• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

FCS – Total Upsets Poll (Oct 5)

How many “upsets” will there be?

  • None

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1 or 2

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • 3 or 4

    Votes: 7 58.3%
  • 5 or 6

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • 7 to 9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 10 to 13

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 14 or more

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12

IdaGriz01

Well-known member
I decided it was time for another, different “upsets” game. This coming weekend, there are 17 games that involve ranked teams … some, of course, being ranked-vs-ranked. So the question is: How many of these games will turn out to be upsets? Now, I know we don’t all agree with the rankings, or that certain teams even deserved to be ranked. But that “is what it is.” So here, using my “underdog on the left” format, are the games coming up. (I went with my own list – rather than what “Paytonlives” has – so you’d have it right here.)

Here, you don’t have to pick specific upsets, just the total number. Personally, I could envision as many as eight, but a couple more actually seem within reach. (Note: You are allowed to change your vote later.)

#10 Illinois State (3-1) vs #1 NDSU (4-0)
#24 Stony Brook (4-1) vs #2 James Madison (4-1)
Southern Illinois (2-2) at #3 SDSU (3-1)
Idaho (2-3) vs #4 Weber State (2-2)
William & Mary (2-3) vs #5 Villanova (5-0)
Cal Poly (2-2) vs #6 Montana State (4-1)
Idaho State (2-2) at #8 Montana (4-1)
#16 Nicholls (2-2) vs #11 Central Arkansas (3-1)
North Dakota (2-2) vs #12 UC Davis (2-3)
#18 Youngstown State (4-0) at #13 UNI (2-2)
Samford (3-2) vs #14 Furman (3-2)
Norfolk State (1-4) vs #15 N Carolina
McNeese St. (2-3) vs #17 SE Louisiana (3-1)
Tennessee State (1-4) at #21 Jacksonville St (2-2)
Sacramento St (2-2) vs #22 E Washington (2-3)
Tennessee Tech (4-1) at #23 SE Missouri State (2-2)
Columbia (1-1) at #25 Princeton (2-0)

EDIT: Decided to bite the bullet and restart this with narrower ranges at the low end. We'll see how this works.
 
Looks like I should have "fine tuned" the lower-number choices to get more separation. Had thought about that, but seemed like it made too many choices. Live and learn. :?
 
IdaGriz01 said:
Looks like I should have "fine tuned" the lower-number choices to get more separation. Had thought about that, but seemed like it made too many choices. Live and learn. :?
As noted above ... decided to "bite the bullet" and make the change.

Apologies to those who voted before, and hope you're willing to try again.
 
Back
Top