16 because it is Liberty, and it has a recent history of being a perennial Top-25 team. If you step back and take Liberty's name out and put Gardner-Webb's in that spot, I don't think there's any chance Gardner-Webb is ranked with a 5-2 record and that schedule. That's a good sign for Liberty, because it means the school has kind of seeped into the subconscious of the people who follow and vote on FCS football.

Same as SC State before they lost this season. We're now a name that people think "Yeah, their conference is bad but I just know they're a good team."