jdub27

Doesn't work what way? That there doesn't have to be any justification? Seems to me I laid out the resumes and the "tools" used (like it was assumed the committee did) and then pointed out the mind-bending logic where they use one "tool" to justify a comparison and then completely ignore that "tool" for the next comparison, while using one that contradicts the previous selection. Seems like it should be fair game when the committee chair can't answer one question without completely contradicting a previous answer he has given.

Here are the teams that UND arguably has legitimate reasons to question on how they got in before them. Not saying UND absolutely deserved to get in before all of them, but these are the last few in where the questions should be fair game when compared to UND. I put them in the order that I thought represented most to least questionable: UNH For - 7 D-1 wins, win against #7 Richmond at home, "good loss" (W&M) Against - No FBS win, losses to .500 teams or worse (Delaware, Stony Brook), lowest SRS, Massey and Sagarin ranking of the "at large's" (all behind UND), 2nd weakest SOS behind SHSU (#65 per Massey) EIU For - 7 D-1 wins, "good losses" (WIU, Northwestern, ISU, JSU) Against - Zero wins against playoff teams or FBS WIU For - SOS, SRS, wins over 3 playoff teams (SDSU, EIU, UNI), "good losses" (Illinois, CCU, ISU, YSU, NDSU) Against - 6 D-1 wins SHSU For - 7 D-1 wins, "good losses" (McNeese, Texas Tech) Against - Weakest SOS of "at large's" (#68 per Massey), zero wins against playoff or FBS teams, loss to .500 teams or worse (Lamar), UND For - 7 D-1 wins, FBS win (Wyoming), win against #6 Portland State on the road, "good losses" (NDSU, Montana) Against - Loss to .500 team or worse (Idaho State)

7 wins each, UND>UNH in the SRS, no head-to-head, no common opponents. Meh, let's go with UNH instead.

UND had a better SRS ranking than New Hampshire so it is a little strange to see that used as a justification.

If a kid wasn't on the staff's radar already, then not sure a coaching change elsewhere should be the main thing to put them on there. However, if it was a player that staff already had interest in and a relationship with, don't see what the issue would be. Lot's of kids continue to get contacted after they verbally commit.

No, that's why they got rid of them.

Isn't the point of the Alumni Association to gather money for the betterment of the University and its students? Seems like they are reminding people about that and reinforcing their mission to those who seem to have forgotten what it is.

It would be a lot tougher and more inaccurate not only due to the larger amount of teams in FCS but also because of fewer number of games overall and between teams/conferences and teams playing games out of their division (both up and down). The "comparisons" used in Pairwise would be a couple steps away instead of usually just one in hockey.

If Vince says it, book it. If gfhockey says it, go look for the tweet or article that was posted 10 minutes beforehand to confirm.

That's not what you said. You claimed that Faison lets coaches coach out their contract, which isn't the case, especially in the instance you specifically pointed out. I have no issue with being critical, but if you're going to throw stones, do it accurately.

Wait, I thought Bubba was the coach. When did Kalen DeBoer take over? That's who he claimed multiple times was the new head coach. What took you soon long to get the money then? That's the reason he wasn't let go a season sooner than he was. Oil prices were good then, shouldn't have been an issue.

It is? I seem to remember Mussman getting bought out of the final year of his contract. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Accuracy optional, the siouxsports way.

They got Dayton because it is a bus trip. Regionalized like everything else.

UND has 14 turnovers and YSU shooting .610 from the floor. UND is outrebounding YSU 26-20 including 10-3 on the offensive glass so I guess that's a positive.

Oh you noticed he missed that one too? Not to mention it is a pretty big stretch to claim a 47-40 win at MSU last year as a "curb stomping".

I'm curious how that changes anything I stated?

Craig Haley from STATS FCS had them in his final bracket the night before as well. I believe he had 23 out of 24 correct, putting Towson in instead of New Hampshire (both of which are head-scratchers). I think that was the only projected bracket I saw that had WIU in it, though as other have stated, WIU is only one of the teams that got in that raises some questions.

I unfortunately agree. Was hoping to find a silver lining as I was putting it together. Obviously that didn't happen.

Phil Hansen is the same guy who during a game last year declared John Crockett the best back in college football. Not FCS, every division. I have no problem with announcers having a little homer streak to them but seriously...

They did have 6 wins, so they had that going for them....

All 5 MVFC teams were on one side because SDSU !@#$ the bed and lost their seed. After that, it all becomes regionalization. That is written into the selection committees criteria, but keep crying that it is a conspiracy (note that I'm not agreeing with it, strictly pointing out that it is laid out for all to see). Before the selection show, the complaint was that McNeese was a mirage but would get seeded above NDSU. The committee gave the MVFC fans exactly what they wanted, ISU and NDSU were the next best teams behind JSU. Not hard to work backwards from there and see how the bracket ended up the way it does when regionalization is written into the criteria of how the brackets are set. As for the toughest conference thing, Sagarin has the Big Sky as the #2 conference. Here's how the top 5 conferences, in Sagarin's order of "toughness" fared. 1. MVFC - 5 of 10 (50% of the conference) made the field. Had 5 eligible teams (100% success rate) 2. Big Sky - 3 of 13 (23% of the conference) made the field. Had 7 eligible teams (43% success rate) 3. Southern - 2 of 8 (25% of the conference) made the field. Had 3 eligible teams (67% success rate) 4. CAA - 4 of 12 (33% of the conference) made the field. Had 6 eligible teams (67% success rate) 5. OVC - 2 of 9 (22% of the conference) made the field. Had 4 eligible teams (50% success rate) The 2nd hardest conference had the least success. Since its all about conference strength, I'd love to hear your explanation.

You left out the part where Georgia Tech ended the 2010 season with a losing record, but guessing that doesn't sound as good as using what is nothing more than a preseason ranking.

I agree somewhat but things change fast in college football, just look at the preseason polls for the Big Sky compared to the final standings. Never know how things will shake out.

Doesn't the almighty Sagarin have the Big Sky ranked as the number two conference?

If UND gets in, feeling confident they will be hosting. 3 game winning streak with back to back blowouts is a good way to end the season.