Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

GPI

http://www.championshipsubdivisionne...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the index ranking for the NCAA Division I FCS and a top indicator of at-large playoff selection debuts for the 2008 season with James Madison in the top spot.

The Colonial Athletic Association, the largest league in the FCS has seven teams in the top 25, the Missouri Valley Football and the Southern Conferences have five each, the Big Sky and the Southland Conferences have three each, and the Big South, Great West Football and the Ohio Valley Conferences placed one each. (Games through 10/4/08)

10/6/2008 GPI Top 25
Rank, Team, Total
1. James Madison (1.00)
2. New Hampshire (4.25)
3. Appalachian St (4.63)
4. McNeese St (5.00)
5. Richmond (5.50)
6. Cal Poly (6.88)
7. Villanova (7.50)
8. Montana (8.13)
9. Wofford (10.50)
10. Massachusetts (10.63)
11. Elon (11.25)
12. Northern Iowa (13.00)
13T. Weber St (14.25)
13T. Jacksonville St (14.25)
15. Furman (15.25)
16. N Arizona (17.00)
17. Cent Arkansas (18.38)
18. Delaware (19.75)
19. S Illinois (19.88)
20. W Illinois (20.38)
21. N Dakota St (20.88)
22. Liberty (22.25)
23. S Dakota St (22.75)
24T. Northeastern (24.88)
24T. Sam Houston St (24.88)
24T. Ga Southern (24.88)

Conference Ranking:
Rank, League, Total Average
1. Colonial Athletic Association (22.79)
2. Southern Conference (27.90)
3. Great West Football Conference (32.40)
4. Big Sky Conference (32.45)
5. Missouri Valley Football Conference (34.35)
6. Southland Conference (34.55)
7. Ivy League (45.77)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (49.88)
9. Patriot League (51.91)
10. Big South Conference (52.02)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (61.94)
12. Northeast Conference (65.00)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (70.50)
14. Pioneer Football League (75.28)
15. Independents (80.15)

Nevermind this poll......Apparently the GPI was flawed, go figure. There were a bunch of teams that were entered into it with wrong rankings and records. The new one should be out soon.

grizzaholic wrote:Nevermind this poll......Apparently the GPI was flawed, go figure. There were a bunch of teams that were entered into it with wrong rankings and records. The new one should be out soon.

Look forward to the update when you post it Grizza. I was kinda having a chuckle at the MVFC being below the Big Sky due to some of the NDSU guys and their blathering.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:Nevermind this poll......Apparently the GPI was flawed, go figure. There were a bunch of teams that were entered into it with wrong rankings and records. The new one should be out soon.

Look forward to the update when you post it Grizza. I was kinda having a chuckle at the MVFC being below the Big Sky due to some of the NDSU guys and their blathering.

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/stat ... 06gpi.html

Conference Ranking:
Rank, League, Total Average
1. Colonial Athletic Association (22.78)
2. Southern Conference (27.97)
3. Great West Football Conference (32.38)
4. Big Sky Conference (32.59)
5. Missouri Valley Football Conference (34.41)
6. Southland Conference (34.46)
7. Ivy League (45.77)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (49.79)
9. Patriot League (51.91)
10. Big South Conference (51.93)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (61.94)
12. Northeast Conference (65.00)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (70.50)
14. Pioneer Football League (75.28)
15. Independents (80.15)

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Look forward to the update when you post it Grizza. I was kinda having a chuckle at the MVFC being below the Big Sky due to some of the NDSU guys and their blathering.

That jumped out at me, as well.

dbackjon wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Look forward to the update when you post it Grizza. I was kinda having a chuckle at the MVFC being below the Big Sky due to some of the NDSU guys and their blathering.

That jumped out at me, as well.

So is this the updated one that is corrected dead man?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
That jumped out at me, as well.

So is this the updated one that is corrected dead man?

Yup stud

I see dback took care of it for me.

I see that the GPI has the CAA ahead of the SoCon.

This confirms Einstein's theory of FCS relativity: the CAA is better than the Socon.



Just kidding. I think they are both good conferences and I really don't care which one is rated higher.

BlueHen86 wrote: Just kidding. I think they are both good conferences and I really don't care which one is rated higher.

Kind of surprised my GSU eagles are tied for 24th. I guess the loses we had were against quality teams but we have yet to have a quality win.

Questions abound when looking at this data. In calculating Montana's "Total", if you eliminate the 3 and the 11, their total ARC is 39 (as reported on the GPI list). But when you add in the two 12 rankings and the 10 ranking, then divide by the 9 (for whatever reason???) I get 8.11. They list Montana's GPI @ 9.13....what gives?

And why do they divide by 9? There's actually 10 numbers in their calculation....even after eliminating the high and low numbers from the 9 computer rankings....

AZGrizFan wrote:Questions abound when looking at this data. In calculating Montana's "Total", if you eliminate the 3 and the 11, their total ARC is 39 (as reported on the GPI list). But when you add in the two 12 rankings and the 10 ranking, then divide by the 9 (for whatever reason???) I get 8.11. They list Montana's GPI @ 9.13....what gives?

And why do they divide by 9? There's actually 10 numbers in their calculation....even after eliminating the high and low numbers from the 9 computer rankings....

I'm sure it's that way to correct for juxtaposition errors.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Questions abound when looking at this data. In calculating Montana's "Total", if you eliminate the 3 and the 11, their total ARC is 39 (as reported on the GPI list). But when you add in the two 12 rankings and the 10 ranking, then divide by the 9 (for whatever reason???) I get 8.11. They list Montana's GPI @ 9.13....what gives?

And why do they divide by 9? There's actually 10 numbers in their calculation....even after eliminating the high and low numbers from the 9 computer rankings....

I'm sure it's that way to correct for juxtaposition errors.

Major reps for the avatar.

houndawg wrote:

Major reps for the avatar.

Thanks HD, I try to really be sexy over here. Good to see you over here man.