Portland State

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:08 pm

Can someone please explain to me why Portland States GPI is so much better then ours? I don't get it 7 wins vs. 7 wins.

Htowngriz · Post by **Htowngriz** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:14 pm

Just a guess, but probably because they played New Mexico, Cal and Oregon, and beat New Mexico

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:16 pm

Because they played 3 I-A schools this year ... including two that are currently ranked in the top 25:

Cal
Oregon
New Mexico

Their schedule is probably stronger than many non-BSC I-A schools this season.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:16 pm

Essentially it's because they played all D-I games including 3 D-1A teams (they won one), so their SOS (Strength of Schedule) was high.

GPI ratings generally come out on Tues. afternoon, so tomorrow should have new numbers.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:22 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Because they played 3 I-A schools this year ... including two that are currently ranked in the top 25:

Cal
Oregon
New Mexico

Their schedule is probably stronger than many non-BSC I-A schools this season.

That, and both Cal and Oregon are in the 1-A Top 25...

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:41 am

God is that Stupid

Because they got there @ss kicked by good teams they deserve to get in, yes we lost to Div 2 but a loss is a loss is a loss. If someone wins against a Div 2 it doesn't count.

F$%k it next year lets schedule USC, Michigan, and Florida. Our strength of schedule will have us at #1. Why can't people just sit around a table and use common sense to let teams in. Just because we have computers doesn't mean that we need to use them.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:09 am

BobcatBulldog wrote:God is that Stupid

Because they got there @ss kicked by good teams they deserve to get in, yes we lost to Div 2 but a loss is a loss is a loss. If someone wins against a Div 2 it doesn't count.

F$%k it next year lets schedule USC, Michigan, and Florida. Our strength of schedule will have us at #1. Why can't people just sit around a table and use common sense to let teams in. Just because we have computers doesn't mean that we need to use them.

Well ... I think the system has some merit. Otherwise, San Diego is the best team in the country. If you play a tougher schedule, the results are that much more impressive. If you remove those two I-A teams that they lost to (and had virtually no chance to beat) and replace them with some easy games, they likely only end up with 2 losses at this point.

STREETCAT · Post by **STREETCAT** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:12 am

The Committe has already stated that they will take into effect the teams that have betten a higher ranked GPI team during the season.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:15 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Because they played 3 I-A schools this year ... including two that are currently ranked in the top 25:

Cal
Oregon
New Mexico

Their schedule is probably stronger than many non-BSC I-A schools this season.

Yeah, but they got pasted by those 2 (WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE!). You shouldn't get CREDIT for a 1-A BIG LOSS MONEY GAME! It is there fault for scheduling that many. Give credit for wins, not losses! If this is the case, I want MSU to play 2-3 1-A money games and win one of them and lose 2 (still be in our same situation this year) but be getting CREDIT for our 2 losses to 1-A even though they got spanked by both.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:09 am

CARDIAC_CATS wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Because they played 3 I-A schools this year ... including two that are currently ranked in the top 25:

Cal
Oregon
New Mexico

Their schedule is probably stronger than many non-BSC I-A schools this season.
Yeah, but they got pasted by those 2 (WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE!). You shouldn't get CREDIT for a 1-A BIG LOSS MONEY GAME! It is there fault for scheduling that many. Give credit for wins, not losses! If this is the case, I want MSU to play 2-3 1-A money games and win one of them and lose 2 (still be in our same situation this year) but be getting CREDIT for our 2 losses to 1-A even though they got spanked by both.

I'm not sure they are getting credit for the losses, per se. But the fact remains that if they had not taken those two guaranteed losses and instead played a couple directional Oregon schools instead, they would have a much better record.

They shouldn't be penalized for opting to play a tough schedule. We all will agree when we are arguing that the loss to A&M shouldn't count against us when we are talking about playoff seeding.

grizdoc · Post by **grizdoc** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:26 am

What does this have to do with Bobcat Athletics? Is it the case that threads mentioning the griz are moved?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:44 am

grizdoc wrote:What does this have to do with Bobcat Athletics? Is it the case that threads mentioning the griz are moved?

This is a thread discussing the relevance/methodology of the relative SOS for MSU and PSU.

Do you have any other misguided critiques of the moderators that you'd like to share at this time, or are you set for now?

DriftCat · Post by **DriftCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:45 am

grizdoc wrote:What does this have to do with Bobcat Athletics? Is it the case that threads mentioning the griz are moved?

You are right this really has nothing to do with the Cats because we are going to smoke the griz and get the auto bid anyway.

Well now it will get moved...........
SMACK

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:45 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
CARDIAC_CATS wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Because they played 3 I-A schools this year ... including two that are currently ranked in the top 25:

Cal
Oregon
New Mexico

Their schedule is probably stronger than many non-BSC I-A schools this season.
Yeah, but they got pasted by those 2 (WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE!). You shouldn't get CREDIT for a 1-A BIG LOSS MONEY GAME! It is there fault for scheduling that many. Give credit for wins, not losses! If this is the case, I want MSU to play 2-3 1-A money games and win one of them and lose 2 (still be in our same situation this year) but be getting CREDIT for our 2 losses to 1-A even though they got spanked by both.
I'm not sure they are getting credit for the losses, per se. But the fact remains that if they had not taken those two guaranteed losses and instead played a couple directional Oregon schools instead, they would have a much better record.

They shouldn't be penalized for opting to play a tough schedule. We all will agree when we are arguing that the loss to A&M shouldn't count against us when we are talking about playoff seeding.

Yes they are getting credit for those losses, because it improves there strength of schedule, otherwise there is no way they would be ranked ahead of us. Also you can't just give them two more wins because they loss to 1A teams, they could have had 2 1AA losses, they could have lost to Cal Poly, or UC Davis, or one of a hundred other teams.

All I am saying that programs should not get credit for scheduling a loss against a 1A team, because to me that is the same thing as scheduling a Win against a Div 2 team and you don't get credit for that in the eyes of the selection committee.

Here is my suggestion for Calculating the GPI, take into account only the teams that you beat for strength of schedule, nobody should every get credit for getting beat by any other team

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:48 am

I agree that ignoring the strength of schedule of the games we lost this season would definitely help us out ... especially considering that the teams we lost to were among the weakest ones on our schedule. For this year alone, I like your approach.

In any other year, I don't want MSU to be penalized for stepping up and playing tough teams as opposed to playing a patsy schedule for easy wins and fewer losses.

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:51 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:So if a team only wins one game, but that one game is against a good team, then they would have a stellar GPI?

We put a man on the moon, we defeated communism, we surely can weight the GPI appropriately to take into account both # of wins and quality of wins.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:52 am

BobcatBulldog wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:So if a team only wins one game, but that one game is against a good team, then they would have a stellar GPI?
We put a man on the moon, we defeated communism, we surely can weight the GPI appropriately to take into account both # of wins and quality of wins.

You're fast ... you caught my quote before I changed the whole post.

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:56 am

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

BobcatBulldog · Post by **BobcatBulldog** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:56 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobcatBulldog wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:So if a team only wins one game, but that one game is against a good team, then they would have a stellar GPI?
We put a man on the moon, we defeated communism, we surely can weight the GPI appropriately to take into account both # of wins and quality of wins.
You're fast ... you caught my quote before I changed the whole post.

Really slow day at work, but thanks

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:07 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

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.