WWW.PANTHERNATION.COM
GO PANTHERS!
welcome

Welcome to the best UNI Panther forum on the net!

Become a PN Supporting Member! Get exclusive access to the Panther Den forum and more. Click here for info.

30-minute show exclusively highlighting UNI Athletics. Click here for info.

  • You need to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
  • To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the help page by clicking this link.
  • If you have any questions please use the Contact Us form.
This website is not affiliated with the University of Northern Iowa or the UNI Panther Athletic Program.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

    If FBS teams are less interested in the outcome of a game.vs FCS then they're not serious about what they're doing...and I'd question the quality of coaching.

    And I'd challenge the idea that MAC reserves are better than reserves at top-half MVFC schools.
    Winning is more fun than losing.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

      Originally posted by Blue42 View Post
      If FBS teams are less interested in the outcome of a game.vs FCS then they're not serious about what they're doing...and I'd question the quality of coaching.

      And I'd challenge the idea that MAC reserves are better than reserves at top-half MVFC schools.
      If you have the impression that properly coached teams are equally interested in and "up" for every game, then you're in fantasy land. Our own, very excellent, coach admits this.

      It's not just quality. It's quantity and depth. The scholarship limits matter.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

        News...if your entire existence (and it is) is to bash FCS football then go the hell away

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

          Holy ship Stein you got owned! but I say this out of respect because you are a pretty good poster.

          Originally posted by sivert View Post
          2014 Sagarin

          MVFC
          32 North Dakota State AA
          41 Illinois State AA
          55 Northern Iowa AA
          67 South Dakota State AA
          92 Indiana State AA
          108 Southern Illinois AA
          110 Youngstown State AA
          113 Missouri State AA
          118 Western Illinois AA
          175 South Dakota AA
          MAC
          72 Northern Illinois A
          73 Toledo A
          88 Western Michigan A
          101 Central Michigan A
          117 Ball State A
          119 Bowling Green A
          134 Akron A
          135 Ohio A
          141 Buffalo A
          154 Massachusetts A
          159 Miami-Ohio A
          169 Kent State A
          208 Eastern Michigan A

          MVFC Average of top 5 = 57.4
          MAC Average of top 5 = 90.2

          Four MVFC schools are ranked higher than the whole MAC field.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

            If you take FCS teams out of the supply, then won't the price of FBS non-conference games go sky high?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

              Wonder what this will do to MO ST? They have been played 2 FBS games a year for the past several seasons. Not MAC games either, but going to Oregon, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Louisville, etc. Many of these are back to back games, at the end of the season.

              It will give them a (theoretically) much better chance to have a winning season. But they were not playing these games for anything more than funding the athletic department.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                It would make more sense for the B1G and P5 to push for FCS to be made d-2.
                They could still have a warm up game to work out kinks.
                It would cost ~$500,000 instead of ~$1,000,000.
                It wouldn't count towards RPI win or lose.

                It's cool to be D-1-FCS instead of D-2. But losing a $game in state will stink.
                What do we have planned to replace it with?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                  Originally posted by UNIdadtobe View Post
                  If you take FCS teams out of the supply, then won't the price of FBS non-conference games go sky high?
                  This is why other conferences won't follow. Who they gonna play?
                  Winning is more fun than losing.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                    What's funny about this is:
                    They claim to be doing it because with a playoff, RPI is so important that they can't afford to hurt it with an FCS team. But they could accomplish that goal better by simply choosing wisely.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                      Originally posted by Newsbreaker View Post
                      It's the peril of a small sample size. If Anthony Rizzo hits a HR against this Clayton Kershaw, why isn't it reasonable to expect they'd do it every time? We beat Illinois State, badly, at home last year? Why didn't it happen again?

                      Upsets happen, but they don't necessarily prove overall superioirity. We all understand that. The year after our title game loss, when we lost to a D-II school, was that proof they were, overall, the better team and could've kept doing it on a regular basis? Of course not.

                      The depth superiority is what truly separates us from the P5 schools. It's why, over a conference schedule, we are much more likely to break down and have a poor record. We lack the quality of reserves to keep going at a high level. The same is true, though to a much lesser degree, against the MAC. We've also heard Coach Farley talk about the number of times a team can get "up" for a game. We always benefit in FCS vs FBS games by being the team more interested in the outcome.

                      It's one thing to spring an "upset." It's another to spring 6 or 7 of them.
                      That's my point. I don't consider a top tier MVFC beating an average MAC team an upset. I think they are the superior team, the ranking systems think they are the superior team, and the scoreboard almost always thinks they are the superior team.

                      So why is it unreasonable to assume the better team will continue winning over the course of a season knowing they will consistently face similar (inferior) competitors?
                      Originally posted by TH1974
                      This guy was all-UNI, and wanted to show it by pretending to play a non-existant musical instrument in public.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                        Originally posted by Mudrafan View Post
                        News...if your entire existence (and it is) is to bash FCS football then go the hell away
                        No one is bashing anyone, or anything. Take your meds and count to ten.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                          Originally posted by Kyle View Post
                          That's my point. I don't consider a top tier MVFC beating an average MAC team an upset. I think they are the superior team, the ranking systems think they are the superior team, and the scoreboard almost always thinks they are the superior team.

                          So why is it unreasonable to assume the better team will continue winning over the course of a season knowing they will consistently face similar (inferior) competitors?
                          Still the issue of depth. The computer rankings are great, and I point to them to bolster our league in an argument, too, but the cross-pollination is pretty limited.

                          I'm not saying we wouldn't win a few games, particularly at home, and that we couldn't fairly predictably finish in the middle of the pack somewhere. I'm not even saying that we haven't had teams equal to or better than the MAC champion - teams capable of winning a MAC schedule. I just think, on the average, there is a small but perceptable gap.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                            Originally posted by sivert View Post
                            It would make more sense for the B1G and P5 to push for FCS to be made d-2.
                            They could still have a warm up game to work out kinks.
                            It would cost ~$500,000 instead of ~$1,000,000.
                            It wouldn't count towards RPI win or lose.

                            It's cool to be D-1-FCS instead of D-2. But losing a $game in state will stink.
                            What do we have planned to replace it with?
                            What the hell are you talking about?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                              Changing the FCS games in terms of SOS ratings, so that the game essentially "didn't count" in the computer rankings.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: No FCS/B1G starting in 2016

                                RPI has nothing to do with football.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X