Go to
http://www.ricefootball.net
and click on "Marshall links" in the top middle of home page, just below masthead.

(If you are not taken directly to the list via bookmark, just scroll to the bottom of the "quicklinks" page....it's there.....

The message boards appear to be in Full Meltdown Mode over the alleged political intrigue that prompted the "Texas Conference" to rig the criteria so that the "rich Texas school" would get the home game in front of an "empty stadium" . They want to "sue the basterds", "get a restraining order", "run up 85 on them" etc. etc.

Green Queen was particularly nasty when an Owl poster simply replied to a Herd request for an Owl opinion on the game attendance.
They must be proud of her!!!
The Give a Hoot's will have plenty of coffee and doughnuts for our Marshall friends if they would like to come by for some Rice hospitality.

As usual, thanks for all you do to keep the info flowing...

Unfortunate that the Herd Nation meltdown is reflecting upon them more than anything else. It is becoming the story vs. the game itself.

Most folks are just trying to understand the nuances of the formula, math, what changed, etc. but that 10% on the fringe are on tilt and taking it to Facebook and Twitter which is going to much broader audience than the usual suspects on message boards. And that is dangerous b/c that exposure is actually greater than the .5 rating the game will get on ESPN2 (last years game rating).

Herd fans are obsessed w/ attendance figures and impact on C-USA brand of empty seats on HRS visitor side. They should be more worried about what the vitriol of the 10% is doing to their own brand. The pros and cons of social media in full effect...

C-USA really ought to have clarified the procedure in advance. The possibility of turmoil over the tiebreaker scenario was raised on this board weeks ago (by NoodleOwl?). I understand why Marshall fans would be upset: clarifying the calculation so late does feel like changing the rules. However, there is no excuse for any attempt to game the polls.

ETA: I just looked at some of the Marshall boards. Their point about the over-weighting of the computer ranking appears to be valid, but no one (so far) has questioned the accuracy of the human poll votes that Marshall received. The human polls are way too susceptible to gamesmanship to reliably distinguish teams at our level. A much cleaner way to have handled the tie-breaker would have been to award 0 points to both teams for the human polls because neither team is ranked in the Top 25 of either poll. That would leave only the computer ranking to break the tie.

I do think Marshall is a good team, and I would not have felt slighted if they were hosting the game based on computer rankings or even a coin flip.

It was made worse by the early assumption on both sides that getting votes in the Coaches' poll locked it up for them. Having something you thought was yours snatched away is tough - try taking a bone from a dog and see what happens.

Plus, it is human nature to find some reason to favor your side and latch onto it as a primary reason for the choice to go your way. Theirs is attendance. I wonder though, there were empty seats at the game against their hated rival ECU, so I cannot see them filling the stadium for a game against us.

Generally I like the Marshall posters. Some few are showing a little too much disdain, but that is why we play the game.

I would like to invite you guys over to herdfans.com when the smoke clears. Most of us were confused and upset with the way cusa handled things. Nevertheless you guys deserved to host just as much as we did. Should be a good game that I wish I could see in person.

(12-02-2013 09:09 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  ETA: I just looked at some of the Marshall boards. Their point about the over-weighting of the computer ranking appears to be valid, but no one (so far) has questioned the accuracy of the human poll votes that Marshall received. The human polls are way too susceptible to gamesmanship to reliably distinguish teams at our level. A much cleaner way to have handled the tie-breaker would have been to award 0 points to both teams for the human polls because neither team is ranked in the Top 25 of either poll. That would leave only the computer ranking to break the tie.

I'm starting to understand it, but they are also suggesting using the formula for top-25 votes and projecting the points to votes based on 129 teams, which presupposes that everyone voting intended to vote Rice as the 129th team out of the field, which highlights the stupidity of relying on BCS rankings.

A coin flip begins to sound more and more appealing, as would "average cost of hotel rooms", or "least expensive round-trip tickets" (to whichever city the visiting fans would choose to fly).

edit: maybe we should look at the situation this way... this is an opportunity for (1) the CUSA office to be fair, (2) the CUSA office to put the goals of the conference above those of the individual teams, and/or (3) the CUSA office to change behavior of the schools to benefit the conference as a whole. #1 is a fool's errand in this case. #2 would lead to a subjective and controversial arbitrary decision behind closed doors. #3 could be interesting - awarding the home game based on non-conference scheduling (who played the highest-ranked opponent, number of BCSAQ teams scheduled OOC, deduct for patsies, etc). IF the ultimate goal for the conference is to encourage teams to reach the BCS, then encourage them to schedule as tough an OOC slate as possible, and do that by awarding the championship game accordingly. Or, just flip a coin...

how about east and West champions host in alternate years?

(12-02-2013 01:18 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  how about east and West champions host in alternate years?

That could mean a 5-3 team hosts a team that is 8-0. You could have the third tie-breaker (after record, head-to-head) work like the possession arrow in basketball. Tie-breaker goes to the division that lost the most-recent tie-breaker #3.

(12-02-2013 12:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:09 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  ETA: I just looked at some of the Marshall boards. Their point about the over-weighting of the computer ranking appears to be valid, but no one (so far) has questioned the accuracy of the human poll votes that Marshall received. The human polls are way too susceptible to gamesmanship to reliably distinguish teams at our level. A much cleaner way to have handled the tie-breaker would have been to award 0 points to both teams for the human polls because neither team is ranked in the Top 25 of either poll. That would leave only the computer ranking to break the tie.

I'm starting to understand it, but they are also suggesting using the formula for top-25 votes and projecting the points to votes based on 129 teams, which presupposes that everyone voting intended to vote Rice as the 129th team out of the field, which highlights the stupidity of relying on BCS rankings.

A coin flip begins to sound more and more appealing, as would "average cost of hotel rooms", or "least expensive round-trip tickets" (to whichever city the visiting fans would choose to fly).

edit: maybe we should look at the situation this way... this is an opportunity for (1) the CUSA office to be fair, (2) the CUSA office to put the goals of the conference above those of the individual teams, and/or (3) the CUSA office to change behavior of the schools to benefit the conference as a whole. #1 is a fool's errand in this case. #2 would lead to a subjective and controversial arbitrary decision behind closed doors. #3 could be interesting - awarding the home game based on non-conference scheduling (who played the highest-ranked opponent, number of BCSAQ teams scheduled OOC, deduct for patsies, etc). IF the ultimate goal for the conference is to encourage teams to reach the BCS, then encourage them to schedule as tough an OOC slate as possible, and do that by awarding the championship game accordingly. Or, just flip a coin...

Not to start a bigger argument but the way the current BCS Top 25 is structured and in ranking the Top 25 BCS teams, Marshall actually "received" a point value. Rice did not. I think that is where the point of contention comes into play.

My question is this. Had Marshall been ranked in the Top 25 of the BCS poll WITHOUT receiving any computer points (like Fresno St.) would they have hosted? If so then why would you have to change the system based on the fact that Marshall only "received" votes in the human polls? It is essentially the same argument except Marshall's point value would have been higher and Rice would have still had a zero point value.

(12-02-2013 01:21 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 01:18 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  how about east and West champions host in alternate years?

That could mean a 5-3 team hosts a team that is 8-0. You could have the third tie-breaker (after record, head-to-head) work like the possession arrow in basketball. Tie-breaker goes to the division that lost the most-recent tie-breaker #3.

MLB used to have alternating years for each league champion to potentially host 4 vs three games. It worked wel until Selig linked it to the outcome of the All Star game.

I said it poorly (as usual) but this alludes to what I was trying to say.

Getting votes in the top 25 doesn't (de facto) mean that you would end up being higher rated than a team that didn't. If Rice were solidly everyone's #26 team (not saying we were, just as a "for instance") and people were split on Marshall at 25 or 30... Marshall could very well end up being ranked #27 or 28 and Rice 26, despite the fact that a few people viewed Marshall as better.

So it makes sense that "votes in the top 25" (which is a pretty arbitrary line to draw anyway... why not top 20 or 26 or 29 or 38) wouldn't count for nearly as much as some of us were fearing/hoping it would.

But yes, the problem seems to be that we all assumed that getting some votes in the top 25 (and thus a mention in the BCS list) meant that you were ranked higher.

(12-02-2013 01:25 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  MLB used to have alternating years for each league champion to potentially host 4 vs three games. It worked wel until Selig linked it to the outcome of the All Star game.

CUSA does have a strong financial stake in encouraging it's strongest team to have home field advantage, and potentially play in for a BCS bowl berth, or at least represent well against the strongest bowl opponent. That said, I think the first and second tiebreakers should stand. With MLB/NBA, the series are seven games, so while home-field is important, it's not as important as a one-off championship game.

(12-02-2013 01:21 PM)Statman101 Wrote:  Not to start a bigger argument but the way the current BCS Top 25 is structured and in ranking the Top 25 BCS teams, Marshall actually "received" a point value. Rice did not. I think that is where the point of contention comes into play.

My question is this. Had Marshall been ranked in the Top 25 of the BCS poll WITHOUT receiving any computer points (like Fresno St.) would they have hosted? If so then why would you have to change the system based on the fact that Marshall only "received" votes in the human polls? It is essentially the same argument except Marshall's point value would have been higher and Rice would have still had a zero point value.

But this isn't really true. Rice's point value didn't include any "top 25" points, but as Marshall's value didn't place them IN the top 25, the fact that they were on some ballots and Rice wasn't only means that SOME voters thought they were top 25 and Rice wasn't... It doesn't mean that if all of the voters had ranked Rice AND Marshall, that they would have put Marshall ahead.

Had Marshall actually been voted IN the top 25 by the group, and not by a few individuals, it would have been a different story... even if the computers had disagreed.... because the CONSENSUS of the poll would have been that Marshall was better.

It seems to me that this was specifically put in place to avoid or reduce the impact of any gamesmanship. Sure, a few voters from the east COULD vote Marshall in, and a few from Texas COULD vote Rice in... but on the whole, it isn't likely to change the overall perception much.

(12-02-2013 01:33 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 01:25 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  MLB used to have alternating years for each league champion to potentially host 4 vs three games. It worked wel until Selig linked it to the outcome of the All Star game.

CUSA does have a strong financial stake in encouraging it's strongest team to have home field advantage, and potentially play in for a BCS bowl berth, or at least represent well against the strongest bowl opponent. That said, I think the first and second tiebreakers should stand. With MLB/NBA, the series are seven games, so while home-field is important, it's not as important as a one-off championship game.

Alternating years is still a good idea for a tie breaker as an alternative to a coin toss or a human poll that can be gamed.

I also like the old SWC concept used for the Cotton Bowl where the team that had the longest time since representing the SWC was awarded the birth. That would not have worked this year since both Marshal and Rice have never appeared in the Championship game.

(12-02-2013 01:21 PM)Statman101 Wrote:  My question is this. Had Marshall been ranked in the Top 25 of the BCS poll WITHOUT receiving any computer points (like Fresno St.) would they have hosted? If so then why would you have to change the system based on the fact that Marshall only "received" votes in the human polls? It is essentially the same argument except Marshall's point value would have been higher and Rice would have still had a zero point value.

This is the part of Marshall's argument that I really don't understand. Zero computer points are somewhat meaningless in the context of this discussion ... the top-12 BCS teams are never going to have zero computer points. I don't know if this is a reference to Jerry Palm's estimate or the actual BCS formula, which couldn't care less about schools that don't rate in the computer rankings.

Projecting/using the BCS formulas may have some value if you are comparing #12 and #13, or possibly have two teams ranked around #26-#30. I think it's a bad formula for the former and worse for the latter. It's absolute **** for teams that are no better than #50 in the country, which is where Marshall and Rice are at this stage. We should be happy that we've each reached the championship game, but if we're being honest, both teams have merely shown themselves to be on the plus side of mediocre at this stage. Our mutual goals should be to have teams that are no worse than this year's versions, but on the plus side hope to break into the top 15 in the country.

Thanks for your comments. I have a lot of tolerance for the Green Queen and admire her passion. It's just a shame that America will not hear much about two great schools from different backgrounds and wonderful History that will be mixing it up Saturday. Too bad you can't make the game.
Best of luck and even though someone has to lose the game-- these young men are all WINNERS!!!



I would like to invite you guys over to herdfans.com when the smoke clears. Most of us were confused and upset with the way cusa handled things. Nevertheless you guys deserved to host just as much as we did. Should be a good game that I wish I could see in person.
[/quote]

(12-02-2013 01:40 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 01:21 PM)Statman101 Wrote:  My question is this. Had Marshall been ranked in the Top 25 of the BCS poll WITHOUT receiving any computer points (like Fresno St.) would they have hosted? If so then why would you have to change the system based on the fact that Marshall only "received" votes in the human polls? It is essentially the same argument except Marshall's point value would have been higher and Rice would have still had a zero point value.

This is the part of Marshall's argument that I really don't understand. Zero computer points are somewhat meaningless in the context of this discussion ... the top-12 BCS teams are never going to have zero computer points. I don't know if this is a reference to Jerry Palm's estimate or the actual BCS formula, which couldn't care less about schools that don't rate in the computer rankings.

Projecting/using the BCS formulas may have some value if you are comparing #12 and #13, or possibly have two teams ranked around #26-#30. I think it's a bad formula for the former and worse for the latter. It's absolute **** for teams that are no better than #50 in the country, which is where Marshall and Rice are at this stage. We should be happy that we've each reached the championship game, but if we're being honest, both teams have merely shown themselves to be on the plus side of mediocre at this stage. Our mutual goals should be to have teams that are no worse than this year's versions, but on the plus side hope to break into the top 15 in the country.

The argument regarding the computer scores being zero has come up due to the fact that C-USA said that they would be using the BCS rankings, which state that a team only receives points if they are within the top 25 of any given computer ranking.

Since Marshall and Rice were not, then each team should receive zero points according the BCS guidelines.

I like alternating years as a tiebreak. Not alternating per se like a possession arrow (so people go flipping back through history to find out which division last won the tiebreak, but if you get to the "alternating years" tiebreak it's as simple as "Which division hosted last year? Whichever it was, the other division gets it."

FTR, I have no idea who hosted last year.

I am beginning to see why they are called the "Thundering" Herd and not just the Herd. Lots of sound and fury.