(10-10-2014 10:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:14 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Dude, the coach's polls and AP voters "say" the same things. The Harris poll voters made a big thing about those talking points, then ended up with the same results. This is what you are ignoring, while relying on soundbites. when history shows that every human poll has the same results, and we have a new system with... a new human poll, expecting any other result is insane. Despite the soundbites (which are damn near repeated from Harris poll voters).

It is not insane to claim we don't know because THIS POLL WITH THESE VOTERS hasn't been done before. When criteria, process, and procedure, changes, results may or may not stay the same. It's not sound bytes. Read the selection criteria. Truth is, you nor I, know how it will shake out. If past polls with a differing criteria that have been specifically mentioned as having no consequence on this poll give you a false sense of security in prognostication, go with it. If you are struggling with why your opinion is not automatically accepted as fact, I can't really offer anything more than I have already.

Actually, yes it is insane when EVERY OTHER HUMAN POLL HAS COME UP WITH THE SAME RESULTS. Also as pointed out above, the CFB website does not actually list the criteria you are quoting as how they will select teams. In the end, they will select them via their poll. And to date, every human college football poll has produced the same general results, with each team being within 3-4 spots of each other (most within 1-2 spots), the same top 4 or 5 teams every time, and the same trends with regards to undefeated teams. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, to assume, think, or predict that their poll will look any different.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine. This human poll hasn't been done before. The composure of the voters is different. The criteria has been stated as different. WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL BE DECIDED, BUT WE HAVE THE CRITERIA. I won't go into details, but you really are struggling with understanding the quote you are using. Einstein was a scientist. He was very aware that changing variables could change outcomes. He understood that changing variables was not doing the same thing.

(10-10-2014 12:19 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 10:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:14 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Dude, the coach's polls and AP voters "say" the same things. The Harris poll voters made a big thing about those talking points, then ended up with the same results. This is what you are ignoring, while relying on soundbites. when history shows that every human poll has the same results, and we have a new system with... a new human poll, expecting any other result is insane. Despite the soundbites (which are damn near repeated from Harris poll voters).

It is not insane to claim we don't know because THIS POLL WITH THESE VOTERS hasn't been done before. When criteria, process, and procedure, changes, results may or may not stay the same. It's not sound bytes. Read the selection criteria. Truth is, you nor I, know how it will shake out. If past polls with a differing criteria that have been specifically mentioned as having no consequence on this poll give you a false sense of security in prognostication, go with it. If you are struggling with why your opinion is not automatically accepted as fact, I can't really offer anything more than I have already.

Actually, yes it is insane when EVERY OTHER HUMAN POLL HAS COME UP WITH THE SAME RESULTS. Also as pointed out above, the CFB website does not actually list the criteria you are quoting as how they will select teams. In the end, they will select them via their poll. And to date, every human college football poll has produced the same general results, with each team being within 3-4 spots of each other (most within 1-2 spots), the same top 4 or 5 teams every time, and the same trends with regards to undefeated teams. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, to assume, think, or predict that their poll will look any different.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine. This human poll hasn't been done before. The composure of the voters is different. The criteria has been stated as different. WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL BE DECIDED, BUT WE HAVE THE CRITERIA. I won't go into details, but you really are struggling with understanding the quote you are using. Einstein was a scientist. He was very aware that changing variables could change outcomes. He understood that changing variables was not doing the same thing.

Nobody has said the criteria will be different. Every poll voter has always been free to use whatever criteria he feels are appropriate, and so will every member of the selection committee. The only things that are different are that there will be fewer voters on the selection committee, and they will each be allowed to try to persuade other members to their point of view.

As for the composition of the committee being different, the only significant difference is the names of the members. Otherwise, they pretty much come from the same constituencies as other polls.

(10-10-2014 12:19 PM)WEARE Wrote:  You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine.

In this case, it's not really about opinion. You are claiming how different it is, when it fact, it has been proven that it isn't. Then you keep saying "this poll will be different," and you attempt to provide proof. That is not an opinion: it is an attempt to establish fact.

Quote:This human poll hasn't been done before. The composure of the voters is different.

No it is not. It is near identical to the Harris Poll set up, both in who votes, and the supposed values they would take into account for. The only difference is the Harris poll has a larger group of pollsters.

Quote:The criteria has been stated as different.

No it is not. This is the part you are missing. You should probably study up on the previous polls before making that comment.

Quote: WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL BE DECIDED, BUT WE HAVE THE CRITERIA. I won't go into details, but you really are struggling with understanding the quote you are using. Einstein was a scientist. He was very aware that changing variables could change outcomes. He understood that changing variables was not doing the same thing.

I am not struggling at all. It fits to a T. I tried to avoid labeling you the answer to the riddle, but it is in fact true. Just remember this: The NCAA tournament selection committee establishes the grand guidelines for seeding the tournament and placing teams, and how they don't pay attention to the polls.

Then year after year, teams are seeded in near identical slots as their AP ranking would put them. Again, you are the one missing the boat here. And there mere fact that the committee is actually issuing a poll, that they will update weekly, takes this "opinion" you state you are entitled to out of the equation. It IS the exact same set up as before, where all things are decided by a poll. And since all human polls inevitably come up with the same results, nothing will change.

And if the BCS is any indication, if the committee poll DOES differ from the AP and coach's poll, they will change the system so that next year it does reflect the AP/Coach's poll. Just as they did each year when the BCS poll rank did not agree with the AP poll. Again, it is a system designed to perpetuate the elimination of media bias, but in the end, the same biases will and do exist. And that is that at the end of the day, everything is based off the pre-season AP poll, and how the result affect those initial rankings.

That will not change. That is not an opinion. That is an observation of how it has worked for the last 30 years.

(10-10-2014 12:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:19 PM)WEARE Wrote:  You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine.

In this case, it's not really about opinion. You are claiming how different it is, when it fact, it has been proven that it isn't. Then you keep saying "this poll will be different," and you attempt to provide proof. That is not an opinion: it is an attempt to establish fact.

Quote:This human poll hasn't been done before. The composure of the voters is different.

No it is not. It is near identical to the Harris Poll set up, both in who votes, and the supposed values they would take into account for. The only difference is the Harris poll has a larger group of pollsters.

Quote:The criteria has been stated as different.

No it is not. This is the part you are missing. You should probably study up on the previous polls before making that comment.

Quote: WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL BE DECIDED, BUT WE HAVE THE CRITERIA. I won't go into details, but you really are struggling with understanding the quote you are using. Einstein was a scientist. He was very aware that changing variables could change outcomes. He understood that changing variables was not doing the same thing.

I am not struggling at all. It fits to a T. I tried to avoid labeling you the answer to the riddle, but it is in fact true. Just remember this: The NCAA tournament selection committee establishes the grand guidelines for seeding the tournament and placing teams, and how they don't pay attention to the polls.

Then year after year, teams are seeded in near identical slots as their AP ranking would put them. Again, you are the one missing the boat here. And there mere fact that the committee is actually issuing a poll, that they will update weekly, takes this "opinion" you state you are entitled to out of the equation. It IS the exact same set up as before, where all things are decided by a poll. And since all human polls inevitably come up with the same results, nothing will change.

And if the BCS is any indication, if the committee poll DOES differ from the AP and coach's poll, they will change the system so that next year it does reflect the AP/Coach's poll. Just as they did each year when the BCS poll rank did not agree with the AP poll. Again, it is a system designed to perpetuate the elimination of media bias, but in the end, the same biases will and do exist. And that is that at the end of the day, everything is based off the pre-season AP poll, and how the result affect those initial rankings.

That will not change. That is not an opinion. That is an observation of how it has worked for the last 30 years.

The Bowl Committee poll cannot differ too much from the AP poll because then they will open themselves up to ridicule from the press.

I don't think I have ever wanted a team to lose as much as Marshall. I don't even care who makes it to the Access Bowl as long as it's not Marshall.

God, Middle Tenn do all of college football a favor and beat them.

(10-10-2014 01:10 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 12:19 PM)WEARE Wrote:  You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine.

In this case, it's not really about opinion. You are claiming how different it is, when it fact, it has been proven that it isn't. Then you keep saying "this poll will be different," and you attempt to provide proof. That is not an opinion: it is an attempt to establish fact.

Quote:This human poll hasn't been done before. The composure of the voters is different.

No it is not. It is near identical to the Harris Poll set up, both in who votes, and the supposed values they would take into account for. The only difference is the Harris poll has a larger group of pollsters.

Quote:The criteria has been stated as different.

No it is not. This is the part you are missing. You should probably study up on the previous polls before making that comment.

Quote: WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL BE DECIDED, BUT WE HAVE THE CRITERIA. I won't go into details, but you really are struggling with understanding the quote you are using. Einstein was a scientist. He was very aware that changing variables could change outcomes. He understood that changing variables was not doing the same thing.

I am not struggling at all. It fits to a T. I tried to avoid labeling you the answer to the riddle, but it is in fact true. Just remember this: The NCAA tournament selection committee establishes the grand guidelines for seeding the tournament and placing teams, and how they don't pay attention to the polls.

Then year after year, teams are seeded in near identical slots as their AP ranking would put them. Again, you are the one missing the boat here. And there mere fact that the committee is actually issuing a poll, that they will update weekly, takes this "opinion" you state you are entitled to out of the equation. It IS the exact same set up as before, where all things are decided by a poll. And since all human polls inevitably come up with the same results, nothing will change.

And if the BCS is any indication, if the committee poll DOES differ from the AP and coach's poll, they will change the system so that next year it does reflect the AP/Coach's poll. Just as they did each year when the BCS poll rank did not agree with the AP poll. Again, it is a system designed to perpetuate the elimination of media bias, but in the end, the same biases will and do exist. And that is that at the end of the day, everything is based off the pre-season AP poll, and how the result affect those initial rankings.

That will not change. That is not an opinion. That is an observation of how it has worked for the last 30 years.

The Bowl Committee poll cannot differ too much from the AP poll because then they will open themselves up to ridicule from the press.

Exactly. That is essentially what happened to the early BCS polls. The year USC was number one in. Both polls a be left out of the Bcs. They didn't conclude that he system they set up to remove media bias was wrong. They concluded the Bcs system was wrong since it got a different result and changed it to marginalized the computer polls so the final Bcs poll would mirror the AP and coach's poll. Thus the "system" would work. Same thing happened to the NCAA tournament selection committee.

(10-09-2014 12:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Dude, the coach's polls and AP voters "say" the same things. The Harris poll voters made a big thing about those talking points, then ended up with the same results. This is what you are ignoring, while relying on soundbites. when history shows that every human poll has the same results, and we have a new system with... a new human poll, expecting any other result is insane. Despite the soundbites (which are damn near repeated from Harris poll voters).

I have to disagree to a limited extent. It's true that the AP, Coaches, Harris, BCS polls or standings all have similar results, and that the committee poll will look a lot like these results.

But they don't have the same results, and so there's an argument to be had, based on what they've said in public, as to whether the committee poll will look more like the BCS or AP or Coaches poll results. In marginal cases like Marshall vs ECU, which looks sort of like Boise State vs Louisville, we don't know if the committee will act more like the BCS that rewarded the unbeaten team with the marshmallow schedule or more like the AP poll that favored the one-loss team with credibility-building games against big-time teams.

OF course, we won't have any reliable data on that until the committee poll comes out at the end of the month.

(10-10-2014 04:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I don't think I have ever wanted a team to lose as much as Marshall. I don't even care who makes it to the Access Bowl as long as it's not Marshall.

God, Middle Tenn do all of college football a favor and beat them.

I am not here pimping Marshall. I am actually not promoting any school. All I am saying is we don't know all the criteria and all the factors the committee will consider. Your personal opinion of Marshall is irrelevant to the discussion.

(10-11-2014 07:08 AM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 04:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I don't think I have ever wanted a team to lose as much as Marshall. I don't even care who makes it to the Access Bowl as long as it's not Marshall.

God, Middle Tenn do all of college football a favor and beat them.

I am not here pimping Marshall. I am actually not promoting any school. All I am saying is we don't know all the criteria and all the factors the committee will consider. Your personal opinion of Marshall is irrelevant to the discussion.

The way I read that post, I didn't think he expressed any opinion about Marshall.

(10-10-2014 04:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I don't think I have ever wanted a team to lose as much as Marshall. I don't even care who makes it to the Access Bowl as long as it's not Marshall.

God, Middle Tenn do all of college football a favor and beat them.

The more schools that get the Access Bowl the better it is for everybody because many think its just something that Boise State can do and not something that can be done at Troy or Georgia Southern.

I can remember talking 10 years ago at a sports bar with someone commenting that Boise State all of the sudden is on TV week and is like another Notre Dame. I don't think anyone considers Boise a peer of ND in football but a lot of them equate that program on par with Louisville and other ACC market programs.

Marshall had a few years in the MAC where it was worthy of an Access Bowl but didn't get one in that era.

Quote:Marshall had a few years in the MAC where it was worthy of an Access Bowl but didn't get one in that era.

Marshall was better in the MAC. After the MAC, Pruett left the team and they haven't been as good. IMO, if Marshall & W. Kentucky went to the MAC (as UMass is leaving the MAC; would Make MAC=14 teams) -- that would make the MAC Solidly better than CUSA, year in/year out.

BUT, if I'm running Marshall, I would rather be king of an easier that gets more TV exposure and a bit more money, where I'm sitting at currently anyway -- rather than toughening up another rival conference to make it more difficult for myself & no financial benefit.

(10-11-2014 12:02 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Marshall had a few years in the MAC where it was worthy of an Access Bowl but didn't get one in that era.

Marshall was better in the MAC. After the MAC, Pruett left the team and they haven't been as good. IMO, if Marshall & W. Kentucky went to the MAC (as UMass is leaving the MAC; would Make MAC=14 teams) -- that would make the MAC Solidly better than CUSA, year in/year out.

BUT, if I'm running Marshall, I would rather be king of an easier that gets more TV exposure and a bit more money, where I'm sitting at currently anyway -- rather than toughening up another rival conference to make it more difficult for myself & no financial benefit.

Not to mention losing their recruiting foothold in Florida.

Wee...

(10-11-2014 07:08 AM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 04:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I don't think I have ever wanted a team to lose as much as Marshall. I don't even care who makes it to the Access Bowl as long as it's not Marshall.

God, Middle Tenn do all of college football a favor and beat them.

I am not here pimping Marshall. I am actually not promoting any school. All I am saying is we don't know all the criteria and all the factors the committee will consider. Your personal opinion of Marshall is irrelevant to the discussion.

What?

(10-11-2014 05:05 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 07:08 AM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-10-2014 04:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I don't think I have ever wanted a team to lose as much as Marshall. I don't even care who makes it to the Access Bowl as long as it's not Marshall.

God, Middle Tenn do all of college football a favor and beat them.

I am not here pimping Marshall. I am actually not promoting any school. All I am saying is we don't know all the criteria and all the factors the committee will consider. Your personal opinion of Marshall is irrelevant to the discussion.

What?

So you read this thread, and you felt what you contributed was impactful? You are seriously struggling with understanding how it wasn't? Hate Marshall all you want. It won't impact the CFP selection. For the record, it didn't even impact the game against MT.

(10-11-2014 12:02 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Marshall had a few years in the MAC where it was worthy of an Access Bowl but didn't get one in that era.

Marshall was better in the MAC. After the MAC, Pruett left the team and they haven't been as good. IMO, if Marshall & W. Kentucky went to the MAC (as UMass is leaving the MAC; would Make MAC=14 teams) -- that would make the MAC Solidly better than CUSA, year in/year out.

BUT, if I'm running Marshall, I would rather be king of an easier that gets more TV exposure and a bit more money, where I'm sitting at currently anyway -- rather than toughening up another rival conference to make it more difficult for myself & no financial benefit.

The MAC is usually snobby about who it lets into the conference.

MAC schools are true residential campuses on large acreages. Average enrollment is around 25,000 students. They are classified as national universities in the US World News Report. Marshall has 14,000 students on a 100 acre campus. Western Kentucky has 21,000 students on a 200 acre campus. Both are smaller campuses for the MAC and their endowments are around 100 million (MAC average is about 300 million). Marshall and WKU do not have the academic profiles.

The MAC is trying to define itself more like the Mountain West as a unique regional conference that has some nationally competitive programs. Schools are aggressively building facilities. In some sports like Volleyball and Wrestling its one of the top conferences in the country. Football produces a lot of 10+ win teams over the years. Basketball can use some work but the commitment is improving.

If I had to pick 2 schools to join the MAC I would go with UIC and UMKC with their markets and research level. A couple of non-football members in the MAC that want to invest in basketball. The MAC would never allow non-football schools though.

Another week in the books.....how do Marshall and ECU look now?

Marshall (6-0)
PPG 47.8 (2nd)
DPG 17.2 (8th)

East Carolina (5-1)
PPG 41.0 (15th)
DPG 23.8 (56th)

Marshall has improved its resume this weekend more than ECU. Marshall will be cracking into the polls this week.

Again, if I had to place a bet on who will earn that autobid after this week I bet on Marshall.

(10-11-2014 11:17 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Another week in the books.....how do Marshall and ECU look now?

Marshall (6-0)
PPG 47.8 (2nd)
DPG 17.2 (8th)

East Carolina (5-1)
PPG 41.0 (15th)
DPG 23.8 (56th)

Marshall has improved its resume this weekend more than ECU. Marshall will be cracking into the polls this week.

Again, if I had to place a bet on who will earn that autobid after this week I bet on Marshall.

Unless ECU loses another game, then you will probably lose some money. Keep an eye on Colorado State and Temple also.

(10-11-2014 11:23 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-11-2014 11:17 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Another week in the books.....how do Marshall and ECU look now?

Marshall (6-0)
PPG 47.8 (2nd)
DPG 17.2 (8th)

East Carolina (5-1)
PPG 41.0 (15th)
DPG 23.8 (56th)

Marshall has improved its resume this weekend more than ECU. Marshall will be cracking into the polls this week.

Again, if I had to place a bet on who will earn that autobid after this week I bet on Marshall.

Unless ECU loses another game, then you will probably lose some money. Keep an eye on Colorado State and Temple also.

ECU losing another game is already factored into my bet. Lucky to pull out a win on the road against USF tonight.

Colorado St (4-1)
PPG 34.0 (44th)
DPG 22.6 (50th)

Temple (4-1)
PPG 38.2 (25th)
DPG 14.4 (4th)

Temple looks to be more of a player for the autobid than CSU. They have a road game at UCF, home against ECU and road at Penn State left on the schedule so I will not be putting my betting chip on TU.

(10-11-2014 11:17 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Another week in the books.....how do Marshall and ECU look now?

Marshall (6-0)
PPG 47.8 (2nd)
DPG 17.2 (8th)

East Carolina (5-1)
PPG 41.0 (15th)
DPG 23.8 (56th)

Marshall has improved its resume this weekend more than ECU. Marshall will be cracking into the polls this week.

Second straight week that Marshall has posted a better-looking result than ECU.