Portland State

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:13 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobcatBulldog wrote:At this point I am no longer talking about the Bobcats, I am saying that no team should ever be awarded for who they loose to. Maybe penalized but never every rewarded.

a Loss is a loss is a loss
Using that rationale, though, why would any team ever schedule a tough nonconference game? Everybody would just schedule creampuffs for every game. I think such a system would lead to a lot of really bad schedules and boring games.

You are right my friend, but there is one more factor. Money, that is the reason that we schedule Colorado, A&M, Minnesota, ect, ect, ect. That is the balancing act that the AD has to play, between getting the 7 or 8 wins that we need and making the books balance. The motivation for scheduling a 1A loss for lack of a better way to put it is Money, always has been always will be. That is the reason AD's will continue to schedule them. I guaranteed that PSU scheduled those games for money.

Htowngriz · Post by **Htowngriz** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:17 pm

BobcatBulldog wrote:At this point I am no longer talking about the Bobcats, I am saying that no team should ever be awarded for who they loose to. Maybe penalized but never every rewarded.

a Loss is a loss is a loss

No smack intended, but there is a huge difference between a loss to D-2 Chadron and a BCS caliber team like Cal

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:21 pm

Htowngriz wrote:
BobcatBulldog wrote:At this point I am no longer talking about the Bobcats, I am saying that no team should ever be awarded for who they loose to. Maybe penalized but never every rewarded.

a Loss is a loss is a loss
No smack intended, but there is a huge difference between a loss to D-2 Chadron and a BCS caliber team like Cal

No smack taken.
I agree completely we should be penalized but should PSU be rewarded for that loss.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:24 pm

BobcatBulldog wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobcatBulldog wrote:At this point I am no longer talking about the Bobcats, I am saying that no team should ever be awarded for who they loose to. Maybe penalized but never every rewarded.

a Loss is a loss is a loss
Using that rationale, though, why would any team ever schedule a tough nonconference game? Everybody would just schedule creampuffs for every game. I think such a system would lead to a lot of really bad schedules and boring games.
You are right my friend, but there is one more factor. Money, that is the reason that we schedule Colorado, A&M, Minnesota, ect, ect, ect. That is the balancing act that the AD has to play, between getting the 7 or 8 wins that we need and making the books balance. The motivation for scheduling a 1A loss for lack of a better way to put it is Money, always has been always will be. That is the reason AD's will continue to schedule them. I guaranteed that PSU scheduled those games for money.

I was talking more about a decision to play, say, a Prarie View type school for every nonconference game or scheduling a team like NDSU, Cal Poly, etc. Money isn't a factor in those decisions in any material way, but rather setting up a game with a quality opponent.

That sort of thing shouldn't be discouraged, but ignoring the strength of the teams one loses to for playoff consideration would have exactly that effect. Everybody would just play stiffs ... and maybe one money game.

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:28 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobcatBulldog wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobcatBulldog wrote:At this point I am no longer talking about the Bobcats, I am saying that no team should ever be awarded for who they loose to. Maybe penalized but never every rewarded.

a Loss is a loss is a loss
Using that rationale, though, why would any team ever schedule a tough nonconference game? Everybody would just schedule creampuffs for every game. I think such a system would lead to a lot of really bad schedules and boring games.
You are right my friend, but there is one more factor. Money, that is the reason that we schedule Colorado, A&M, Minnesota, ect, ect, ect. That is the balancing act that the AD has to play, between getting the 7 or 8 wins that we need and making the books balance. The motivation for scheduling a 1A loss for lack of a better way to put it is Money, always has been always will be. That is the reason AD's will continue to schedule them. I guaranteed that PSU scheduled those games for money.
I was talking more about a decision to play, say, a Prarie View type school for every nonconference game or scheduling a team like NDSU, Cal Poly, etc. Money isn't a factor in those decisions in any material way, but rather setting up a game with a quality opponent.

That sort of thing shouldn't be discouraged, but ignoring the strength of the teams one loses to for playoff consideration would have exactly that effect. Everybody would just play stiffs ... and maybe one money game.

I will make you a deal,
We will just win on Saturday and then not even worry about it.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:31 pm

Well, yeah ... I just thought that was assumed. This is all theoretical talk.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:36 pm

BobcatBulldog wrote:No smack taken.
I agree completely we should be penalized but should PSU be rewarded for that loss.

The discussion about "rewarding" a team for a loss vs. "penalizing" them for a loss is really semantics though, isn't it?

It's not a question of "rewarding" PSU for its two I-A losses; it's just a question of comparing teams and evaluating who had the better season.

If we're comparing PSU's season with MSU's, we have to compare PSU's losses to Cal and Oregon with MSU's losses to Chadron State and UC Davis. If you look at those four games objectively, you'd have to agree that MSU's losses are "worse" in the eyes of the committee than PSU's, yes? Acknowledging that reality is not really "rewarding" PSU for its schedule; it's just a question of comparing teams' seasons.

And just so I'm clear -- I'm not necessarily saying that PSU definitely deserves the nod over MSU if MSU loses on Saturday; MSU does have the head-to-head win, and that has to count for something. I'm only throwing my .02 worth in on the current discussion about "rewarding" teams for losses to top I-A teams. I don't think that's really what's going on; it's just a matter of comparing teams based on their entire seasons.

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:40 pm

Ok how about this

You get credit for Win's and Strength of schedule, and you get penalized for losses

So if you schedule nothing but cream puffs and win them all your Strength of schedule will suck but winning all your games no matter who you are that is impressive, but, if you loose one of those you are hurt bad. But if you schedule a 1A team and loose it does not hurt your GPI near as much, but It does not help it.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:52 pm

BobcatBulldog wrote:Ok how about this

You get credit for Win's and Strength of schedule, and you get penalized for losses

So if you schedule nothing but cream puffs and win them all your Strength of schedule will suck but winning all your games no matter who you are that is impressive, but, if you loose one of those you are hurt bad. But if you schedule a 1A team and loose it does not hurt your GPI near as much, but It does not help it.

I dunno...we could talk about this till the cows come home (not that I'd mind; at this time of year, I could pretty much talk football all day).

Personally, I think there is a reason why the system is as imprecise and subjective as it is. Every situation is different; it's impossible to come up with a exact "formula" that is always going to give us the best eight teams to fill the at-large spots in the bracket. If we try to make absolute rules like people here are trying to do, we're going to end up with bizarre, BCS-type results, so personally, I don't mind having a little of the human element in the decision process.

The reality is, if the Cats lose, the selection committee will be having the exact same conversation we're having right now, and they'll make a decision. I don't know which way it will go, but frankly, I'm not sure either team has much room to gripe if they don't get in, as they're both responsible for the position they're in (PSU for being dumb enough to schedule three I-A games, and MSU for not taking care of business in September -- not smack, just the truth).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:54 pm

BobcatBulldog wrote:Ok how about this

You get credit for Win's and Strength of schedule, and you get penalized for losses

So if you schedule nothing but cream puffs and win them all your Strength of schedule will suck but winning all your games no matter who you are that is impressive, but, if you loose one of those you are hurt bad. But if you schedule a 1A team and loose it does not hurt your GPI near as much, but It does not help it.

That would give us the exact same answer. Two teams with identical records, and both have the exact same SOS in their victories. However, one team lost to Notre Dame, USC, and Texas, while the other team lost to Montana, Western Montana College, and Prairie View.

Both teams are penalized for losing those three games ... but the team that played the tougher teams is penalized less ... and therefore is ranked higher.

We are back to a semantics game. Was that team "rewarded" for losing those games, or were they just penalized less for losing to better teams?

Platinumcat · Post by **Platinumcat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:25 pm

The discussion that's taking place on this thread seems to me to be very close to what must happpen in the selection committee meetings.

IMO, I think that strength of schedule must play a role in the conversation. But, I think that how the teams did in those losses must also play a role. For example NDSU's loss to Minnesota, should elevate them. But, losing by 40-50 to Cal should probably at least cancel out the positive strength of schedule arguement due to the fact that they were killed. The same should be true for the Bobcats. We should be elevated pretty high for our win vs Colorado. But, the loss to Chadron and the loss to UC Davis should sink us below what we gained against Colorado.

In that sense, I agree with Grizlaw that it would be very difficult to come up with a set guideline as there are too many scenarios to try and "blanket" cover everything.

I also think the committee should look at when these positives and negatives for teams took place. Because MSU's happened early, and they've won six straight, including a win over PSU in head to head matchup, I would consider them a hotter team over PSU. So, perhaps that helps in sending us to the playoffs over them. But, does it send us over an 8-3 team? An 11-0 team with a weak schedule?

Can you imagine how tense it must get in that meeting at times?

083190 · Post by **083190** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:26 pm

Shouldn't it always come down to head to head. That's the first tie breaker in every sport. Why should it be different for selection in the 1-AA Playoffs. The Basketball Tourney loks at head to head as a primary criteria. In the end the NCAA is about money. If the Cats outbid PSU they may get in, if it comes down to those two. The conference should be more proactive for MSU though. Don't just sell PSU.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:37 pm

083190 wrote:Shouldn't it always come down to head to head. That's the first tie breaker in every sport. Why should it be different for selection in the 1-AA Playoffs. The Basketball Tourney loks at head to head as a primary criteria. In the end the NCAA is about money. If the Cats outbid PSU they may get in, if it comes down to those two. The conference should be more proactive for MSU though. Don't just sell PSU.

But in the basketball tourney, you're comparing teams from the same conference, who have played the same conference schedule and have identical conference records. In that context, it makes sense to only look at the head-to-head result. You can't really rely on that, though, when you're comparing teams that played radically different schedules, as is the case in choosing at-large I-AA playoff teams.

083190 · Post by **083190** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:48 pm

You lost me a little bit, type slower so that I can keep up! Did Portland State play a different conference schedule? NO. Are they in a different conference now?-NO. If MSU loses would the conference records be different?-NO. Unless one of those things happened while I was asleep last night, then as you said, head to head matters.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:57 pm

083190 wrote:You lost me a little bit, type slower so that I can keep up! Did Portland State play a different conference schedule? NO. Are they in a different conference now?-NO. If MSU loses would the conference records be different?-NO. Unless one of those things happened while I was asleep last night, then as you said, head to head matters.

Ok, per your instructions, I will type slower.

We're not comparing PSU and MSU for the conference auto-bid here; we're comparing them for an at-large selection. If we were comparing them for the conference auto-bid, then yes, it would make sense for the head-to-head meeting to be the deciding factor, because the auto-bid is decided based solely on conference records.

Since we're comparing the two for an at-large berth, though, we have to look at both teams' entire schedules, including non-conference games. Thus, the fact that MSU's nonconference losses are "worse" than Portland State's nonconference losses is relevant, as is the fact that Portland State's nonconference schedule was much tougher than MSU's. The head-to-head result is relevant also. Which one is "more" relevant? I don't know; we'll see what the committee decides.

Did that make more sense?

083190 · Post by **083190** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:09 pm

So if the schools play the same conference schedule, but play different out of conference schedules as everyone does(like in the basketball tourney) then the head to head is not relevant. Or at least not as relevant. Thus, it would make sense for 1-AA teams to play 3 money games, grab the money, get their teeth kicked in, pay the dentist and head off to play their conference games. This is what comes of leaving your fate in the hands of a committe.

Thanks for taking your time with me GL. You are an inspiration!

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:14 pm

083190 wrote:Thus, it would make sense for 1-AA teams to play 3 money games, grab the money, get their teeth kicked in, pay the dentist and head off to play their conference games.

Well, not really. Portland State wouldn't be in the running at all if the Cats had beaten either Chadron or UC Davis. In that case, the Cats would be finishing 8-3 (after their loss to the Griz

), and at that point, pretty much everybody would agree that the Cats deserved the nod over PSU.

GreenDay17 · Post by **GreenDay17** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:57 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
083190 wrote:Thus, it would make sense for 1-AA teams to play 3 money games, grab the money, get their teeth kicked in, pay the dentist and head off to play their conference games.
Well, not really. Portland State wouldn't be in the running at all if the Cats had beaten either Chadron or UC Davis. In that case, the Cats would be finishing 8-3 (after their loss to the Griz ), and at that point, pretty much everybody would agree that the Cats deserved the nod over PSU.

Exactly GL.

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:20 pm

GreenDay17 wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:
083190 wrote:Thus, it would make sense for 1-AA teams to play 3 money games, grab the money, get their teeth kicked in, pay the dentist and head off to play their conference games.
Well, not really. Portland State wouldn't be in the running at all if the Cats had beaten either Chadron or UC Davis. In that case, the Cats would be finishing 8-3 (after their loss to the Griz ), and at that point, pretty much everybody would agree that the Cats deserved the nod over PSU.
Exactly GL.

Let me make sure I get this straight, It better to have a team that scheduled losses to 1A programs and lost to MSU, than MSU who lost to Chadron and UC Davis, but beat PSU, and has a six game winning streak,

I guess if thats the case, whats more important, who else you loose to or your head to head matchup.

Also just for the hell of it who wins today MSU or PSU, because I think the team that has a better chance of winning the championship in December should be the one playing

GreenDay17 · Post by **GreenDay17** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:30 pm

BobcatBulldog wrote:
Let me make sure I get this straight, It better to have a team that scheduled losses to 1A programs and lost to MSU, than MSU who lost to Chadron and UC Davis, but beat PSU, and has a six game winning streak,
Don't forget that MSU also lost to EWU. MSU's losses are much worse than PSU's. Neither UCD or EWU have winning records.

I guess if thats the case whats more important who else you loose to or your head to head matchup. Also just for the hell of it who wins today MSU or PSU, because I think the team that has a better chance of winning the championship in December should be the one playing

From my perspective PSU wins today. The MSU game was by far the worst showing by PSU in a loss this season, and they played the game with both their QB and TB in their first game coming off of significant injuries.