Boise State being snubbed by BCS

[WoVeU]

..fanatic,

Your only point made that was very close to what I was making a point for was Duke. Not quite Bot 12 (also in a BCS conference) and Duke was plying a bit better ball than 94th at that point.

You can't dig up match-ups that I missed for the bottom 10 to 12 FBS vs top 12 FCS, because I looked at them all. I KNOW what the general FCS -vs- FBS looks like, but that is not a finite examination. If the picture was true for hat some of you guys are trying to paint...teams could not make the jump from FCS to FBS and survive and App St. even at #1 FCS could not beat a top tier FBS school like Michigan ! That would be like winning the lottery in Ohio, Kentucky, and WV all in 1 month. I am rather comfortable in saying the top 10 FCS teams are generally far ahead of the rest...kind of like the FBS 1-6 skip to 10th or 11th and compared to the rest.

And also think about when the FCS schools play the FBS schools...early...very early...when depth of bench is huge when players are still getting their game legs. And dropping down to play the #22 FCS school (Texas State) just adds to the effect. The difference, this year, in opening against a #4 N. Iowa rather than a 22 Texas State is about the same difference as opening with Texas rather than...well...Virginia Tech. Or BC, or WMU. There are many schools that can beat these latter teams...but Texas...only a lucky few could do that!

[Eric]

I'd say as a rule that FCS teams can't compete due to scholarship limits and the fact that they just don't get the same caliber athletes. I do believe though that the top tier of the FCS (and I'm not only counting teams with winning records like Texas State and Charleston Southern) can compete with the bottom tier of the FBS. I'm not even saying they're better as a whole, just that they are even. I mean, on a neutral field, I bet Kent State could beat James Madison, but the Dukes probably have the better team. Richmond is probably better than UAB. Just my two cents

[..fanatic]

Look at the bottom 10 to 12 FBS teams (say CBS 120 poll) then compare those to the Top 10 to 12 FCS teams. I'd think you are looking at close to even teams.

This what I was responding to. Evidence does not prove it to be correct. You did, however, state it as just an opinion - and I do understand the spirit of the post - I just don't see the same answer when I parse the data.

At any rate - MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!

[..fanatic]

By the way - interesting Meineke Car Care Bowl game going on right now - it's halftime as I am posting this.

[RazorHawk]

By the way - interesting Meineke Car Care Bowl game going on right now - it's halftime as I am posting this.

The phantom safety was the difference at the half. WVU now up by 1 point though.

[..fanatic]

Yeah, I forgot about that phantom safety. How did that ever stand?

[winter_kills_stuff]

There is overlap between the top of one division and the bottom of another...

Paul Simon said it best when he sang...."one man's ceiling is another man's floor"

As ...fanatic has clearly stated, there isn't much overlap, hardly any, almost none. It isn't open to interpretation, either.
SDSU lost to a pretty decent Cal-Poly team, a team that took Wisconsin to the wire, but lost in OT, to finish their season. 1-1 vs. BCS opponents.
One team was competitive. I don't really think it makes a lot of sense to use that as some sort of basis of comparison, myself. Just admit you're wrong.

[WoVeU]

It isn't open to interpretation...from the other side!

You don't read. There were 2 games between the lower FBS and the upper FCS I commented on, 10 - 12 teams. The FCS teams won both games!!!

I showed the other team and scores against common teams from the FCS to show there were teams in the FCS that were better, performed better than the 2 teams that pulled this and a few teams right there with those 2. Then I showed the opposition that much of the FBS's huge edge in match-ups with the FCS were built on. Mid-FBS against mid-FCS (and slightly below mid-FCS) would characterize it well resulted in that record...which is what I'd expect if you played a general cross-over and even FBS teams playing 10 rankings higher in the FCS.

People form their opinions and stick to them, even if they have to bend statements, distort facts, or just simple scream NO in he face of evidence to the contrary! This is why we live in a world where problems only get worse rather than solved.

[billybud]

Winter doesn't know which is FBS and FCS...I think.

He has everything backward...so my guess is that it isn't your data he doesn't get...he has just reversed the results..

Now..Ktffan did a run from 1998-2005 (on Mid ajor thread) and found that Division II teams beat FBS Non-BCS teams at a slightly higher rate than those FBS Non-BCS teams beat BCS conference teams..both were in the range of winning 19% of the matches.

[WoVeU]

Winter doesn't know which is FBS and FCS...I think.

He has everything backward...so my guess is that it isn't your data he doesn't get...he has just reversed the results..

Now..Ktffan did a run from 1998-2005 (on Mid ajor thread) and found that Division II teams beat FBS Non-BCS teams at a slightly higher rate than those FBS Non-BB teams beat BCS conference teams..both were in the range of winning 19% of the matches.

What bothers me is that I went in in and apparently wasted 4 hours of my time. I was not partisan to either side of the debate...but decided to compare what data I could find. My only assumption was that the bottom of FBS would be comparable to the top FCS teams. I wasn't sure where that line of demarcation would be so I assumed around the 10th percentile. And I only formed a hypothesis in order to allow a study...as you simply have to. I was prepared to see anything from the top 2 or 3 of the FCS would be some what or just short of competitive with the FBS bottom 3 or 4...up to the top 15 or 16 would be competitive with the bottom 16 FBS (16 from, 3 really bad BCS Conf. teams (1 per 2 Conf.) and then about 2 per non-BCS Conf.)

I was a little surprised to find the middle ground 10 or 12 teams was just about dead-on. The reason I was only a little surprised is that this follows the natural order of hierarchial systems. If you divide a massive system into 3 or 4 parts, and within those parts you have a good size populace...and within the populace of the 1st and 2nd tier you have a notable range of ability...then it readily allows that the bottom of the 1st and the top of the 2nd will be comparable. Especially when you consider that the ability in this case (how good a team is) takes in a wealth of factors, it gives even more allowance towards equality.

The sample set for the final hypothesis was small, 2 games. So I then have to find measures to show that the teams around the FBS and FCS schools in question were comparable to the schools we had a sample of. (What you are kind of looking to find is; 1) Are the 2 FCS winners really the best FCS schools and they suffered from playing higher competition...they did not and the FCS play-off backed up the regular season data. 2) Are the 2 FBS schools in question really the very worst of the FBS, bottom 2 or 3....came back no as well.

The data shows what the data shows...I had nothing in it one way or the other, because I stopped to look before running a campaign on opinion and speculation. You will never find one post where I submit accolades for some lower division school...I have no dog in the hunt! You will never find a post where I defamed and hated on poor performing FBS schools. I think I was as unbiased as you get.

[winter_kills_stuff]

What bothers me is that I went in in and apparently wasted 4 hours of my time.

And ours as well. You didn't prove anything at all, except that you have very limited ability to comprehend the truth. 2/87 games isn't clear-cut evidence of anything at all.

I was a little surprised to find the middle ground 10 or 12 teams was just about dead-on. The reason I was only a little surprised is that this follows the natural order of hierarchial systems. If you divide a massive system into 3 or 4 parts, and within those parts you have a good size populace...and within the populace of the 1st and 2nd tier you have a notable range of ability...then it readily allows that the bottom of the 1st and the top of the 2nd will be comparable. Especially when you consider that the ability in this case (how good a team is) takes in a wealth of factors, it gives even more allowance towards equality.

Again, you have exactly two instances of FCS superiority, compared to 85 instances of FBS superiority. Even if you 'parse' them, the odds favor the FBS over the FCS by a considerable margin.

The sample set for the final hypothesis was small, 2 games. So I then have to find measures to show that the teams around the FBS and FCS schools in question were comparable to the schools we had a sample of. (What you are kind of looking to find is; 1) Are the 2 FCS winners really the best FCS schools and they suffered from playing higher competition...they did not and the FCS play-off backed up the regular season data. 2) Are the 2 FBS schools in question really the very worst of the FBS, bottom 2 or 3....came back no as well.

If those two teams weren't the worst two, they were close! SDSU fired their head coach (Chuck Long) after giving him an extension. Stan Brock was replaced by Rich Ellerson, who was Cal Poly's head coach.

The data shows what the data shows...I had nothing in it one way or the other, because I stopped to look before running a campaign on opinion and speculation. You will never find one post where I submit accolades for some lower division school...I have no dog in the hunt! You will never find a post where I defamed and hated on poor performing FBS schools. I think I was as unbiased as you get.

Your bias is pretty evident in how you interpret the data you collect. I'm not alone in this assessment. I think anyone with any brains would agree that there isn't much to support your hypothesis.

[billybud]

All Ktffan did was run the data...data is data, the record is the record.

You may not be convinced by the record...you may be one of those people who think that you can survive jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without an open parachute...the heck with the record of those who don't survive such a happening vs those who do.

But facts are facts...and just because you want to believe something different, maybe even a fairyland fantasy, doesn't make it so.

But continue on in THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE..second star to the right and straight on until morning. The rest of us know that the existing record speaks strongly to probability.

[Spence]

Billybud is right. You couldn't really dispute ktffan's numbers, I checked and they were spot on. You may interpret them one way or another, but the numbers are the numbers and his were the correct numbers.

[WoVeU]

WInter...let's make sure we are on the same page.

I stated that the bottom 10 to 12 FBS team are equal to the top 10 to 12 FCS teams. There is no way I'd say the FCS and FBS are equal...not even close!

[winter_kills_stuff]

Billybud is right. You couldn't really dispute ktffan's numbers, I checked and they were spot on. You may interpret them one way or another, but the numbers are the numbers and his were the correct numbers.

You can have your own opinion on the matter. But, I, for one, wasn't convinced of his procedures, nor what he pretended to know.
Many of supposed facts presented were misleading. But not all. Nevertheless, I won't force you to take my side of the debate. Arrive at your own conclusion, but do it with an open mind, if you please.
Whether or not we agree on how competitive non-BCS teams are, the facts are still there to support my postion. I've presented only a few of them, each of which I feel has validity. Some likely more than others.
But I will not simply stand by and allow prejudice to infiltrate this website, unfettered. We all have a right to say what we feel, as long as we do it respectfully, and I believe I've done a decent job of that.