OK Culhane, let me educate you on how you do a barcket

[Herd]

Sorry, NDSU #2, would not play the winner of 22 vs 23 ranked teams. You do a bracket like this when is you rank 1-24.

9 vs 24; Plays 8 Seed; Projected 8 vs 9
10 vs 23; Plays 7 Seed; Projected 7 vs 10
11 vs. 22; Plays 6 Seed; Projected 6 vs 11
12 vs 21; Plays 5 Seed; Projected 5 vs 12
13 vs 20; Plays 4 Seed; Projected 4 vs 13
14 vs 19; Plays 3 Seed; Projected 3 vs 14
15 vs 18; Plays 2 Seed; Projected 2 vs 15
16 vs 17; Plays 1 Seed; Projected 1 vs 16

What in the H is Culhane talking about? If all 24 were ranked, NDSU would play the winner of 15 vs. 18. The assumption is 17-24 get beat in the 1st round. If you're going to go on a rant, have a clue what you are talking about.

[Professor Chaos]

Yeah, I was kinda shaking my head listening to that also. His reasoning was that the #1 and #2 seeds should be "rewarded". Personally, I'd say getting to play at home until you lose or make it to Frisco is a massive reward. If you used his idea then the #3 and #4 seeds would complain about not being rewarded.

I think everyone would agree that seeding the entire field 1-24 would be the best approach but I wish they would at least pool those bottom 16 teams into groups of 4 like the NCAA baseball/softball tournaments do so they would have a 1 seed through a 6 seed in each of the 4 quadrants and then place the top 8 seeds accordingly to construct the bracket. They could still regionalize it then to some degree but it would make it a little more balanced. Fat chance of that happening though especially if the dumb idea to expand the playoffs to 32 gains any more traction.

[The_Sicatoka]

... but I wish they would at least pool ... groups of 4 ... so they would have a 1 seed through a 6 seed in each of the 4 quadrants and then place the top 8 seeds accordingly to construct the bracket. They could still regionalize it then to some degree but it would make it a little more balanced.

Your idea makes sense, that's why it can't happen in NCAA-football-land.

[Herd]

Yeah, I was kinda shaking my head listening to that also. His reasoning was that the #1 and #2 seeds should be "rewarded". Personally, I'd say getting to play at home until you lose or make it to Frisco is a massive reward. If you used his idea then the #3 and #4 seeds would complain about not being rewarded.

I think everyone would agree that seeding the entire field 1-24 would be the best approach but I wish they would at least pool those bottom 16 teams into groups of 4 like the NCAA baseball/softball tournaments do so they would have a 1 seed through a 6 seed in each of the 4 quadrants and then place the top 8 seeds accordingly to construct the bracket. They could still regionalize it then to some degree but it would make it a little more balanced. Fat chance of that happening though especially if the dumb idea to expand the playoffs to 32 gains any more traction.

Its a 24 team bracket, so you have 4 groups of 6 teams in each group. Can't do groups of 4 in a 24 team plays, math doesn't work.

Our Group of 6 is: SIU/SD/NDSU/Davidson/Kennesaw/ETSU

Sorry if you like softball, but football is not double elimination.

[Professor Chaos]

Its a 24 team bracket, so you have 4 groups of 6 teams in each group. Can't do groups of 4 in a 24 team plays, math doesn't work.

Our Group of 6 is: SIU/SD/NDSU/Davidson/Kennesaw/ETSU

Sorry if you like softball, but football is not double elimination.
You'd have 6 groups of 4 and one team from each group would be in each quadrant. The top 8 would still be seeded and placed accordingly like they are today. After that you'd break the final 16 into 4 groups of 4 - call them regional 3 seeds through 6 seeds. You could pair the 3 seeds with the 6 seeds regionally and feed them into overall seeds #5-#8 regionally. You could pair the 4 seeds with the 5 seeds regionally and feed them into overall seeds #1-#4 regionally. That's pretty much how they do it in the NCAA baseball tournament where they seed the top 16 and then pool the unseeded 48 into groups of 16 and take one from each group for each of the 16 regionals. It's just instead of 16 regionals with 4 teams each you'd have 8 regionals with 3 teams each.

[gavin2126]

Its a 24 team bracket, so you have 4 groups of 6 teams in each group. Can't do groups of 4 in a 24 team plays, math doesn't work.

Our Group of 6 is: SIU/SD/NDSU/Davidson/Kennesaw/ETSU

Sorry if you like softball, but football is not double elimination.

PC's idea would have 4 groups of 6 with each group having 2 teams with byes. Just like the current group of 6 we're in that you outlined. It would just be a different (most likely) group of 6, and it would prevent two weaker teams like Sacred Heart & Holy Cross playing this weekend, and potentially stronger teams playing each other like say SDSU & EWU (it didn't happen but very easily could have, and has happened in years past).

Edit: I see PC already elaborated

[The_Sicatoka]

I know y'all hate the word, but NCAA hockey process:

Six autobids, ten highest remaining PWR (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php). Those sixteen are seeded by PWR 1-16. Those are broken into four groups of four, so you have four 1s, four 2s, etc. Each quadrant has a 1, 2, 3, and 4. They initially try a "chalk" straight 1-16 bracket. But must have no in-conference first round games. If one happens, you swap 4s (or 3s) between quadrants.

There are some other quirks, like regional host schools must play at their host site if one of the sixteen. (Yes, a 16 overall could be a host site host. Should that happen, the lowest 1 of top 4 goes there. They try to protect #1 overall always.) And if they can simplify travel by swapping 2/3 opening round games between quadrants, they do.

[El_Chapo]

HERD. maybe edit your 1st post.

culhane made the mistake of using KEITH BRAKE's INFO... so Brake is the dumbass, not culhane, although culhane should know better to blindly use brake's info. hahaha.

[The_Sicatoka]

... two weaker teams like Sacred Heart & Holy Cross playing this weekend ...

That is not a good look for FCS. I'd pick Western Illinois in that game.

[Herd]

HERD. maybe edit your 1st post.

culhane made the mistake of using KEITH BRAKE's INFO... so Brake is the dumbass, not culhane, although culhane should know better to blindly use brake's info. hahaha.

My apologies to Mr. Culhane.

[Herd]

You'd have 6 groups of 4 and one team from each group would be in each quadrant. The top 8 would still be seeded and placed accordingly like they are today. After that you'd break the final 16 into 4 groups of 4 - call them regional 3 seeds through 6 seeds. You could pair the 3 seeds with the 6 seeds regionally and feed them into overall seeds #5-#8 regionally. You could pair the 4 seeds with the 5 seeds regionally and feed them into overall seeds #1-#4 regionally. That's pretty much how they do it in the NCAA baseball tournament where they seed the top 16 and then pool the unseeded 48 into groups of 16 and take one from each group for each of the 16 regionals. It's just instead of 16 regionals with 4 teams each you'd have 8 regionals with 3 teams each.

Groups of 4 when you have a 24 team bracket. What are you going to do when you have 6 teams left? Send 2 of them to the Celebration Bowl? Groups of 4, Brilliant!

[Hammerhead]

In this year's opening round, you have SFA and Incarnate Word with a difference in Sagarin rating of only 0.53. On the other half of the bracket, Kennesaw is rated 22.74 over Davidson.

The average Sagarin rating of the teams paired in the first round ranges from 44.82 (Sacred Heart/Holy Cross) to 64.93 (UNI/Eastern Washington)



PC's idea would have 4 groups of 6 with each group having 2 teams with byes. Just like the current group of 6 we're in that you outlined. It would just be a different (most likely) group of 6, and it would prevent two weaker teams like Sacred Heart & Holy Cross playing this weekend, and potentially stronger teams playing each other like say SDSU & EWU (it didn't happen but very easily could have, and has happened in years past).

Edit: I see PC already elaborated

[56BISON73]

If you seed everyone there is then no planned regionalization. If you are going to have a tournament run the fucking thing the way you are supposed to.

[Hammerhead]

If you seed everyone there is then no planned regionalization. If you are going to have a tournament run the fucking thing the way you are supposed to.

How are you going to accurately seed all 24 teams when there is controversy with the top 8 seeds almost every year?

[Professor Chaos]

Groups of 4 when you have a 24 team bracket. What are you going to do when you have 6 teams left? Send 2 of them to the Celebration Bowl? Groups of 4, Brilliant!
4 teams times 6 groups is 24. Is it really that hard to understand??? I'll lay it out using this year's field.

1 seeds
#1 SHSU
#2 NDSU
#3 JMU
#4 Sac St

2 seeds
#5 Villanova
#6 Montana
#7 ETSU
#8 Montana St

3 seeds
EWU
KSU
Missouri St
SDSU

4 seeds
South Dakota
SLU
UCD
UIW

5 seeds
Holy Cross
SFA
SIU
UTM

6 seeds
Davidson
FAMU
SHU
UNI


From there you regionally pair together the 3 seeds with the 6 seeds and the 4 seeds with the 5 seeds. You can then regionally pair the 3/6 matchups with the #5-#8 overall seeds and regionally pair the 4/5 matchups with the #1-#4 overall seeds. So the bracket this year could look something like this.

(5)SFA @ (4)UIW to #1 SHSU
(6)FAMU @ (3)Missouri St to #8 Montana St
(6)SHU @ (3)SDSU to #5 Villanova
(5)Holy Cross @ (4)UCD to #4 Sac St
(5)UTM @ (4)SLU to #3 JMU
(6)UNI @ (3)EWU to #6 Montana
(6)Davidson @ (3)KSU to #7 ETSU
(5)SIU @ (4)South Dakota to #2 NDSU


The bracket could actually look pretty similar to what they came up with but at least you can make it a little more balanced without having to massively "de-regionalize" it. Most years this would add maybe 2-3 more flights I'd guess.

[EC8CH]

If you seed everyone there is then no planned regionalization. If you are going to have a tournament run the fucking thing the way you are supposed to.

Holy shit I agree with PL.

[ZHerd]

How are you going to accurately seed all 24 teams when there is controversy with the top 8 seeds almost every year?

Just triple the amount of controversy

[123Gobison]

Sorry, NDSU #2, would not play the winner of 22 vs 23 ranked teams. You do a bracket like this when is you rank 1-24.

9 vs 24; Plays 8 Seed; Projected 8 vs 9
10 vs 23; Plays 7 Seed; Projected 7 vs 10
11 vs. 22; Plays 6 Seed; Projected 6 vs 11
12 vs 21; Plays 5 Seed; Projected 5 vs 12
13 vs 20; Plays 4 Seed; Projected 4 vs 13
14 vs 19; Plays 3 Seed; Projected 3 vs 14
15 vs 18; Plays 2 Seed; Projected 2 vs 15
16 vs 17; Plays 1 Seed; Projected 1 vs 16

What in the H is Culhane talking about? If all 24 were ranked, NDSU would play the winner of 15 vs. 18. The assumption is 17-24 get beat in the 1st round. If you're going to go on a rant, have a clue what you are talking about.

He wings it sometimes. He started in 2017-2018 ? after Scottie passed away but when talking on the radio about Bison football he talks as if he was here since 2011.

[HerdBot]

What's a barcket? Is it some kind of drink?

[bisonaudit]

4 teams times 6 groups is 24. Is it really that hard to understand??? I'll lay it out using this year's field.

1 seeds
#1 SHSU
#2 NDSU
#3 JMU
#4 Sac St

2 seeds
#5 Villanova
#6 Montana
#7 ETSU
#8 Montana St

3 seeds
EWU
KSU
Missouri St
SDSU

4 seeds
South Dakota
SLU
UCD
UIW

5 seeds
Holy Cross
SFA
SIU
UTM

6 seeds
Davidson
FAMU
SHU
UNI


From there you regionally pair together the 3 seeds with the 6 seeds and the 4 seeds with the 5 seeds. You can then regionally pair the 3/6 matchups with the #5-#8 overall seeds and regionally pair the 4/5 matchups with the #1-#4 overall seeds. So the bracket this year could look something like this.

(5)SFA @ (4)UIW to #1 SHSU
(6)FAMU @ (3)Missouri St to #8 Montana St
(6)SHU @ (3)SDSU to #5 Villanova
(5)Holy Cross @ (4)UCD to #4 Sac St
(5)UTM @ (4)SLU to #3 JMU
(6)UNI @ (3)EWU to #6 Montana
(6)Davidson @ (3)KSU to #7 ETSU
(5)SIU @ (4)South Dakota to #2 NDSU


The bracket could actually look pretty similar to what they came up with but at least you can make it a little more balanced without having to massively "de-regionalize" it. Most years this would add maybe 2-3 more flights I'd guess.

I like it. There’s still plenty here to complain about.

[marenlee]

He wings it sometimes. He started in 2017-2018 ? after Scottie passed away but when talking on the radio about Bison football he talks as if he was here since 2011.

Spring 2016. I’ve been listening to him since he’s been on air and he’s a great ambassador for the program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[23Bison]

I love listening to Culhane. I don't care how long he has been here, he's easier on the ears than say Timmerman or Izzo for that matter when watching the game.

[NDSU92]

Yeah Culhane is a boss. He and Phil on the PxP call are so superior to listening to the TV. I weep for those who don't know how to use the TuneIn app to sync up the 1660 audio to your TV. As an engineer I have no idea how someone can talk for 2 hours straight on a radio program so all good broadcasters are impressive to me.

Sounds like his bracketmaking skills could use some sharpening though :)

[GreenfieldBison]

You can put me down in the Culhane Fan column as well.

[scottietohottie]

It's "trot it in there baby"? Sign at the dome said "trot in there baby"?

And unrelated to Culhane but is it just me or does the dome announcer struggle saying Kobe Johnson for some reason? Thought we had a new back the first time he ran the ball and the announcer said his name.

[The_Sicatoka]

4 teams times 6 groups is 24. Is it really that hard to understand??? I'll lay it out using this year's field.

Professor, if I may, ...

Is there an analytic (RPI, Massey, Sagarin, PWR) used to order the teams 1-24?

I'm saying have the overall analytic "ranking" of FCS, pull out your autobid teams, now select the remainder of the field, the at-large, as the highest analytics ranked teams not already in the field via autobid. (If there's other disqualifiers like 6 DI wins or over 0.500 don't select them at-large.) There's your 24.

Take those 24 and order them by your analytic. Now do your six groups of four.

[Hammerhead]

Or they could use the SRS that isn't released until after the selection show. :rolleyes:


Professor, if I may, ...

Is there an analytic (RPI, Massey, Sagarin, PWR) used to order the teams 1-24?

I'm saying have the overall analytic "ranking" of FCS, pull out your autobid teams, now select the remainder of the field, the at-large, as the highest analytics ranked teams not already in the field via autobid. (If there's other disqualifiers like 6 DI wins or over 0.500 don't select them at-large.) There's your 24.

Take those 24 and order them by your analytic. Now do your six groups of four.

[The_Sicatoka]

Or they could use the SRS that isn't released until after the selection show. :rolleyes:

After field selection do they use SRS to 'six groups of four' re-rank, or do they go DSFRWSAS* ranking?

They should re-rank and go "six of four" by the SRS. That SH/HC game is a stinker that should never happen and re-ranking and PC's method would prevent it.


*Dark, smoke filled room with scotch and stogies

[The_Sicatoka]

Mentioning the SRS ... why can't I find the current SRS?

The NCAA site is doing a great job of giving me the 2019 SRS ...
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/fcs/simple-ratings-system

[Professor Chaos]

Professor, if I may, ...

Is there an analytic (RPI, Massey, Sagarin, PWR) used to order the teams 1-24?

I'm saying have the overall analytic "ranking" of FCS, pull out your autobid teams, now select the remainder of the field, the at-large, as the highest analytics ranked teams not already in the field via autobid. (If there's other disqualifiers like 6 DI wins or over 0.500 don't select them at-large.) There's your 24.

Take those 24 and order them by your analytic. Now do your six groups of four.


Or they could use the SRS that isn't released until after the selection show. :rolleyes:
Yeah, SRS is the only rating system they claim is discussed in the committee room and, like Hammerhead said, it's not released publicly until after the bracket (and sometimes not at all) even though the committee does have it available to them in the weeks leading up to Selection Sunday and the formula is out there if anyone wanted to put in the effort to calculate it themselves.

I've seen it referenced that the Coaches Poll is also an "official tool" (:irslow:) but I've heard that the external polls like the STATS Poll along with Sagarin and Massey ratings are something that committee members use to do their own research in preparation for the selection process. I know once the field is determined they do take a poll of all the committee members and come up with a 1-24 ranking... they just cut it off at 8 for the seeds but they're already doing the work to seed/pool the rest of the teams so they could easily do it if they wanted to/could.

EDIT: If you're interested in getting into the nitty gritty of how the selection committee selects the at-large teams and sets the seeds this video is really interesting (if you can ignore the herky-jerky monotonous delivery of the narrator): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FECEd5QPiA

[The_Sicatoka]

... the Coaches Poll is also an "official tool" ...

Nary truer words ever been posted on the Internet.

[The_Sicatoka]

... poll of all the committee members and come up with a 1-24 ranking...

Sacred Heart and Holy Cross are two of the lowest four Massey ratings in the field of 24. They should be two of your "six seeds" group; instead one will play two games.

Apparently in my DSFRWSAS scenario it's maybe not tobacco in the stogies ...

[GreenfieldBison]

Sacred Heart and Holy Cross are two of the lowest four Massey ratings in the field of 24. They should be two of your "six seeds" group; instead one will play two games.

Apparently in my DSFRWSAS scenario it's maybe not tobacco in the stogies ...

Indiana has legal recreational pot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk