The selection committee’s process doesn’t use the polls although the committee members have no doubt seen them. From Hero Sports:

The playoff committee will no longer use the Stats Perform Media Poll and AFCA Coaches Poll on its list of data points that committee members can utilize. They can now consider rankings in the KPI, Massey Ratings, and ESPN’s Football Power Index, although each member can choose what to weigh the most when making selections (record, strength of schedule, quality wins, metrics, etc.)

“The committee was focused on expanding the use of metrics-based tools to replace the polls we had used in years past,” HERO Sports was told. “We were able to get those three on board to give us a good mix of both predictive (Massey & FPI) and results (KPI & SOS) based metrics.”
Link to source article:
https://herosports.com/fcs-notebook-playoff-committee-release-top-10-ranking-bzbz/

That's an interesting change.

Massey Ratings for Week 12:



https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cf&sub=fcs

As far as I can see the other metrics (fpi, kpi, sos) aren’t published for FCS ??

I will say this is quite the welcome change from the past couple years. I much prefer talk of "will we get the 4 seed or the 5 seed if we beat Sac" as opposed to "are we going to even make the playoffs".

A loss of SD state to ND state and a win of the Aggie at Sac and we will get the 4 seed?

SDSU already lost to NDSU a few weeks ago. USD plays NDSU this weekend. Fingers crossed for the 4 seed. I doubt USD stands a chance against NDSU, and that should solidify Davis as the 4 seed, hopefully...

One would think so, if it is true that the voters over-react to a loss, as cmt noted, quite rightly IMHO.

No telling. As mentioned the polls don’t matter, its the vote by the committee, which don’t have the polls as a factor.
Maybe based on won loss record, maybe based on number of quality wins. If the score differential is enough to flip the Massey rating in Davis’ favor that would be an additional factor, but to do that South Dakota State would have to underperform the expected score and/or Davis would need to score more than Massey would predict.

It will be tight. I think the Stats poll would move us up to 4 but as Riveraggie posted, the committee doesn't use that anymore. In Massey we're 5 and SD is 4. That one has us closer to being the 4 than SD is to being the 3. However, Sagarin has SD in 4 but right behind Montana St. We're kind of in our own little area, far back of 4 but far ahead of 6.

But if the committee looks at who you beat, we've clearly got the better resume. We have 2 wins way better than anything SD has and our third best win (Southern Utah) is on par with their best win. Losses are fairly similar.

Might come across as a homer pick but if I was voting, I would say South Dakota has to win on Saturday to pass us. FWIW, I had Sac above us at the end of last year despite us winning H2H because I thought their resume was better, so I try not to be some blind homer.

It is a system where committee members discuss but ultimately vote based on their opinion using one or more of won loss record, quality wins, strength of schedule, head to head, common opponents, and ESPN metrics that aren’t published for FCS teams. Great transparency there.

but to do that South Dakota State would have to underperform the expected score and/or Davis would need to score more than Massey would predict. — Riveraggie

That's potentially good for us then since Massey likes Sac and only has us winning by 6. So if we can put it on Sac, that would be a big boost to our rating.

The committee is chaired by a representative from NDSU. The Big Sky representative is Mark Orr of Sac State. Not sure that we can expect him to advocate for Davis. Of note, interesting that Orr would sign on to a 4-year committee commitment just this August if he thought his exit from the conference to FBS was manifest destiny.

Hero sport sees us finishing with the 4th seed. https://herosports.com/fcs-football-2024-playoff-predictions-6-bzbz/

Stats and coaches poll both put Davis at #5 today.

The committee needs to be larger and more program diverse...

last year, Montana AD was influential. Sounds like he was the one pushing to keep us out - they look at us as a sleeping giant so every playoff berth helps to solidify our reputation. This year, we have the Sac guy to contend with!

They need to order the selection, like a decision tree to limit subjectivity.
Say what counts most. Seed according to:
1) Record/strength of schedule
2) Head to head to chose between two teams if they played each other
3) A metric like Massey.
Sure it wouldn’t be perfect but it would not be subjective or political.

The good thing this year is that there are more seeded teams who get home field pretty much automatically if they come up with a base payment. In years past, Montana (besides seemingly at times getting in on name recognition only) would always get a home game no matter their record as they simply “bought” their way into a home game. So, as I understand, it is getting a bit “fairer” in that regard. But yah, having the Montana AD, then Sac AD is not an advantage to the Ags as someone being in the room as an advocate in any way.

If it were fair, Northern Colorado would provide the committee member on behalf of Big Sky. Historically slim chance of conflicting interest.

the UM AD certainly didn't do the Ags any favors last year. They had the resume last year. Also you've no doubt got to experience the home cooking the griz get at wa griz with the BSC ref's.The good news is this year there will be no doubt about the Ags and their resume. The only question is whether they are #3, #4 or #5.

I think Davis secures that #4 spot of NDSU get a 2 score win over the Yotes...and if Davis secures a 2 score win vs. Sac.

In case you were wondering if it's just the FCS that makes weird ranking decisions, it's not!

Last week in the CFP rankings, Miami was 9 and Alabama was 10. BYU (6th) and Tennessee (7th) and lost so they dropped. Miami was on a bye while Alabama beat FCS Mercer 52-7. Apparently beating an FCS team is so impressive it warranted Alabama jumping Miami to 7 while Miami was 8.

The head of the committe, ND St, also said the "eye test" matters

In other words, subjectivity is in the eye of the beholder?

With so many standards of evaluation, each with no assigned weight, they can justify however they vote. I doubt they even reveal who committee members vote for. Decided in what they used to call a smoke filled room, by a small group according to their individual whims.