FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:19:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

emma17

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2014, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 18, 2014, 02:30:54 PM
Heard a line in the Podcast that said "It's not so much who you lost to, but who you beat".

If that's the case, then you can make the argument: UWO>TLU

UWO has quality wins at UWP and at UWSP. Also, both UWO and TLU played D3 powers.....one was embarrassed, while the other held their ground.

Here's my thing with TLU.  I would be much more comfortable with TLU playing in the tournament if they got to play literally anybody other than UMHB.  We know how that turns out.  With that said, per the criteria, TLU earned a spot in the field.  That much really can't be argued with.  I'd been projecting TLU in for the last month of the season.

As far as TLU vs. UWO- that conversation could never ever happen.  We know that TLU was in the field via Pool B, which means TLU and UWO were never talked about and compared to one another.  Everything you say there is valid re: UWO and TLU, but those profiles were never in play at the same time on Saturday night/Sunday.

Wally, you are coming at this from the perspective of the "criteria" being followed.  In the interview I heard, it pretty clearly suggested a great amount of room for subjectivity.  TLU lost by 56 points to a playoff team.  More than any other criteria, this fact should have guided the committee.   A resounding defeat like that should be far more consequential than UWO's 6-1 D3 only schedule.  I do realize TLU wasn't compared to UWO in the 4 at the table method- and that's where the committee failed.  Centre was the best choice for the Pool B, leaving TLU to be compared to all other bubble teams.  I realize again that the pecking order would not have allowed UWO to likely be compared to TLU, but that's irrelevant too, because TLU shouldn't have been selected in Pool C over a host of other teams previously mentioned.     

I'm entirely opposed to punishing competitive teams (in reality, the players that worked so hard to prove they can compete with the best) because of this zeal to reward teams for scheduling up.  Most believe scheduling up is good for a team in the long run, let that be their reward. 
 
jknezek, do you believe that UWO desires to schedule 3 non D3 schools?  Do you believe UWW wants to play Waldorf?  In effect, the "reward" you are anxious to give to TLU for scheduling up is equally a punishment to kids from other programs that couldn't fill a schedule w D3 opponents for reasons out of their control. 

At the end of the day we end up with a less competitive playoff field because scheduling up needs instant gratification.
 

wally_wabash

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
Wally, you are coming at this from the perspective of the "criteria" being followed.  In the interview I heard, it pretty clearly suggested a great amount of room for subjectivity. 

The objective criteria can certainly be applied in a subjective manner- that's how we get different teams with different profiles in one year and not in another.  Muhlenberg wasn't getting in with last year's committee.  This year's committee weighted win% and SOS a little more evenly than last year's committee. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
TLU lost by 56 points to a playoff team.  More than any other criteria, this fact should have guided the committee.   A resounding defeat like that should be far more consequential than UWO's 6-1 D3 only schedule. I do realize TLU wasn't compared to UWO in the 4 at the table method- and that's where the committee failed.  Centre was the best choice for the Pool B, leaving TLU to be compared to all other bubble teams.  I realize again that the pecking order would not have allowed UWO to likely be compared to TLU, but that's irrelevant too, because TLU shouldn't have been selected in Pool C over a host of other teams previously mentioned.     

The committee didn't fail.  They followed the procedure.  The procedure is flawed.  I just want to make sure we have that distinction because that's different than putting it on the alleged poor judgment of the members of the committee.  I think, if I've followed the series of picks correctly, they did a pretty good job of getting the right teams in there.

Ultimately, UWO got bumped behind St. Thomas.  UWO might have been an easier pick than St. Thomas.  But the West RAC put St. Thomas ahead of UWO.  UWO, very possibly, never made it to the board at all. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

jknezek

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM

 
jknezek, do you believe that UWO desires to schedule 3 non D3 schools?  Do you believe UWW wants to play Waldorf?  In effect, the "reward" you are anxious to give to TLU for scheduling up is equally a punishment to kids from other programs that couldn't fill a schedule w D3 opponents for reasons out of their control. 

At the end of the day we end up with a less competitive playoff field because scheduling up needs instant gratification.


If you punish teams for scheduling UWO or UWW OOC do you think UWO or UWW will play anyone BUT non D3 opponents in OOC games? You'll only get Waldorf or SDST since no one else will have a reason to play you.

In the end, TLU is an acceptable team for the playoffs. There are worse teams in the tournament and there are probably better teams at home, but TLU isn't a bad choice. It's not a sop to them for playing UMHB, it's a team that went 9-0 and lost to an elite, something that 28 other teams in the tournament would probably do as well. Maybe not lose as bad, but lose all the same.

I get that you are hung up on the MOV numbers. I can't blame you. TLU got buried. But the D3 tournament is inclusive. UWO had their shot to be included by winning the WIAC, TLU had their shot to be included through Pool B. I think Centre should have been the B as well. But I still think TLU, hypothetically first on the table from the South, gets in through C at some point.


emma17

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2014, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
Wally, you are coming at this from the perspective of the "criteria" being followed.  In the interview I heard, it pretty clearly suggested a great amount of room for subjectivity. 

The objective criteria can certainly be applied in a subjective manner- that's how we get different teams with different profiles in one year and not in another.  Muhlenberg wasn't getting in with last year's committee.  This year's committee weighted win% and SOS a little more evenly than last year's committee. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
TLU lost by 56 points to a playoff team.  More than any other criteria, this fact should have guided the committee.   A resounding defeat like that should be far more consequential than UWO's 6-1 D3 only schedule. I do realize TLU wasn't compared to UWO in the 4 at the table method- and that's where the committee failed.  Centre was the best choice for the Pool B, leaving TLU to be compared to all other bubble teams.  I realize again that the pecking order would not have allowed UWO to likely be compared to TLU, but that's irrelevant too, because TLU shouldn't have been selected in Pool C over a host of other teams previously mentioned.     

The committee didn't fail.  They followed the procedure.  The procedure is flawed.  I just want to make sure we have that distinction because that's different than putting it on the alleged poor judgment of the members of the committee.  I think, if I've followed the series of picks correctly, they did a pretty good job of getting the right teams in there.

Ultimately, UWO got bumped behind St. Thomas.  UWO might have been an easier pick than St. Thomas.  But the West RAC put St. Thomas ahead of UWO.  UWO, very possibly, never made it to the board at all.

Wally,
Could the committee have put Centre in as the Pool B?

emma17

Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 04:42:34 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM

 
jknezek, do you believe that UWO desires to schedule 3 non D3 schools?  Do you believe UWW wants to play Waldorf?  In effect, the "reward" you are anxious to give to TLU for scheduling up is equally a punishment to kids from other programs that couldn't fill a schedule w D3 opponents for reasons out of their control. 

At the end of the day we end up with a less competitive playoff field because scheduling up needs instant gratification.


If you punish teams for scheduling UWO or UWW OOC do you think UWO or UWW will play anyone BUT non D3 opponents in OOC games? You'll only get Waldorf or SDST since no one else will have a reason to play you.

In the end, TLU is an acceptable team for the playoffs. There are worse teams in the tournament and there are probably better teams at home, but TLU isn't a bad choice. It's not a sop to them for playing UMHB, it's a team that went 9-0 and lost to an elite, something that 28 other teams in the tournament would probably do as well. Maybe not lose as bad, but lose all the same.

I get that you are hung up on the MOV numbers. I can't blame you. TLU got buried. But the D3 tournament is inclusive. UWO had their shot to be included by winning the WIAC, TLU had their shot to be included through Pool B. I think Centre should have been the B as well. But I still think TLU, hypothetically first on the table from the South, gets in through C at some point.

The bold is the part that I struggle with.  I'm not punishing anybody.  UMHB punished TLU.  TLU faced a risk/reward here right?   The risk was they get smoked by UMHB, and the reward was they better their program AND if they don't get smoked, they look good for Pool B or C.  The problem with their inclusion this year is it ends up they literally took no Risk at all.  It was all reward.  Life doesn't work that way.   

Let me be clear, had TLU played UMHB and lost respectably (I don't know, say by 28 or less), I would be all for their inclusion in Pool C.  But that did not happen.  UMHB punished them.  Or perhaps, they played horribly and they in effect punished themselves.  This decision they made ends up having no risk at all because they are awarded just for showing up.  No, that's not what we are looking for.
 

wally_wabash

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:46:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2014, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
Wally, you are coming at this from the perspective of the "criteria" being followed.  In the interview I heard, it pretty clearly suggested a great amount of room for subjectivity. 

The objective criteria can certainly be applied in a subjective manner- that's how we get different teams with different profiles in one year and not in another.  Muhlenberg wasn't getting in with last year's committee.  This year's committee weighted win% and SOS a little more evenly than last year's committee. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
TLU lost by 56 points to a playoff team.  More than any other criteria, this fact should have guided the committee.   A resounding defeat like that should be far more consequential than UWO's 6-1 D3 only schedule. I do realize TLU wasn't compared to UWO in the 4 at the table method- and that's where the committee failed.  Centre was the best choice for the Pool B, leaving TLU to be compared to all other bubble teams.  I realize again that the pecking order would not have allowed UWO to likely be compared to TLU, but that's irrelevant too, because TLU shouldn't have been selected in Pool C over a host of other teams previously mentioned.     

The committee didn't fail.  They followed the procedure.  The procedure is flawed.  I just want to make sure we have that distinction because that's different than putting it on the alleged poor judgment of the members of the committee.  I think, if I've followed the series of picks correctly, they did a pretty good job of getting the right teams in there.

Ultimately, UWO got bumped behind St. Thomas.  UWO might have been an easier pick than St. Thomas.  But the West RAC put St. Thomas ahead of UWO.  UWO, very possibly, never made it to the board at all.

Wally,
Could the committee have put Centre in as the Pool B?

They could have (and would have) if the South had ranked Centre ahead of TLU.  But they didn't.  I believe there was a press release that made official that Wesley and TLU were the Pool B bids and then Centre went in through Pool C (making a little bit of history in doing so). 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

emma17

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2014, 04:54:33 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:46:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2014, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
Wally, you are coming at this from the perspective of the "criteria" being followed.  In the interview I heard, it pretty clearly suggested a great amount of room for subjectivity. 

The objective criteria can certainly be applied in a subjective manner- that's how we get different teams with different profiles in one year and not in another.  Muhlenberg wasn't getting in with last year's committee.  This year's committee weighted win% and SOS a little more evenly than last year's committee. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
TLU lost by 56 points to a playoff team.  More than any other criteria, this fact should have guided the committee.   A resounding defeat like that should be far more consequential than UWO's 6-1 D3 only schedule. I do realize TLU wasn't compared to UWO in the 4 at the table method- and that's where the committee failed.  Centre was the best choice for the Pool B, leaving TLU to be compared to all other bubble teams.  I realize again that the pecking order would not have allowed UWO to likely be compared to TLU, but that's irrelevant too, because TLU shouldn't have been selected in Pool C over a host of other teams previously mentioned.     

The committee didn't fail.  They followed the procedure.  The procedure is flawed.  I just want to make sure we have that distinction because that's different than putting it on the alleged poor judgment of the members of the committee.  I think, if I've followed the series of picks correctly, they did a pretty good job of getting the right teams in there.

Ultimately, UWO got bumped behind St. Thomas.  UWO might have been an easier pick than St. Thomas.  But the West RAC put St. Thomas ahead of UWO.  UWO, very possibly, never made it to the board at all.

Wally,
Could the committee have put Centre in as the Pool B?

They could have (and would have) if the South had ranked Centre ahead of TLU.  But they didn't.  I believe there was a press release that made official that Wesley and TLU were the Pool B bids and then Centre went in through Pool C (making a little bit of history in doing so).

Does the national committee have the authority to look beyond the South's ranking and put Centre in Pool B instead?

wally_wabash

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:59:24 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2014, 04:54:33 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:46:18 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2014, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
Wally, you are coming at this from the perspective of the "criteria" being followed.  In the interview I heard, it pretty clearly suggested a great amount of room for subjectivity. 

The objective criteria can certainly be applied in a subjective manner- that's how we get different teams with different profiles in one year and not in another.  Muhlenberg wasn't getting in with last year's committee.  This year's committee weighted win% and SOS a little more evenly than last year's committee. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 04:22:14 PM
TLU lost by 56 points to a playoff team.  More than any other criteria, this fact should have guided the committee.   A resounding defeat like that should be far more consequential than UWO's 6-1 D3 only schedule. I do realize TLU wasn't compared to UWO in the 4 at the table method- and that's where the committee failed.  Centre was the best choice for the Pool B, leaving TLU to be compared to all other bubble teams.  I realize again that the pecking order would not have allowed UWO to likely be compared to TLU, but that's irrelevant too, because TLU shouldn't have been selected in Pool C over a host of other teams previously mentioned.     

The committee didn't fail.  They followed the procedure.  The procedure is flawed.  I just want to make sure we have that distinction because that's different than putting it on the alleged poor judgment of the members of the committee.  I think, if I've followed the series of picks correctly, they did a pretty good job of getting the right teams in there.

Ultimately, UWO got bumped behind St. Thomas.  UWO might have been an easier pick than St. Thomas.  But the West RAC put St. Thomas ahead of UWO.  UWO, very possibly, never made it to the board at all.

Wally,
Could the committee have put Centre in as the Pool B?

They could have (and would have) if the South had ranked Centre ahead of TLU.  But they didn't.  I believe there was a press release that made official that Wesley and TLU were the Pool B bids and then Centre went in through Pool C (making a little bit of history in doing so).

Does the national committee have the authority to look beyond the South's ranking and put Centre in Pool B instead?

Yes, the national committee can make adjustments to the final ranking sets before starting the selection process, but I don't think they like to do it.  There may have been an adjustment there between Centre and Muhlenberg, but I don't think there would have been an adjustment to move Centre above TLU.  Centre's SOS has to go down with a spoonful of sugar, and even with the 10-0, you can make a case for them to sit behind TLU (even if I might disagree with that case). 

I'm totally with you.  I think that 70-burger that TLU gave up ought to have mattered more than it did.  I'd have to go check the archive to see how I phrased that on Saturday night. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

jknezek

MOV is not a criteria and I don't have interest it making it one. If MOV is a criteria you have even less incentive to play an elite.

emma17

Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 05:27:19 PM
MOV is not a criteria and I don't have interest it making it one. If MOV is a criteria you have even less incentive to play an elite.

Hmmm, that opens up other questions then right?  I mean, I think I heard talk that UWW might pay a price in their seeding (in terms of home field) based on their "bad win" vs UWRF.  What made it a bad win?

Are you suggesting the committee doesn't look at scores at all in anything they do with playoffs and seeding?   


USee

Emma17,

Great discussion. Thanks for opening the can of worms. I think you make some great points and the system, as Wally points out, is flawed. But MOV is a dangerous thing. It's easy to point to the 56 pt MOV this year by UMHB over TLU. You mention "...I don't know, 28..." as an arbitrary point at which the MOV is too large. That's the danger in your method. Where do you draw the line? In 2012 Elmhurst lost by 34 to North Central but made the field. They beat a higher seeded Coe on the road and then took St Thomas to the wire in St Paul, who ended up playing in the Stagg. Does their 34 point loss disqualify them from the field? What about the 3-4 TD MOV Mt Union put on some of the OAC runner ups, only to see them make the field and do some damage? This seems like a slippery slope. I am not sure how you can get the intended consequences for this.

jknezek

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 05:43:16 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 05:27:19 PM
MOV is not a criteria and I don't have interest it making it one. If MOV is a criteria you have even less incentive to play an elite.

Hmmm, that opens up other questions then right?  I mean, I think I heard talk that UWW might pay a price in their seeding (in terms of home field) based on their "bad win" vs UWRF.  What made it a bad win?

Are you suggesting the committee doesn't look at scores at all in anything they do with playoffs and seeding?

Well, considering where UWW is in the bracket I would say their "bad win" wasn't a factor... What people say on here is not what the committee does. MOV is not a criteria. Do they look at scores? Sure. But does a bad game necessarily mean a team doesn't belong? Maybe not. Multiple losses, probably so.

As I've said, there are points on both sides. Do I think UWO got screwed? No. Do I think they were a bit unlucky? Yes. But that's what happens when you don't win your conference. You throw yourself at someone else's mercy. Never a good place to be.

bleedpurple

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 05:43:16 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 05:27:19 PM
MOV is not a criteria and I don't have interest it making it one. If MOV is a criteria you have even less incentive to play an elite.

Hmmm, that opens up other questions then right?  I mean, I think I heard talk that UWW might pay a price in their seeding (in terms of home field) based on their "bad win" vs UWRF.  What made it a bad win?

Are you suggesting the committee doesn't look at scores at all in anything they do with playoffs and seeding?

That won't happen and it shouldn't. If UW-W paid a price for a narrow victory, then that will give us incentive to go into places like River Falls and wrap up the game with like 5 minutes left.  :o

bleedpurple

Poll question on Front Page of warhawkfootball.com: "Who will win the non-UWW side of the bracket?"  Visit soon and give your input! Will be interesting to see the thought out there!

www.warhawkfootball.com

retagent

How about - "Who will win the UWW side of the bracket?"

I'm sure you'll get a varied response. ;D