FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:04:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: WW on October 26, 2021, 08:42:07 AM
No matter. This will give us the best matchup of the tournament's first weekend, and it won't even be a tournament game: Wheaton Vs. Oshkosh in the Culver's Isthmus Bowl.

I'm sure that the players, coaches, and fans of Wheaton have nothing against the good people at Culver's -- how could they? the North Atlantic Cod sandwich is delicious -- but this is one consolation prize that I don't think they'd readily embrace with enthusiasm.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

WUPHF

Quote from: WW on October 26, 2021, 08:42:07 AM
No matter. This will give us the best matchup of the tournament's first weekend, and it won't even be a tournament game: Wheaton Vs. Oshkosh in the Culver's Isthmus Bowl.

Butter Burger Bowl!

Gregory Sager

That's a better name for it. Culver's offers plenty of fine food, but I don't think that they offer any properties that separate two bodies of water.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

wally_wabash

Quote from: USee on October 25, 2021, 03:58:18 PM
Wally, in terms of Lake Forest, I think you are saying Wheaton fans want them to win out (thereby giving Monmouth and Chicago 2nd losses and giving the Foresters the AQ) and increasing the odds WashU is ranked? But WashU will end up with 3 losses in that strategy so there is a chance none of them get ranked?

I think my instinct here is to think that WashU's best chance to get ranked is to have the MWC not have multiple teams with 1 loss or fewer- ugly up those 2nd and 3rd place teams enough (and late in the season) to make WashU viable.  I can see WashU possibly ranking ahead of Chicago if Chicago catches two losses, but definitely not if they only catch one. 

The other best case scenario for WashU (and consequently Wheaton) would have been for Chicago to be undefeated and drag WashU up the rankings with them, but we lost that chance in Monmouth a couple of weeks ago.  The worst case scenario is a bunch of 9-1 MWC teams all lumped together which would certainly be too much traffic for WashU to get ranked (unless they shock the universe vs. NCC). 

The path is difficult for WashU to get inside the rankings for sure.  I do think Lake Forest sweeping the MWC is the best way to try and clear the deck as it were- and even then, it might not be enough as you've noted. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Next Man Up

#39274
Quote from: WUPHF on October 26, 2021, 09:58:44 AM
Quote from: WW on October 26, 2021, 08:42:07 AM
No matter. This will give us the best matchup of the tournament's first weekend, and it won't even be a tournament game: Wheaton Vs. Oshkosh in the Culver's Isthmus Bowl.

Butter Burger Bowl!
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 26, 2021, 10:58:07 AM
That's a better name for it. Culver's offers plenty of fine food, but I don't think that they offer any properties that separate two bodies of water.

A game north of the Cheddar Curtain sponsored by Culver's cries out to be named for one of Culver's most popular products....................The Culver's (Cheese) Curd Bowl 🏈  😊
So young hero, ask yourself............................Do you want to go to college, get a good education, and play (basketball)(football), or do you want to go to college, get a good education, and watch (basketball)(football)? 🤔 😏

Don't surround yourself with yourself. 🧍🏼‍♂️(Yes)

WUPHF

#39275
But, the alliteration that comes with the name Butter Burger Bowl makes it a no brainer and a bit more understandable for those in the CCI(MO)W part of CCIW.

I would have asked for that in the sponsorship deal.

Next Man Up

Butter Burger Bowl works well. I just thought Culver's Cheese Curd Bowl or just Culver's Curd Bowl both denote the Bowl sponsor and highlight a popular item not usually available at the majority of burger places.
So young hero, ask yourself............................Do you want to go to college, get a good education, and play (basketball)(football), or do you want to go to college, get a good education, and watch (basketball)(football)? 🤔 😏

Don't surround yourself with yourself. 🧍🏼‍♂️(Yes)

D3FLETCH

Quote from: Next Man Up on October 26, 2021, 05:02:23 PM
Butter Burger Bowl works well. I just thought Culver's Cheese Curd Bowl or just Culver's Curd Bowl both denote the Bowl sponsor and highlight a popular item not usually available at the majority of burger places.

Wheaton players will be given a Culver's franchise post game. WIAC participants will receive a job application (benefits eligible after 12 months). 

WW

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 26, 2021, 11:33:53 AM
Quote from: USee on October 25, 2021, 03:58:18 PM
Wally, in terms of Lake Forest, I think you are saying Wheaton fans want them to win out (thereby giving Monmouth and Chicago 2nd losses and giving the Foresters the AQ) and increasing the odds WashU is ranked? But WashU will end up with 3 losses in that strategy so there is a chance none of them get ranked?

I think my instinct here is to think that WashU's best chance to get ranked is to have the MWC not have multiple teams with 1 loss or fewer- ugly up those 2nd and 3rd place teams enough (and late in the season) to make WashU viable.  I can see WashU possibly ranking ahead of Chicago if Chicago catches two losses, but definitely not if they only catch one. 

The other best case scenario for WashU (and consequently Wheaton) would have been for Chicago to be undefeated and drag WashU up the rankings with them, but we lost that chance in Monmouth a couple of weeks ago.  The worst case scenario is a bunch of 9-1 MWC teams all lumped together which would certainly be too much traffic for WashU to get ranked (unless they shock the universe vs. NCC). 

The path is difficult for WashU to get inside the rankings for sure.  I do think Lake Forest sweeping the MWC is the best way to try and clear the deck as it were- and even then, it might not be enough as you've noted.

I think Chicago's the best team in the MWC, their loss to Monmouth notwithstanding. But lose they did. LF is on the rise, but not to the tier of the top two in MWC, IMO. I would be pretty surprised if MWC didn't end up with 9-1 Monmouth in Pool A, 9-1 Chicago with its face up to the window and a player in the RR, and 8-2 LF and 7-3 WashU making deer hunting plans immediately.

Should this shake out as expected, here's a not very fun fact for Wheaton fans. The MWC was 4-5 in NC play; the CCIW was 4-6. Simple math SOS will favor MWC over CCIW...unless the SOS analysis extends to the SOS of their NC opponents. Don't know if it does or not.

For Wheaton, scheduling Northwestern sure looks like a bad idea now (and I know it's hard to build a strong NC schedule as a top D3, but it's ONE game, c'mon), but the only fix to that scenario would be to schedule a team that would later show up in RR. If you beat em, they might not make the RR. But if they're a good team, their rising tide might also float your boat.

So get Oshkosh on your schedule in September, Wheaton. They can't fill their own dam schedule with NC games. Win and you're golden. Lose, well, at least you know what you gotta do.


USee

Not sure if you are saying this, but I don't think there is much of a chance of Wheaton, at 9-1, to be ranked below a 9-1 MWC team in the Regional rankings. Wheaton's issue will be on selection Sunday when they are at the table with Pool C teams from other regions.

wally_wabash

Quote from: WW on October 26, 2021, 07:16:17 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 26, 2021, 11:33:53 AM
Quote from: USee on October 25, 2021, 03:58:18 PM
Wally, in terms of Lake Forest, I think you are saying Wheaton fans want them to win out (thereby giving Monmouth and Chicago 2nd losses and giving the Foresters the AQ) and increasing the odds WashU is ranked? But WashU will end up with 3 losses in that strategy so there is a chance none of them get ranked?

I think my instinct here is to think that WashU's best chance to get ranked is to have the MWC not have multiple teams with 1 loss or fewer- ugly up those 2nd and 3rd place teams enough (and late in the season) to make WashU viable.  I can see WashU possibly ranking ahead of Chicago if Chicago catches two losses, but definitely not if they only catch one. 

The other best case scenario for WashU (and consequently Wheaton) would have been for Chicago to be undefeated and drag WashU up the rankings with them, but we lost that chance in Monmouth a couple of weeks ago.  The worst case scenario is a bunch of 9-1 MWC teams all lumped together which would certainly be too much traffic for WashU to get ranked (unless they shock the universe vs. NCC). 

The path is difficult for WashU to get inside the rankings for sure.  I do think Lake Forest sweeping the MWC is the best way to try and clear the deck as it were- and even then, it might not be enough as you've noted.

I think Chicago's the best team in the MWC, their loss to Monmouth notwithstanding. But lose they did. LF is on the rise, but not to the tier of the top two in MWC, IMO. I would be pretty surprised if MWC didn't end up with 9-1 Monmouth in Pool A, 9-1 Chicago with its face up to the window and a player in the RR, and 8-2 LF and 7-3 WashU making deer hunting plans immediately.

Should this shake out as expected, here's a not very fun fact for Wheaton fans. The MWC was 4-5 in NC play; the CCIW was 4-6. Simple math SOS will favor MWC over CCIW...unless the SOS analysis extends to the SOS of their NC opponents. Don't know if it does or not.

Remember that RRO results don't live in a vacuum.  The CCIW is going to have regionally ranked teams #1 and #3 (most likely).  I'm not sure where the MWC teams would land, but their results against one another won't carry quite as much weight as WashU's results against higher ranked teams.  That game against North Central is a huge opportunity. 

Of course, North Central could twist the knife on their rivals a bit by 60-piecing the Bears and ending any whisper of a regional ranking. 

FWIW, I'm still not a believer that Wheaton needs WashU to be ranked to make the field.  It helps (locks it up really), but I don't think it's a requirement- yet.  We'll reassess after this weekend.
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

kiko

Two random Regional Ranking questions:

- Is it 'once ranked, always ranked', or does a RR count only if it comes in the final rankings?  Or is this something that is opaque to us given how RRs will be done this year?

- I saw on the basketball board that the first set of RRs will list who is ranked alphabetically, but not actually numerically rank them.  ("These eight teams are ranked: Aurora, Benedictine, Coe, ...")  Presumably this is so that there is not an anchoring bias in the rankings before the second ranking, which is the first set of rankings that can take results versus RRO into account.  Setting aside whether we think this is a good ora bad approach, do we know if this approach is being used for football as well?

Gregory Sager

Many of these kinds of things are done on a sport-by-sport basis, but I can tell you that men's soccer is doing the first-RR-round-is-alphabetical thing as well -- so perhaps it's an all-sport mandate.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

wally_wabash

Quote from: kiko on October 26, 2021, 08:59:42 PM
Two random Regional Ranking questions:

- Is it 'once ranked, always ranked', or does a RR count only if it comes in the final rankings?  Or is this something that is opaque to us given how RRs will be done this year?

- I saw on the basketball board that the first set of RRs will list who is ranked alphabetically, but not actually numerically rank them.  ("These eight teams are ranked: Aurora, Benedictine, Coe, ...")  Presumably this is so that there is not an anchoring bias in the rankings before the second ranking, which is the first set of rankings that can take results versus RRO into account.  Setting aside whether we think this is a good ora bad approach, do we know if this approach is being used for football as well?

It is not once ranked, always ranked.  RROs come from the final two rankings (the rankings we see prior to week 11 and the rankings we'll get after the field is announced). 

Ranked teams, sorted alphabetically will be coming to the football rankings as well. Part of the reason for doing this in the first set of rankings is because the data set is incomplete- there are not RROs involved in the first rankings (there were no ranked teams prior to the first rankings, right?). 

There is a lot more conversation about this on the special Around The Nation / Hoopsville podcast crossover eventTM which I admittedly need to listen to myself!
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

WW

Quote from: USee on October 26, 2021, 07:35:15 PM
Not sure if you are saying this, but I don't think there is much of a chance of Wheaton, at 9-1, to be ranked below a 9-1 MWC team in the Regional rankings. Wheaton's issue will be on selection Sunday when they are at the table with Pool C teams from other regions.

If "RRO results don't live in a vacuum," what other criteria are being considered?

I'm not making a case here, I'm asking a question. Say Chicago is 9-1, as is Wheaton. Say they are both winless vs. RRO (although Wheaton will have played one RRO). Say Chicago has a stronger SOS using the metrics that appear to be in use (and they would have the stronger SOS by a decent margin).

What criteria, without preseason bias or the "eye test", would trump SOS (or cause rankers to disregard it) and elevate Wheaton past Chicago?