11/16/2010 Gpi

[NDSUstudent]

11/16/2010 GPI Top 25

Rank Team
1. Delaware (1.00)
2. Appalachian State (2.25)
3. Eastern Washington (3.25)
4. William & Mary (4.375)
5. Stephen F. Austin (5.25)
6. Jacksonville State (7.125)
7. Montana State (7.875)
8. New Hampshire (9.50)
9. Northern Iowa (9.75)
10. Wofford (9.875)
11. Villanova (11.50)
12. Montana (15.00)
13. Sacramento State (15.50)
14. Massachusetts (15.875)
15. North Dakota State (16.50)
16. Chattanooga (17.875)
17. Southeast Missouri State (18.25)
18. Richmond (18.375)
19. James Madison (20.875)
20. Georgia Southern (21.00)
21. Western Illinois (21.125)
22. Weber State (22.875)
23. Northern Arizona (23.875)
24. Penn (24.00)
24. McNeese State (24.875)

Conference Ranking:
Rank, League, Total Average

1. Colonial Athletic Association (22.238)
2. Big Sky Conference (27.111)
3. Missouri Valley Football Conference (29.219)
4. Southern Conference (30.458)
5. Great West Conference (38.375)
6. Southland Conference (40.167)
7. Ohio Valley Conference (43.708)
8. Northeast Conference (57.222)
9. Ivy League (57.844)
10. Southwestern Athletic Conference (59.95)
11. Big South Conference (61.750)
12. Patriot League (64.089)
13. Independents (66.438)
14. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (67.194)
15. Pioneer Football League (68.938)

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?319-GPI-11-16-2010

[HandoEX]

15 is great for us right now. How did the Big Sky widen the gap?

[EndZoneQB]

15 is great for us right now. How did the Big Sky widen the gap?

Western Illinois losing.

[ndsubison1]

Sac State is only high because they played Stanford

[HandoEX]

Sac State is only high because they played Stanford

They lost to the 3 teams in front of them in the conference and Stanford. Pretty tough to argue their spot, imo. If Montana loses, could they be in with 4 losses?

[missingnumber7]

They lost to the 3 teams in front of them in the conference and Stanford. Pretty tough to argue their spot, imo. If Montana loses, could they be in with 4 losses?

They will only have 6 DI wins. It will be interesting to see how stiff the "7 win" rule is, especially when its been established that UM is the primary breadwinner in the playoffs for FCS. I would think something fishy is up if they sneak in and host.

[HandoEX]

They will only have 6 DI wins. It will be interesting to see how stiff the "7 win" rule is, especially when its been established that UM is the primary breadwinner in the playoffs for FCS. I would think something fishy is up if they sneak in and host.

Yup, you're right about Sac St. The Montana situation will get plenty interesting.

[missingnumber7]

Yup, you're right about Sac St. The Montana situation will get plenty interesting.

Montana will only have 6 D1 wins if they lose to MSU this week as well. They played Western to start the season. I honestly wouldn't have issues with the Griz getting in (as long as we are in), but if they get in and host, that in my mind is BS.

[gotts]

Montana will only have 6 D1 wins if they lose to MSU this week as well. They played Western to start the season. I honestly wouldn't have issues with the Griz getting in (as long as we are in), but if they get in and host, that in my mind is BS.

No matter which way you put it, if they get in, they host. Simple as that. Without a doubt the #1 bid west of the Mississippi River.

The ideal scenario for NDSU hosting is Montana not getting in at all.

[Bison"FANatic"]

Its not BS. Home games in the FCS are not on a seeded based beyond the top seeds. The NCAA has to be able to make some or at least limit losses on the playoffs and the only way you can do that is by playing where the tickets will sell. It has been posted other places on here how the bidding process works. If it went on straight seeds the playoffs would lose a ton of money.

A fully seeded situation may be more "technically" correct but it is also a business and needs to make money or slightly limit losses.

[Hammersmith]

Its not BS. Home games in the FCS are not on a seeded based beyond the top seeds. The NCAA has to be able to make some or at least limit losses on the playoffs and the only way you can do that is by playing where the tickets will sell. It has been posted other places on here how the bidding process works. If it went on straight seeds the playoffs would lose a ton of money.

A fully seeded situation may be more "technically" correct but it is also a business and needs to make money or slightly limit losses.

A fully seeded field would also kill many of the participating schools in travel costs. Can you imagine Cal Poly getting matched up with Maine just because that's how the seeds fell? While the current system might not be the fairest in regards to competitive matchups, everyone does win a little bit. The schools get lower travel costs, and the NCAA has a better chance of breaking even.

[Gully]

A fully seeded field would also kill many of the participating schools in travel costs. Can you imagine Cal Poly getting matched up with Maine just because that's how the seeds fell? While the current system might not be the fairest in regards to competitive matchups, everyone does win a little bit. The schools get lower travel costs, and the NCAA has a better chance of breaking even.

Hey Hammer, do the schools foot the bill for post season travel or does the NCAA pay for it?

[NDSUstudent]

Hey Hammer, do the schools foot the bill for post season travel or does the NCAA pay for it?

The NCAA pays it.

[Gully]

The NCAA pays it.

Thanks, that's what I thought. This helps explain why they like the bid process to increase their revenue.