D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2011, 04:31:59 PM

Title: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2011, 04:31:59 PM
We have finished Week #6.

Let's start looking at the teams contending for the 6 Pool C "berths" for the 2011 season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2011, 05:00:49 PM
In the South, looking at zero and one-loss teams

ASC...
Both Louisiana College (4-1/3-1/2-1) and McMurry (4-2/3-1/3-1) have losses to UMHB. McM plays at Louisiana College on November 5th.  TLU is 4-1/3-1/2-1 (including a loss to Trinity) but has the meat of the conference ahead of them.

Centennial Conference...
JHU is undefeated.   Gettysburg, Muhlenberg and Ursinus lost their non-conference (in-region) games.  Only JHU seems to be a good Pool C candidate. The Blue Jays play at Gettysburg (10/22) and Ursinus (10/29).

ODAC...
HSC (5-1/5-1/2-0) has an in-region loss to Huntingdon. W&L (5-1/4-1/2-0) has an in-region loss to Centre. RMC (5-1/5-1/1-1) has a loss to E&H.  Those 3 teams face each other later in the season.  W&L at RMC on 10/15.

Pres AC...
Thomas More has defeated W&J. Waynesburg has a loss to CNU.

SCAC...
BSC (5-0/2-0) has a win over Huntingdon and will only play 9 games, 8 of them in-region. (BSC vs Centre on 10/15; BSC at Trinity on 10/29).
Centre (4-0/1-0) has a win over W&L and Hanover.  The Colonels will play only 9 games, all in-region. Centre at Trinity on 11/5.
Trinity (5-0/3-0) will play 10 games this season. They host Huntingdon on 10/15.

USASouth...
No Pool C bid for the USA South this season.  Both CNU (3-2/3-1/2-0)and Ferrum (3-2/3-2/2-0) are co-leaders.


Projecting teams in the lead for the Pool C "berth"...

One team from the ASC...
One team from the SCAC...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2011, 05:22:21 PM
In the West...

IIAC has a logjam of Central, Coe, Dubuque and Wartburg with one conference loss. No key games appear to be on the schedule this week.

MIAC  Tommies are (6-0/6-0/4-0).   Augsburg (Tommies) , Bethel (Olies) and St Olaf (Tommies) have one loss.

Midwest Conference is led by Monmouth (5-1/5-1/5-0) has its loss to Wartburg. Monmouth plays Carroll on 10/29 for the title.

NATHC -- No Pool C contenders

Northwest Conference -- Linfield (4-0/4-0/2-0) plays a 9-game schedule including Menlo and a win over Cal Lu. Pac Lu (3-1/2-0/2-0) has a loss to Cal LU. Pac LU at Linfield on 10/22.

SCIAC --  Cal Lu (3-1/3-1/2-0) has a loss to Linfield and a win over Pac Lu and Redlands. Redlands (3-1/3-1/1-1) has a big win over North Central.

UMAC -- St Scholastica is dominating about UMAC.

West conferences

MIAC probably earns a berth.
SCIAC (Redlands) makes a strong case.
IIAC is in the middle of this, unless they knock each other out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2011, 05:36:06 PM
I will leave the North and East Regions to other posters and invite commentary on the South and West Regions.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: cludad on October 09, 2011, 06:21:07 PM
If Redlands wins out and Clu wins out how can the Bulldogs possibly be left out unless there really is a west cost bias.(look at ncc rankings do not deserve it, do voters go off past rep.. They did come west and got beat,imo they should be behind both Clu & Ru).Sciac may not be the toughest league but i bet the top 2 teams could play with anybody.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on October 09, 2011, 09:57:41 PM
Quote from: cludad on October 09, 2011, 06:21:07 PM
If Redlands wins out and Clu wins out how can the Bulldogs possibly be left out unless there really is a west cost bias.(look at ncc rankings do not deserve it, do voters go off past rep.. They did come west and got beat,imo they should be behind both Clu & Ru).Sciac may not be the toughest league but i bet the top 2 teams could play with anybody.

Agree that NCC ought to be behind certainly Redlands and probably CLU as well, but you've got nothing to worry about.  If CLU and Redlands both finish with one loss, they'll both get in.  They might have to play each other in round 1, but they'll both get in. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: MasterJedi on October 09, 2011, 10:17:39 PM
Come on Ralph, don't forgot the WIAC!  ;)

Right now the WIAC's best shot for a second team (assuming UWW goes undefeated) is UW-Oshkosh if their only other loss is to UWW. Losing to the top 2 teams in the nation and beating everyone else has to be a good reason to let them in at 8-2.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on October 09, 2011, 10:47:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2011, 05:36:06 PM
I will leave the North and East Regions to other posters and invite commentary on the South and West Regions.

I'll take a stab at the North...

CCIW - Illinois Wesleyan and NCC are undefeated in league play.  IWU is undefeated overall and stands a good chance at Pool C if they only lose to NCC (who they host, btw).  If NCC loses to IWU and/or Wheaton, then things get tenuous at 8-2 for them.  Carthage and Wheaton are also 1-loss teams at the moment, a second loss in league play probably knocks either out. 

HCAC - Franklin is probably going to beat up on this league.  Barring some kind of upset this coming week against RHIT and RHIT running the table, there are no Pool C candidates here.  Maybe Franklin at 8-2 if it comes to that, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

MIAA - Adrian appears to be the class of the league this year, but Trine could wind up 9-1 and be an attractive at-large team. 

NCAC - Witt's loss this week puts them on very uneasy Pool C turf.  It appears that their only path to the tournament is via AQ.  Wabash appears to be very far out in front of everybody else on their schedule except perhaps Wittenberg.  9-1 looks like a worse case scenario for Wabash, which would probably get them in.  But we can all certainly hope it doesn't come to that. 

OAC - B-W, Heidelberg, and Muskingum all have one loss and all have one more coming via UMU.  That makes zero OAC teams that can have one loss and probably makes zero OAC teams likely to get an at-large bid.  Seems odd, but that's how it is. 

Also keep an eye on CWRU in the UAA.  They could run the table and wind up 9-1.  I don't think 9-1 gets them Pool B (that's going to the Wesley/Huntingdon winner in week 11), but if there aren't many 9-1 runners up out there, CWRU might sneak into Pool C. 

So what do I wind up with:
Trine looks good if they hold serve
IWU looks good if they only lose to NCC
CWRU if they go 9-1 has a shot
Everybody else (except Wabash if they don't win the NCAC) has to sweat out 1-2 bids in what's going to be a crowded group of 2-loss teams.  I could see the North only getting one at-large team this year. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2011, 11:10:20 PM
Quote from: MasterJedi on October 09, 2011, 10:17:39 PM
Come on Ralph, don't forgot the WIAC!  ;)

Right now the WIAC's best shot for a second team (assuming UWW goes undefeated) is UW-Oshkosh if their only other loss is to UWW. Losing to the top 2 teams in the nation and beating everyone else has to be a good reason to let them in at 8-2.
Yes, and my bad. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on October 10, 2011, 12:41:23 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 09, 2011, 09:57:41 PM
Quote from: cludad on October 09, 2011, 06:21:07 PM
If Redlands wins out and Clu wins out how can the Bulldogs possibly be left out unless there really is a west cost bias.(look at ncc rankings do not deserve it, do voters go off past rep.. They did come west and got beat,imo they should be behind both Clu & Ru).Sciac may not be the toughest league but i bet the top 2 teams could play with anybody.

Agree that NCC ought to be behind certainly Redlands and probably CLU as well, but you've got nothing to worry about.  If CLU and Redlands both finish with one loss, they'll both get in.  They might have to play each other in round 1, but they'll both get in.

Saying nothing about whether they're deserving or not, it's no guarantee that Redlands and CLU get in. The committee hates 1st rd flights and if Linfield wins out, that would leave an odd number out on the West Coast. It certainly wouldn't be the first year a deserving team from the NWC or SCIAC got left home to save on airfare.

Not to mention, if Wheaton or IWU beat NCC in the upcoming weeks, Redlands victory suddenly wouldn't look nearly as strong as it did earlier in the year.

Again, this isn't to say Redlands and CLU aren't/won't be worthy of a Pool C, but they aren't locks. Especially since we have a ton of uncertainty about what the rest of the board would look like.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 10, 2011, 12:42:27 AM
Money is not supposed to be an object as to whether teams get in, and keep in mind if two SCIAC teams get in, they drive to each other and there's still only one flight to accommodate a west coast team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on October 10, 2011, 12:47:27 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 10, 2011, 12:42:27 AM
Money is not supposed to be an object as to whether teams get in, and keep in mind if two SCIAC teams get in, they drive to each other and there's still only one flight to accommodate a west coast team.

I hear ya on the 'not supposed to be' but doesn't it seem like the committee has certainly avoided flights like these in the past and left teams at home?

But good point on having the two drive and sending someone else on a flight to Linfield. They'll have to fly someone somewhere.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 10, 2011, 04:34:25 AM
I think on the occasions an island team has been left out, it would actually have saved money to put them in, or at least been cost-neutral.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: 218Tommie on October 10, 2011, 09:31:11 AM
There is a lot of intrigue this year for pool c teams...One thing I'm trying to figure out is what if St. Thomas and the Oles both win out? Where does that leave Bethel (if they beat Augsburg). Would Bethel stay home with the 2 losses against good teams. Just trying to figure this out because I see them as a top 15 team that needs to figure their secondary out a little bit. But, only time will tell.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2011, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: 218Tommie on October 10, 2011, 09:31:11 AM
There is a lot of intrigue this year for pool c teams...One thing I'm trying to figure out is what if St. Thomas and the Oles both win out? Where does that leave Bethel (if they beat Augsburg). Would Bethel stay home with the 2 losses against good teams. Just trying to figure this out because I see them as a top 15 team that needs to figure their secondary out a little bit. But, only time will tell.
I think that UW-Oshkosh with only one in-region loss (UWW) and a non-region loss (UMU) would trump Bethel.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on October 10, 2011, 11:11:24 AM
Quote from: 218Tommie on October 10, 2011, 09:31:11 AM
There is a lot of intrigue this year for pool c teams...One thing I'm trying to figure out is what if St. Thomas and the Oles both win out? Where does that leave Bethel (if they beat Augsburg). Would Bethel stay home with the 2 losses against good teams. Just trying to figure this out because I see them as a top 15 team that needs to figure their secondary out a little bit. But, only time will tell.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2011, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: 218Tommie on October 10, 2011, 09:31:11 AM
There is a lot of intrigue this year for pool c teams...One thing I'm trying to figure out is what if St. Thomas and the Oles both win out? Where does that leave Bethel (if they beat Augsburg). Would Bethel stay home with the 2 losses against good teams. Just trying to figure this out because I see them as a top 15 team that needs to figure their secondary out a little bit. But, only time will tell.
I think that UW-Oshkosh with only one in-region loss (UWW) and a non-region loss (UMU) would trump Bethel.

If UWO and Bethel were both 8-2, Oshkosh probably gets the nod. That said, there's a ton of football left. Bethel still plays UST and St. Olaf still has Concordia Moorhead, Carleton (rivalry game), SJU and Augsburg. UWO still has the rest of your typical WIAC schedule to navigate: UWP; UWW and UWL.

There's just a ton of season left to play. Bethel still controls their destiny for the most part. If they win out and only finish with 1 loss I think they'll get in. If they drop the UST game, they'd need a lot of things to break the right way for them. Not to mention 1 conference getting 3 teams into the dance has only happened once before.

That said, it seems like it's shaping up to be an exciting second half of the season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: 218Tommie on October 10, 2011, 11:20:05 AM
Hazzben, completely agree with you. The next few weeks will help clear this up. I don't see the MIAC getting 3 teams in the field, but I also have a hard time seeing UWO going 8-2 in the WIAC due to the depth of the conference and every team is solid. Although it would be nice having 3 MIAC schools make it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HSC85 on October 10, 2011, 03:12:11 PM
Ralph,

I think that you are correct about the South.  With Salisbury being an East team, the conferences that have supplied Pool C in the past do not have the strength this year.  Last year the ODAC got a Pool C when HSU lost on the last weekend.  This year there is no chance due to the fact that both W&L, Randolph Macon, Emory and Henry and Hampden Sydney all have one loss and they must play each other.  I don't think the second place team can finish with only one loss.  The ASC and the SCAC appear to be capable of delivering a one D3 loss to compete with other regions. 

Thanks for getting the conversation started.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Bill McCabe on October 12, 2011, 02:04:08 PM
Ralph,  Will there be any impact on McMurry playing SFA and UTSA when it comes to a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 12, 2011, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on October 12, 2011, 02:04:08 PM
Ralph,  Will there be any impact on McMurry playing SFA and UTSA when it comes to a Pool C bid?
Those games do not help very much.  Any consideration will be as "Secondary Criteria".

I think that the D-III record of 7-1 with a one-point road loss (margin of victory and home versus road are not criteria) top UMHB will be a good resume.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on October 13, 2011, 05:49:47 PM
Ralph
   What do you see happening in pool C with only one pool B beign handed out., If Wesley wins out they probaby have the best resume because of the head to head with Huntingdon. But Case Western still has a chance at having one loss.. I know there are games left and things will sort out. But won't it be hard to give a two loss pool C over a pool B 1 loss team!!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 13, 2011, 06:15:19 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on October 13, 2011, 05:49:47 PM
Ralph
   What do you see happening in pool C with only one pool B beign handed out., If Wesley wins out they probaby have the best resume because of the head to head with Huntingdon. But Case Western still has a chance at having one loss.. I know there are games left and things will sort out. But won't it be hard to give a two loss pool C over a pool B 1 loss team!!
We have 6 Pool C bids, and I think that we will have a hard time sorting them out.

The winner of the Wesley-Huntingdon game gets the Pool B bid, IMHO. The loser will have 2 in-region losses, not good!  I am not sure where CWRU lands in this.

We will get a much better look at the odds for Pool C when the Regional Rankings come out on Wednesday November 2nd.  There are 3 strong West Region Pool C contenders, one from the South, and maybe 2; two from the East and 2 from the north.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 13, 2011, 06:50:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 13, 2011, 06:15:19 PM
We have 6 Pool C bids, and I think that we will have a hard time sorting them out.

The winner of the Wesley-Huntingdon game gets the Pool B bid, IMHO. The loser will have 2 in-region losses, not good!  I am not sure where CWRU lands in this.

We will get a much better look at the odds for Pool C when the Regional Rankings come out on Wednesday November 2nd.  There are 3 strong West Region Pool C contenders, one from the South, and maybe 2; two from the East and 2 from the north.

And should Huntingdon lose at Trinity, then defeat Wesley, you'd have two Pool B teams with 2 in-region losses.    Unlikely but a possibility, nonetheless. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HSC85 on October 13, 2011, 09:23:27 PM
Wesley also has to play Salisbury.  That will further boost their resume.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on October 13, 2011, 10:22:32 PM
Might be real hard to justify either getting in as the pool B with 2 losses and neither gets in as C with 2 losses IMHO
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on October 16, 2011, 12:21:26 AM
There could be a scenario in the CCIW that gives 3 teams a chance to get in. If IWU loses to NCC this week and then Wheaton beats  NCC we would have a 3 way tie atop the CCIW. If NCC wins the tiebreaker (which starts with point differential between the 3 teams) then IWU and Wheaton are sitting with 9-1 records. IWU gets the nod based on nth but both would be strong candidates.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 16, 2011, 10:10:14 AM
Speaking of Pool C ... isn't it about time for the strength of schedule rankings to make their annual appearance?  ;)

The SCAC picture for Pool C took its first step towards resolution with Centre dropping Birmingham-Southern into the ranks of one-loss teams.  Trinity stayed undefeated (likely knocking Huntingdon out of the Pool B race in the process) but still await both BSC (two weeks) and Centre (three) at home.   They also get a long roadie to LaGrange next week. Millsaps, while out of the Pool C conversation, will have something to say about SCAC pool C possibilities as they also get both Centre (two weeks, home) and BSC (away, week 11).  Even with three losses, Millsaps can still get a piece of the SCAC championship if they win out and Trinity loses one game. 

Centre (6-0):  SEW, @MILL, @TRIN,  RHOD
Trinity (6-0):  @LAGR, BSC, CENT, @AUST
BSC (5-1):  bye, @TRIN,  RHOD, MILL

I also did not realize that BSC only had nine games this year, one of which (against Ave Maria) was not a D3 game.   A 7-1 in-region best possible showing drops them behind a lot of other teams w/9-1 or 8-1 possibilities, and if they and McMurry end up 7-1, McMurry probably comes out ahead given their strong performance in the one loss to UMHB. 

EDIT: SOS figures are available; the link on the D3FB front page hasn't been updated.  They can be found here (http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2011/schedule?tmpl=sos-template).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Bill McCabe on October 16, 2011, 11:14:29 AM
Ron, do you think there could be a Trinity-McMurry first round game, if they both win out?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 16, 2011, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 16, 2011, 10:10:14 AM
Speaking of Pool C ... isn't it about time for the strength of schedule rankings to make their annual appearance?  ;)

The SCAC picture for Pool C took its first step towards resolution with Centre dropping Birmingham-Southern into the ranks of one-loss teams.  Trinity stayed undefeated (likely knocking Huntingdon out of the Pool B race in the process) but still await both BSC (two weeks) and Centre (three) at home.   They also get a long roadie to LaGrange next week. Millsaps, while out of the Pool C conversation, will have something to say about SCAC pool C possibilities as they also get both Centre (two weeks, home) and BSC (away, week 11).  Even with three losses, Millsaps can still get a piece of the SCAC championship if they win out and Trinity loses one game. 

Centre (6-0):  SEW, @MILL, @TRIN,  RHOD
Trinity (6-0):  @LAGR, BSC, CENT, @AUST
BSC (5-1):  bye, @TRIN,  RHOD, MILL

I also did not realize that BSC only had nine games this year, one of which (against Ave Maria) was not a D3 game.   A 7-1 in-region best possible showing drops them behind a lot of other teams w/9-1 or 8-1 possibilities, and if they and McMurry end up 7-1, McMurry probably comes out ahead given their strong performance in the one loss to UMHB. 

EDIT: SOS figures are available; the link on the D3FB front page hasn't been updated.  They can be found here (http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2011/schedule?tmpl=sos-template).

Thanks for doing some digging. I was thinking about this in the car on the way home from my game yesterday. Glad it's that simple. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 17, 2011, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on October 16, 2011, 11:14:29 AM
Ron, do you think there could be a Trinity-McMurry first round game, if they both win out?

If McM can get a bid with a 7-1 IRR and Trinity can win out, this would almost certainly be a pairing the NCAA would choose.  The AA doesn't like rematching conference opponents in the first round, and we all know they throw seeds out when they can save travel dollars.   Trinity probably gets the home field due to better overall record and surprisingly good SOS (50th right now and play two opponents with one current loss between them, should offset playing winless Austin and sub-.500 LaGrange).  UMHB should be the top seed and get someone flown into Belton. 

That said, Centre is playing very well and had surprisingly little trouble with BSC on the road.  Trinity has to be on the top of their game and keep winning the turnover battle to have an undefeated regular season... +4 against Huntingdon, two of which were in the TU red zone, two of which provided starting position in the HC red zone, made all the difference on Saturday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 17, 2011, 06:36:33 PM
The NCAA travel web server is down, but Google Maps has Pineville LA to San Antonio at 435 miles.

My thoughts are that all things being roughly equal, I give home field advantage in the first round to the Pool A bid.

I don't think that there is that much difference between TU and McMurry and LaCollege.

Margin of victory is not a criterion.  Like Trinity, McMurry is 2-0 over common opponents with TU (HPU and LaCollege). LaCollege will likely be 3-0, as will Trinity (HPU, TLU and Millsaps).

I think that Trinity is in good shape to host the first round.  Now all we need is for TU to do its job in the SCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 17, 2011, 07:26:29 PM
Results against common opponents is a criterion. It's not "winning percentage against common opponents." That means the committee has the latitude to consider things such as large differences in scoring margin, should it choose to do so.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on October 17, 2011, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 17, 2011, 07:26:29 PM
Results against common opponents is a criterion. It's not "winning percentage against common opponents." That means the committee has the latitude to consider things such as large differences in scoring margin, should it choose to do so.

Judging from some interesting matchups in the past, the committee can do pretty much whatever it likes! That being said, so long as we have a championship tournament I'm pretty happy. So long as that championship includes all conference champions, I'm ecstatic. The matchups may not always be what we would consider most fair, the tournament may not ever include the 32 best teams in the country, but the eventual champion will have earned that title for being the champion of the champions.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 17, 2011, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 17, 2011, 07:26:29 PM
Results against common opponents is a criterion. It's not "winning percentage against common opponents." That means the committee has the latitude to consider things such as large differences in scoring margin, should it choose to do so.

Thanks for the refresher...


LaCollege

Millsaps  56-0                  +56
at HPU   42-14                 +28
at TLU  10/29/2011           ---
McMurry  11/05                 ---

McMurry

at HPU  50-3               +47
at TLU  60-16              +44
at LaCollege 11/5         ---

Trinity

at HPU         24-7          +17
TLU             43-14         +29
at Millsaps   10-3            +7
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on October 18, 2011, 01:59:05 AM
I wish I'd read this thread before doing all this research on my own right before Pat and I recorded this week's podcast.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Top Notch on October 18, 2011, 10:33:11 AM
I have to disagree with you Ralpha. I believe McMurry and LC are quite a bit better than Trinity.....Even if you are looking just at commmon opponents scores
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on October 18, 2011, 11:56:11 AM
But again, it's not who is better - it's who has the best fit for the criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on October 21, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
There is a lot of football yet to play, but I posted this over on another North Region board.

Barring any serious upsets in the remaining CCIW play, it is quite possible for a 3 way tie for the CCIW crown.

If NCC beats IWU this weekend and Wheaton beats NCC on Nov. 5th, then that would leave NCC, Wheaton and IWU all at 6-1 in conference.  NCC would be 8-2 over all (due to a non-conference loss to Redlands) and both Wheaton and IWU would be 9-1. 

However it is possible NCC would be the AQ for the playoffs in that case based on point differential in games between the 3 teams (the next tiebreaker criteria used).  That would likely give IWU the nod for the best chance at Pool C given they beat Wheaton head-to-head and both teams were 9-1. 

Based on the status of other pool C contenders across the nation, it would leave a very, very remote chance that all 3 CCIW teams would make it - VERY REMOTE.

Not sure how likely this case is in reality (for a 3 way tie in the CCIW).  If it did occur, it seems more plausible that it represents a scenario where a 9-1 CCIW team fails to make the playoffs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 06:00:36 PM
Okay everyone!

"Pool C" mode is in effect until the end of the season.

After tomorrow, we can list the favored Pool A candidates that we want to run the table.

That will leave more Pool C bids available for the rest of us.

As it looks now, the short list of Pool A favorites is UMHB, UWW, UMU, Del Valley, St Thomas and Salisbury.  We want those teams to run the table, and knock out as many other Pool C candidates as we can!

Please add others as you find them.

The CCIW needs to pare those teams.  I am in favor of someone other than North Central (with its loss to Redlands) going undefeated and winning the CCIW. I want NCC to finish with 2 in-region losses.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2011, 06:37:24 PM
Mugsy and Ralph, I am confident that IWU will do their best to make such angst moot! ;)

IF the Titans win tomorrow, the NCC-Wheaton game is probably to determine whether the CCIW is a 2-team or 1-team conference: I believe that NCC would effectively be eliminated (even if they beat Wheaton), while a 9-1 Wheaton would be nearly a lock.  IF UWO loses tomorrow but otherwise wins out (both of which I expect), they would certainly be deserving of a C, but I doubt any other 2-loss team would get in (though NCC would probably still deserve it if they finished 8-2).  All this assumes that NCC, Wheaton, and IWU otherwise do not stumble - in 2009, IWU beat both NCC and Wheaton and lost (at home on Homecoming!) to lowly Millikin, a loss which cost us in seeding, and meant our destruction by UWW a round earlier than expected).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 21, 2011, 07:35:53 PM
These I believe are all the teams who could finish with 1 loss and not win their conference (and games against teams they could finish tied in conference with)
Of course some of these will sort themselves out in the next few weeks (like the MAC)
This doesn't take into account whether or not they're a worthy playoff team, just whether they'd have 1 loss.
*Asterisk means one of the listed teams will be in Pool A

ASC:  Mary Hardin-Baylor  6-0 (4-0) (@ Texas Lutheran)
      Louisiana College   5-1 (3-1) (none)
CC:   Johns Hopkins       6-0 (5-0) (@ Gettysburg, vs Ursinus)
CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   6-0 (3-0) (vs North Central)
      Wheaton             5-1 (2-1) (@ North Central)
E8:   Salisbury           6-0 (4-0) (vs St John Fisher)
LL:   Hobart              4-0 (2-0) (vs RPI)
MAC: *Delaware Valley     7-0 (5-0) (@ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             6-1 (4-1) (vs Lebanon Valley, @ Del Val)
      Lebanon Valley      5-1 (3-1) (@ Widener, vs Lycoming)
      Lycoming            5-1 (3-1) (@ Lebanon Valley, vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              6-0 (2-0) (vs Albion)
MIAC:*St Thomas           7-0 (5-0) (@ Bethel)
      Bethel              5-1 (3-1) (vs St Thomas)
      St Olaf             5-1 (3-1) (none)
MWC:  Illinois College    6-1 (5-1) (none)
NCAC: Wabash              6-0 (3-0) (vs Wittenberg)
NEFC: Endicott            7-0 (5-0) (@ Western New England, NEFC Championship)
NJAC: Montclair St        6-0 (5-0) (@ Rowan, vs Kean)
      Kean                5-1 (4-1) (vs Rowan, @ Montclair St)
NWC:  Linfield            5-0 (3-0) (vs Pacific Lutheran, vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       5-0 (2-0) (@ Pacific Lutheran, vs Willamette, @ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         6-0 (5-0) (vs Baldwin-Wallace)
PAC:  Thomas More         6-0 (5-0) (@ Westminster, vs Waynesburg)
SCAC: Trinity (TX)        6-0 (3-0) (vs Birmingham Southern, vs Centre)
      Centre              5-0 (2-0) (@ Millsaps, @Trinity)
      Birmingham Southern 5-1 (2-1) (@ Trinity, vs Millsaps)
SCIAC Redlands            4-1 (2-1) (none)
     
Chapman             4-1
UMAC: St Scholastica      6-0 (5-0) (@ Eureka)
WIAC: UW-Whitewater       6-0 (3-0) (@ UW-Oshkosh)

Pool B
      Wesley              5-1
      Case Western Reserve 5-1

ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
ODAC: None
USAC: None

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2011, 08:12:46 PM
Better re-check your MWC listing! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 21, 2011, 08:18:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2011, 08:12:46 PM
Better re-check your MWC listing! ;)
College... Wesleyan... same thing right?  ::) Fixed now
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2011, 08:35:37 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 21, 2011, 08:18:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2011, 08:12:46 PM
Better re-check your MWC listing! ;)
College... Wesleyan... same thing right?  ::) Fixed now

You get a pass, but we are IWU, not C. ;D

(Which will come in handy since Iowa Wesleyan College has applied to D3!  If Indiana Wesleyan [College, I think, but not sure] goes D3 we are all screwed [as latecomers, they can be IWHS]!  Fortunately, I don't think there is an Idaho Wesleyan!)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: dahlby on October 21, 2011, 08:38:58 PM
Redlands (along with Cal Lu) plays a 9 game schedule. If the Bulldogs win out, 8-1 would be the record.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: cludad on October 21, 2011, 09:16:50 PM
what are the chances of chapman getting a bid if they win out, or beat either clu or redlands. they are 4-1 with a loss to azusa pacific(naia). they do not qualify for sciac auto. bid but have same record as clu.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 21, 2011, 09:19:12 PM
I think they would need to win out to get Pool C consideration. Long way to go for a team that hasn't played either of the top teams yet.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: cludad on October 21, 2011, 09:24:46 PM
 i understand its a long way to go but i just saw their record and started thinking the what ifs.i think both clu and redlands should  come away with wins,but that is why they play the game :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on October 21, 2011, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 06:00:36 PM
Okay everyone!

"Pool C" mode is in effect until the end of the season.

After tomorrow, we can list the favored Pool A candidates that we want to run the table.

That will leave more Pool C bids available for the rest of us.

As it looks now, the short list of Pool A favorites is UMHB, UWW, UMU, Del Valley, St Thomas and Salisbury.  We want those teams to run the table, and knock out as many other Pool C candidates as we can!

Please add others as you find them.

The CCIW needs to pare those teams.  I am in favor of someone other than North Central (with its loss to Redlands) going undefeated and winning the CCIW. I want NCC to finish with 2 in-region losses.

Says you...I want Bethel to pull off the upset tomorrow and turn your little Pool C world on its head!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 21, 2011, 07:35:53 PM
These I believe are all the teams who could finish with 1 loss and not win their conference (and games against teams they could finish tied in conference with)
Of course some of these will sort themselves out in the next few weeks (like the MAC)
This doesn't take into account whether or not they're a worthy playoff team, just whether they'd have 1 loss.
*Asterisk means one of the listed teams will be in Pool A

ASC:  *Mary Hardin-Baylor  6-0 (4-0) (@ Texas Lutheran)
      Louisiana College   5-1 (3-1) (none)
CC:   Johns Hopkins       6-0 (5-0) (@ Gettysburg, vs Ursinus)
CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   6-0 (3-0) (vs North Central)
      Wheaton             5-1 (2-1) (@ North Central)
E8:   Salisbury           6-0 (4-0) (vs St John Fisher)
LL:   Hobart              4-0 (2-0) (vs RPI)
MAC: *Delaware Valley     7-0 (5-0) (@ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             6-1 (4-1) (vs Lebanon Valley, @ Del Val)
      Lebanon Valley      5-1 (3-1) (@ Widener, vs Lycoming)
      Lycoming            5-1 (3-1) (@ Lebanon Valley, vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              6-0 (2-0) (vs Albion)
MIAC:*St Thomas           7-0 (5-0) (@ Bethel)
      Bethel              5-1 (3-1) (vs St Thomas)
      St Olaf             5-1 (3-1) (none)
MWC:  Illinois College    6-1 (5-1) (none)
NCAC: Wabash              6-0 (3-0) (vs Wittenberg)
NEFC: Endicott            7-0 (5-0) (@ Western New England, NEFC Championship)
NJAC: Montclair St        6-0 (5-0) (@ Rowan, vs Kean)
      Kean                5-1 (4-1) (vs Rowan, @ Montclair St)
NWC:  Linfield            5-0 (3-0) (vs Pacific Lutheran, vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       5-0 (2-0) (@ Pacific Lutheran, vs Willamette, @ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         6-0 (5-0) (vs Baldwin-Wallace)
PAC:  Thomas More         6-0 (5-0) (@ Westminster, vs Waynesburg)
SCAC: Trinity (TX)        6-0 (3-0) (vs Birmingham Southern, vs Centre)
      Centre              5-0 (2-0) (@ Millsaps, @Trinity)
      Birmingham Southern 5-1 (2-1) (@ Trinity, vs Millsaps)
SCIAC Redlands            4-1 (2-1) (none)
UMAC: St Scholastica      6-0 (5-0) (@ Eureka)
WIAC: UW-Whitewater       6-0 (3-0) (@ UW-Oshkosh)

Pool B *
      Wesley              5-1
      Case Western Reserve 5-1
      Chapman            4-1 (I don't know if they go in here or not but I'll stick them here)

ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
ODAC: None
USAC: None



UMHB has the win, and the head-to-head tiebreaker over Louisiana College.  Basically, UMHB must lose 2 games against the bottom of the conference. UMHB only plays 9 South Region games this year.  Louisiana College hosts McMurry on November 5th.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 22, 2011, 12:14:30 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
UMHB has the win, and the head-to-head tiebreaker over Louisiana College.  Basically, UMHB must lose 2 games against the bottom of the conference. UMHB only plays 9 South Region games this year.  Louisiana College hosts McMurry on November 5th.
If Texas Lutheran wins out (including beating MHB) then they could take the title from MHB but I didn't include them on the list because they have 2 losses already and wouldn't be a Pool C factor.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Toby Taff on October 22, 2011, 01:53:50 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 22, 2011, 12:14:30 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
UMHB has the win, and the head-to-head tiebreaker over Louisiana College.  Basically, UMHB must lose 2 games against the bottom of the conference. UMHB only plays 9 South Region games this year.  Louisiana College hosts McMurry on November 5th.
If Texas Lutheran wins out (including beating MHB) then they could take the title from MHB but I didn't include them on the list because they have 2 losses already and wouldn't be a Pool C factor.
Only if McM loses another game because if not there would be a 3 way tie for 1st in conference and the tie breaker would likely go to McM on run differential between the tied teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: dahlby on October 22, 2011, 07:30:56 AM
Chapman can only qualify as a Pool C selection.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2011, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on October 22, 2011, 01:53:50 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 22, 2011, 12:14:30 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
UMHB has the win, and the head-to-head tiebreaker over Louisiana College.  Basically, UMHB must lose 2 games against the bottom of the conference. UMHB only plays 9 South Region games this year.  Louisiana College hosts McMurry on November 5th.
If Texas Lutheran wins out (including beating MHB) then they could take the title from MHB but I didn't include them on the list because they have 2 losses already and wouldn't be a Pool C factor.
Only if McM loses another game because if not there would be a 3 way tie for 1st in conference and the tie breaker would likely go to McM on run differential between the tied teams.
Three-way ties in the ASC are settled by a coin-toss, as a consequence of the 2003 Tri-Champs, ETBU, HSU and UMHB.

HSU did not get to kick the XP in OT and that cost them the point differential at the end of the season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Toby Taff on October 22, 2011, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2011, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on October 22, 2011, 01:53:50 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 22, 2011, 12:14:30 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
UMHB has the win, and the head-to-head tiebreaker over Louisiana College.  Basically, UMHB must lose 2 games against the bottom of the conference. UMHB only plays 9 South Region games this year.  Louisiana College hosts McMurry on November 5th.
If Texas Lutheran wins out (including beating MHB) then they could take the title from MHB but I didn't include them on the list because they have 2 losses already and wouldn't be a Pool C factor.
Only if McM loses another game because if not there would be a 3 way tie for 1st in conference and the tie breaker would likely go to McM on run differential between the tied teams.
Three-way ties in the ASC are settled by a coin-toss, as a consequence of the 2003 Tri-Champs, ETBU, HSU and UMHB.

HSU did not get to kick the XP in OT and that cost them the point differential at the end of the season.
According to the ASC web site its. Winning percentage against the other tied teams, then against the division, then point diff against tied teams, then division
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2011, 03:45:13 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on October 22, 2011, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2011, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on October 22, 2011, 01:53:50 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 22, 2011, 12:14:30 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2011, 10:50:24 PM
UMHB has the win, and the head-to-head tiebreaker over Louisiana College.  Basically, UMHB must lose 2 games against the bottom of the conference. UMHB only plays 9 South Region games this year.  Louisiana College hosts McMurry on November 5th.
If Texas Lutheran wins out (including beating MHB) then they could take the title from MHB but I didn't include them on the list because they have 2 losses already and wouldn't be a Pool C factor.
Only if McM loses another game because if not there would be a 3 way tie for 1st in conference and the tie breaker would likely go to McM on run differential between the tied teams.
Three-way ties in the ASC are settled by a coin-toss, as a consequence of the 2003 Tri-Champs, ETBU, HSU and UMHB.

HSU did not get to kick the XP in OT and that cost them the point differential at the end of the season.
According to the ASC web site its. Winning percentage against the other tied teams, then against the division, then point diff against tied teams, then division

Yes, basically for a three-way tie at 7-1 in the ASC, it breaks out this way.
Quote
9.1.4       Multiple Ties / Football: In the event of a three-way or more tie that cannot be broken by the record against the tied teams followed by record against other conference opponents in descending order, the Commissioner shall conduct a draw with the tied teams to determine the conference automatic qualifier to the NCAA Division III Football Championship.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2011, 07:03:20 PM
With the balance in the NJAC, might the conference knock itself out of Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2011, 11:15:09 PM
Well, balance or the injury to the Montclair quarterback.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 23, 2011, 01:12:38 AM
I've updated my list from the other day. I believe (and I could be wrong) these are all the teams that could finish with 1 loss but not win their conference. This doesn't include teams that can only finish with 1 loss by winning their conference (such as North Central in the CCIW) or 2 loss teams worthy of Pool C discussion (such as UW-Oshkosh)

Conf        Team                            Record          Conf Deciding Games
ASC:  Louisiana College   6-1 (4-1) (none)
CC:   Johns Hopkins       7-0 (6-0) (vs Ursinus)
CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   6-1 (3-1) (none)
      Wheaton             6-1 (3-1) (@ North Central)
E8:   Salisbury           7-0 (5-0) (vs St John Fisher)
LL:   Hobart              5-0 (3-0) (vs RPI)
MAC:* Delaware Valley     8-0 (6-0) (@ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             7-1 (5-1) (@ Del Val)
      Lycoming            6-1 (4-1) (vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              7-0 (3-0) (vs Albion)
MIAC: St Olaf             6-1 (4-1) (none)
MWC:  Illinois College    7-1 (6-1) (none)
NCAC: Wabash              7-0 (4-0) (vs Wittenberg)
NEFC: Endicott            8-0 (6-0) (@ Western New England, NEFC Championship)
NWC:  Linfield            6-0 (4-0) (vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       6-0 (3-0) (@ Pacific Lutheran, vs Willamette, @ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         7-0 (6-0) (vs Baldwin-Wallace)
PAC:  Thomas More         7-0 (6-0) (@ Westminster, vs Waynesburg)
SCAC: Trinity (TX)        7-0 (3-0) (vs Birmingham Southern, vs Centre)
      Centre              6-0 (3-0) (@ Millsaps, @Trinity)
      Birmingham Southern 5-1 (2-1) (@ Trinity, vs Millsaps)
SCIAC Redlands            5-1 (3-1) (none)


Pool B
      Wesley              6-1
      Case Western Reserve 6-1

ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
NAthC None
NJAC: None
ODAC: None
UMAC: None
USAC: None
WIAC: None
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on October 23, 2011, 09:16:24 AM
Thank FC:

A. There's always what the committee will do with the teams that have one in-region loss and one elsewhere, like McMurry or Oshkosh. Of course, if Louisiana College beats McMurry that point is moot. Oshkosh still needs to run through the rest of the WIAC.

B. Illinois Wesleyan definitely wants North Central to beat Wheaton to clear out the Thunder.

C. Delaware Valley can help everyone by taking care of the MAC.

D. The SCAC could have two "C" teams if BSU beats Trinity and then Trinity beats Centre. I said could, not would. The question would be a one-loss BSU or a two-loss Wheaton. Glad I'm not on the committee.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Bill McCabe on October 23, 2011, 09:24:11 AM
I asked this earlier, but will McMurry be hurt by their loss to SFA?  If they win out, are they a bubble team for Pool C?  I think that would be a shame if a loss to a FCS D1 team keeps them out.  Also, when are the regional rankings released?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wesleydad on October 23, 2011, 09:29:26 AM
if wesley and case western win out, would either one of them be in consideration for a pool c given that the other school would have gotten the pool b.  wesley will possibly be hurt with only a 5 - 1 d3 record with 3 more wins against non-d3 schools.  i have read that the non-d3 games are not taken into consideration, but who knows if that is true in the end.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Bill McCabe on October 23, 2011, 09:59:17 AM
How does a 2 loss Oshkosh stack up for a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Jack Parkman on October 23, 2011, 10:28:04 AM
Quote from: cludad on October 21, 2011, 09:16:50 PM
what are the chances of chapman getting a bid if they win out, or beat either clu or redlands. they are 4-1 with a loss to azusa pacific(naia). they do not qualify for sciac auto. bid but have same record as clu.

I think you jinxed them.  The SCIAC is very odd with Redlands squeaking out 2 wins in a row.  All anyone can do is play spoiler from this point on.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on October 23, 2011, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on October 23, 2011, 09:59:17 AM
How does a 2 loss Oshkosh stack up for a Pool C bid?
You have to figure if Oshkosh runs the table they look excellent for a Pool C bid. A respectable out of region loss early to UMU and a very tight conference loss to UWW provide good credentials. If the committee overlooks them I foresee UMU and UWW having even more fun putting together an out of conference schedule as contracts roll off. That being said, Oshkosh has work to do in the WIAC.

Looking at the WIAC boards, it seems opinion is pretty vanilla on this. If UWO runs the table, they are worthy of Pool C versus anyone in the country. What the committee decides, of course, is always entertaining to find out. Does anyone have stats on how many 2 loss teams have been Pool C bids in the last couple years?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Bill McCabe on October 23, 2011, 11:07:07 AM
It seems the committee always has a mind of its own.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on October 23, 2011, 11:10:59 AM
The discussion about Pool C in the CCIW is just that, rhetoric. We have 2 weeks to banter about the possiblililty of the CCIW having a 9-1 team that doesn't make the playoffs. The reality is that it is unlikely anyone is going to beat NCC until they face a purple power deep in the playoffs (IMO). That said, it is interesting fodder for this board to wonder what if:

Wheaton beats NCC by less than 15 pts (which would give NCC the AQ by virtue of the 2nd tiebreaker, pt differential amongst Wheaton/IWU/NCC). Wheaton and IWU are sitting at 9-1 and with IWU obviously owning the HTH win. Wheaton's SOS (at .616) is #1 against any other 1-loss team and only Salisbury (.618) has a better SOS among the top 25. IWU's SOS is .590. Wheaton still plays NCC but they also play Augie and Millikin. Not sure what happens to their SOS but it can't get worse and .616 will be about as good as it gets I would guess. What does the committee do? Do you take 3 from the CCIW? Can you leave a team with such good numbers out of the field?

The process may well dictate what happens. If the north regional committee (Shannon Griffith, Manchester College, co-chair,Tim Gleason, Ohio Athletic Conference, co-chair, Kevin Doherty, Lakeland College, Mike Hallett, Heidelberg University, Tim Lester, Elmhurst College, Craig Rundle, Albion College, Ted Stanley, Kenyon College, Tyson Veidt, Bluffton University, John Welty, Westminster College (MO)) ranks IWU ahead of Wheaton, then the Thunder don't get to the table to be compared with the other region's Pool C candidates until IWU is in the field. IWU will have a pretty solid resume so should be selected into the field early. If there are any slots left after IWU is in, Wheaton should be a strong candidate against all others I would think.

Is there a scenario under which the regional committee could rank Wheaton ahead of IWU even though IWU owns a HTH? The  argument for that would be the SOS numbers and Wheaton's win over NCC (a big assumption).  The SOS numbers for Wheaton are primarily better than IWU due to the win @Platteville for Wheaton. That brings the entire WIAC into the equation for Wheaton's SOS by virtue of the OOWP numbers. Is there a precedent for any of this?

I think all of this is a moot point as Wheaton will have their hands full trying to stay with NCC in 2 weeks, but it's worth discussing while its a relevant topic.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on October 23, 2011, 11:19:09 AM
Quote from: Bill McCabe on October 23, 2011, 11:07:07 AM
It seems the committee always has a mind of its own.  ;)
Yep. Win and you're in. Except for the Pool B folks. That's the beauty of the system. We can complain all we want about the choices the committee makes regarding Pool C, but to go to Pool C means you failed at the main goal. Win and you're in. While I believe Oshkosh, should they win out, deserves a Pool C, they didn't do the one thing that would have made sure they got in. A tall order to be sure, but just about every conference has faced a long-term dominant team at some point.

I think the more interesting question is will we see a Pool C awarded to a Pool B team this year or the near future with Trinity(TX) apparently headed to the Pool B grouping. Wesley, the new SAA winner (next year), the UAA winner, the old SCAC twosome, an improving Huntingdon... all these are going to make for a very competitve Pool B in the near future.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2011, 01:13:27 PM
When I was chatting with Pat last night, I was saying how I think we may be on a crash course for one or two two-loss Pool C teams this year, as one-loss runners-up were becoming scarcer and scarcer.  To prove it, I went through all conferences and graded each conference's hope of having a one-loss runner-up.  The grades were based on general logic of certain teams' strengths, the number of games involved for it to happen and the number of teams currently in each conference at X-0 or X-1.

(A) CCIW – High potential of Pool C at 1 loss since 3 teams tied with 1 loss and only one H2H left

(A) MIAC – St. Olaf must run table, assuming St. Thomas wins at least one more game

(A) MWC – Illinois College must run table, assuming Monmouth wins at least one more game

(A) NWC – Loser of Linfield/Lewis and Clark must run table in other games

(A) SCAC – Trinity and Centre both undefeated with another 1-loss team in the mix

(B) MAC – If DelVal runs table, no 1-loss runner-up.  DelVal still plays 2 games vs. 1-loss MAC teams

(B) MIAA – Albion win vs. Adrian would allow for a 1-loss runner up if Adrian wins other 2 games

(B) NCAC – Wabash wins vs. Wittenberg and Allegheny would foreclose 1-loss runner-up

(B) PAC – If T. More runs table, no 1-loss runner-up.  T. More still plays 2 games vs. 1-loss PAC teams

(B) SCIAC – Redlands must run table or Cal Lutheran must lose 1 of 2 SCIAC games and still win SCIAC

(C) ASC – McMurry win vs. LA College would likely foreclose 1-loss runner-up possibility

(C) HCAC – Franklin win vs. Hanover would foreclose 1-loss runner-up possibility

(C) IND/Pool B – Wesley and Case must both run table

(D) CC – Johns Hopkins win vs. Ursinus would likely foreclose 1-loss runner-up possibility

(D) E8 – Salisbury win vs. Fisher would foreclose 1-loss runner-up possibility

(D) LL – RPI must run table for 1-loss runner-up, assuming Hobart wins all but RPI game

(D) NEFC – Endicott must run table and lose to Bogan winner in NEFC Championship Game

(D) OAC – Baldwin-Wallace must beat Mount Union for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) ECFC – Impossible for runner-up to have 1 loss (Note that Maritime's OOC loss was out of division)

(F) IIAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) NATHC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) NJAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) ODAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) UMAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) USAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) WIAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team (Note Oshkosh's OOC loss was out of region, however)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 23, 2011, 05:39:52 PM
Frank,

I don't understand your ASC comment.  If McM defeats LC (and HSU and Miss Coll) the War Hawks will only have one D3 loss, by one point to UMHB.  The committee's supposed to ignore non-D3 results, are they not?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2011, 07:18:09 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 23, 2011, 05:39:52 PM
Frank,

I don't understand your ASC comment.  If McM defeats LC (and HSU and Miss Coll) the War Hawks will only have one D3 loss, by one point to UMHB.  The committee's supposed to ignore non-D3 results, are they not?

Thanks.

No.  Those are secondary criteria.  I would be willing to asterisk it, though, like I did in the case of a couple of the "F" conferences.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2011, 07:48:03 PM
Here is the section of the Handbook (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2011/2011_3_football.pdf) that is pertinent.

Selection Criteria

Primary Criteria. The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests
leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in
priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.
See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
• Opponents are considered ranked once they appear one time in sport's
official rankings.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their
third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional
and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and
selections.

Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a
decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated
(not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-ofregion
Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents
from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.
• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last
25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt
such criteria with approval from the championships committee.
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the Division III football committee. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B
or C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against Division III
in-region opponents. Coaches' polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not
used as a selection criterion by the football committee for selection purposes.

NEW! Selection Criteria. When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated
records in the primary criteria, the NCAA Division III Football Committee can use a
team's performance in the previous championship season as criterion.

NEW! Rankings. The total number of rankings have been decreased from four to
two and the first ranking shall not take place prior to November 1. For 2011, the first
ranking is on November 2. For more information, see important dates on page 6.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 23, 2011, 07:49:55 PM
If McMurry runs the table, then they are 7-1 versus South Region opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on October 23, 2011, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 21, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Barring any serious upsets in the remaining CCIW play, it is quite possible for a 3 way tie for the CCIW crown.

I'll take 'things that have been posted on this board every year' for $200, Alex.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on October 23, 2011, 09:16:29 PM
Man we have an awesome community on the board. Nice work on this and subsequent posts.

This needs an update after Saturday, no? Bethel, LV, Montclair, etc. picked up losses.

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 21, 2011, 07:35:53 PM
These I believe are all the teams who could finish with 1 loss and not win their conference (and games against teams they could finish tied in conference with)
Of course some of these will sort themselves out in the next few weeks (like the MAC)
This doesn't take into account whether or not they're a worthy playoff team, just whether they'd have 1 loss.
*Asterisk means one of the listed teams will be in Pool A

ASC:  Mary Hardin-Baylor  6-0 (4-0) (@ Texas Lutheran)
      Louisiana College   5-1 (3-1) (none)
CC:   Johns Hopkins       6-0 (5-0) (@ Gettysburg, vs Ursinus)
CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   6-0 (3-0) (vs North Central)
      Wheaton             5-1 (2-1) (@ North Central)
E8:   Salisbury           6-0 (4-0) (vs St John Fisher)
LL:   Hobart              4-0 (2-0) (vs RPI)
MAC: *Delaware Valley     7-0 (5-0) (@ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             6-1 (4-1) (vs Lebanon Valley, @ Del Val)
      Lebanon Valley      5-1 (3-1) (@ Widener, vs Lycoming)
      Lycoming            5-1 (3-1) (@ Lebanon Valley, vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              6-0 (2-0) (vs Albion)
MIAC:*St Thomas           7-0 (5-0) (@ Bethel)
      Bethel              5-1 (3-1) (vs St Thomas)
      St Olaf             5-1 (3-1) (none)
MWC:  Illinois College    6-1 (5-1) (none)
NCAC: Wabash              6-0 (3-0) (vs Wittenberg)
NEFC: Endicott            7-0 (5-0) (@ Western New England, NEFC Championship)
NJAC: Montclair St        6-0 (5-0) (@ Rowan, vs Kean)
      Kean                5-1 (4-1) (vs Rowan, @ Montclair St)
NWC:  Linfield            5-0 (3-0) (vs Pacific Lutheran, vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       5-0 (2-0) (@ Pacific Lutheran, vs Willamette, @ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         6-0 (5-0) (vs Baldwin-Wallace)
PAC:  Thomas More         6-0 (5-0) (@ Westminster, vs Waynesburg)
SCAC: Trinity (TX)        6-0 (3-0) (vs Birmingham Southern, vs Centre)
      Centre              5-0 (2-0) (@ Millsaps, @Trinity)
      Birmingham Southern 5-1 (2-1) (@ Trinity, vs Millsaps)
SCIAC Redlands            4-1 (2-1) (none)
     
Chapman             4-1
UMAC: St Scholastica      6-0 (5-0) (@ Eureka)
WIAC: UW-Whitewater       6-0 (3-0) (@ UW-Oshkosh)

Pool B
      Wesley              5-1
      Case Western Reserve 5-1

ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
ODAC: None
USAC: None


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on October 23, 2011, 09:19:55 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2011, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 21, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Barring any serious upsets in the remaining CCIW play, it is quite possible for a 3 way tie for the CCIW crown.

I'll take 'things that have been posted on this board every year' for $200, Alex.

I would say that it's almost McCarver-esque, but at least Mugsy was accurate and on-point!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on October 23, 2011, 10:47:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2011, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 21, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Barring any serious upsets in the remaining CCIW play, it is quite possible for a 3 way tie for the CCIW crown.

I'll take 'things that have been posted on this board every year' for $200, Alex.

The main point I was trying to make was that while not likely, it is possible that there will be a 9-1 CCIW team may not make the playoffs.  It is not outrageous to think that Wheaton could beat NCC, but not likely. 

Sorry if I was stating the obvious about the CCIW, but there haven't been that many 3 way ties in the conference history.  I'll go back to the CCIW board and leave the discussion to the experts.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2011, 10:54:36 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 23, 2011, 10:47:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2011, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 21, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Barring any serious upsets in the remaining CCIW play, it is quite possible for a 3 way tie for the CCIW crown.

I'll take 'things that have been posted on this board every year' for $200, Alex.

The main point I was trying to make was that while not likely, it is possible that there will be a 9-1 CCIW team may not make the playoffs.  It is not outrageous to think that Wheaton could beat NCC, but not likely. 

Sorry if I was stating the obvious about the CCIW, but there haven't been that many 3 way ties in the conference history.  I'll go back to the CCIW board and leave the discussion to the experts.

I like the CCIW's tiebreaker for these scenarios:

1. Head-to-head competition
2. Best record by tied teams against the next best team or the next best tied teams in conference standings
3. Point differential between tied teams in conference
4. The fewest defensive yards given up versus tied teams in conference
5. Random drawing by CCIW commissioner.

At least it's based on the on-field performance in some relevant way.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 23, 2011, 11:36:02 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2011, 09:16:29 PM
Man we have an awesome community on the board. Nice work on this and subsequent posts.

This needs an update after Saturday, no? Bethel, LV, Montclair, etc. picked up losses.
I made another post about 22 hours ago that had this past weekend's games factored in
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on October 24, 2011, 12:43:05 AM
Yes, I see now.

Must stop posting before I'm caught up.

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 23, 2011, 01:12:38 AM
I've updated my list from the other day. I believe (and I could be wrong) these are all the teams that could finish with 1 loss but not win their conference. This doesn't include teams that can only finish with 1 loss by winning their conference (such as North Central in the CCIW) or 2 loss teams worthy of Pool C discussion (such as UW-Oshkosh)

Conf        Team                            Record          Conf Deciding Games
ASC:  Louisiana College   6-1 (4-1) (none)
CC:   Johns Hopkins       7-0 (6-0) (vs Ursinus)
CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   6-1 (3-1) (none)
      Wheaton             6-1 (3-1) (@ North Central)
E8:   Salisbury           7-0 (5-0) (vs St John Fisher)
LL:   Hobart              5-0 (3-0) (vs RPI)
MAC:* Delaware Valley     8-0 (6-0) (@ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             7-1 (5-1) (@ Del Val)
      Lycoming            6-1 (4-1) (vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              7-0 (3-0) (vs Albion)
MIAC: St Olaf             6-1 (4-1) (none)
MWC:  Illinois College    7-1 (6-1) (none)
NCAC: Wabash              7-0 (4-0) (vs Wittenberg)
NEFC: Endicott            8-0 (6-0) (@ Western New England, NEFC Championship)
NWC:  Linfield            6-0 (4-0) (vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       6-0 (3-0) (@ Pacific Lutheran, vs Willamette, @ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         7-0 (6-0) (vs Baldwin-Wallace)
PAC:  Thomas More         7-0 (6-0) (@ Westminster, vs Waynesburg)
SCAC: Trinity (TX)        7-0 (3-0) (vs Birmingham Southern, vs Centre)
      Centre              6-0 (3-0) (@ Millsaps, @Trinity)
      Birmingham Southern 5-1 (2-1) (@ Trinity, vs Millsaps)
SCIAC Redlands            5-1 (3-1) (none)


Pool B
      Wesley              6-1
      Case Western Reserve 6-1

ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
NAthC None
NJAC: None
ODAC: None
UMAC: None
USAC: None
WIAC: None

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2011, 08:26:09 AM
The "Pool C'ers" wish list.  Our motto is "None for all and all for none", (but keeping your fingers crossed for your own team.)

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 23, 2011, 01:12:38 AM
I've updated my list from the other day. I believe (and I could be wrong) these are all the teams that could finish with 1 loss but not win their conference. This doesn't include teams that can only finish with 1 loss by winning their conference (such as North Central in the CCIW) or 2 loss teams worthy of Pool C discussion (such as UW-Oshkosh)

Conf        Team                            Record          Conf Deciding Games
ASC:  Louisiana College   6-1 (4-1) (none)  Lose to McMurry on Nov 5
CC:   Johns Hopkins       7-0 (6-0) (vs Ursinus)  Run the table
CCIW**: Illinois Wesleyan   6-1 (3-1) (none)
      Wheaton             6-1 (3-1) (Lose @ North Central)
E8:   Salisbury           7-0 (5-0) (Defeat  St John Fisher and run the table including Wesley)
LL:   Hobart              5-0 (3-0) (Beat RPI)
MAC:* Delaware Valley     8-0 (6-0) (Run the table @ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             7-1 (5-1) (Lose @ Del Val)
      Lycoming            6-1 (4-1) (Lose vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              7-0 (3-0) (Win vs Albion)
MIAC: St Olaf             6-1 (4-1) (Run the table. none)
MWC:  Illinois College    7-1 (6-1) (none)
NCAC: Wabash              7-0 (4-0) (Run the table and win Wittenberg; Okay to lose versus DePauw)
NEFC: Endicott            8-0 (6-0) (Win @ Western New England, NEFC Championship)
NWC:  Linfield            6-0 (4-0) (Win vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       6-0 (3-0) (Lose at least 2 of 3; @ Pacific Lutheran, vs Willamette, @ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         7-0 (6-0) (Run the table and win vs Baldwin-Wallace)
PAC:  Thomas More         7-0 (6-0) (Run the table  and win @ Westminster, vs Waynesburg)
SCAC**: Trinity (TX)        7-0 (3-0) (Run the table vs Birmingham Southern, vs Centre)
      Centre              6-0 (3-0) (@ Millsaps, Lose @Trinity)
      Birmingham Southern 5-1 (2-1) (Lose @ Trinity, vs Millsaps)
SCIAC Redlands            5-1 (3-1) (none)


Pool B
      Wesley              6-1  Lose at Salisbury
      Case Western Reserve 6-1

Pool C leftovers
ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
NAthC None
NJAC: None
ODAC: None
UMAC: None
USAC: None
WIAC: None


**The CCIW and  the SCAC have a great chance to get one Pool C bid.

St Olaf and Redlands look like they are in great shape, too.

Iliinois College has too weak of a schedule.

It looks like there may be 1-2 bids that are up for grabs beyond the "first cut".  I think that 4 Pool C bids are "no-brainers".  The rest get very hard.  The committee will have its job cut out for itself.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2011, 08:27:45 AM
Two more names on the list of contenders...

I think that McMurry and UW-Oshkosh will be on the table, especially if they appear in either of the Regional Rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on October 24, 2011, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 23, 2011, 10:54:36 PM
3. Point differential between tied teams in conference

The ASC used to have this as a tiebreaker criteria, but I believe that they abandonded it after the following 2003 debacle.  All three teams finished 8-1 in ASC play, with the score triangle described here.

Hardin-Simmons 20, East Texas Baptist 14 (OT)
Mary Hardin-Baylor 43, Hardin-Simmons 36
East Texas Baptist 28, Mary Hardin-Baylor 21

The tiebreaker: East Texas Baptist wins by virtue of the best point differential (as they "lost" by 6 and "won" by 7 for a net differential of +1 while UMHB was even-steven and HSU was -1).

Unfortunately, this only happened because HSU scored a touchdown after stopping ETBU in overtime, so they did not kick the PAT.  If Hardin-Simmons had kicked the PAT in overtime, the "point differential" would have been even all around.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on October 24, 2011, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2011, 08:27:45 AM
Two more names on the list of contenders...

I think that McMurry and UW-Oshkosh will be on the table, especially if they appear in either of the Regional Rankings.

I see no reason why they wouldn't. Well, logically they would be in the rankings. But I've seen some illogical regional rankings before...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on October 24, 2011, 10:34:23 PM
I love when what we recorded on the podcast the night before agrees with what Ralph posts on Monday morning.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2011, 12:36:15 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2011, 10:34:23 PM
I love when what we recorded on the podcast the night before agrees with what Ralph posts on Monday morning.
;D

Big smiles and deep belly laugh!

Hey, the podcast is 58 minutes long. I had to get ready for the day job!  ;)

I attribute it to a convergence of minds around the great truths of D3football.com, just after midnight on Sunday.

FCGrizzliesGrad should get some credit for putting the list together!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on October 25, 2011, 12:54:58 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2011, 12:36:15 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2011, 10:34:23 PM
I love when what we recorded on the podcast the night before agrees with what Ralph posts on Monday morning.
;D

Big smiles and deep belly laugh!

Hey, the podcast is 58 minutes long. I had to get ready for the day job!  ;)

I attribute it to a convergence of minds around the great truths of D3football.com, just after midnight on Sunday.

FCGrizzliesGrad should get some credit for putting the list together!  :)

Yeah I don't mean it is any kind of we-said-it-first ... I think of you (and this board) as a good check and balance for anything I might have missed.

So when this lists the same most likely six Pool C teams as Pat and I just discussed, I feel better that we see what everyone else who is examining closely sees. That's all.

And yes, hat tip to FCGG.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2011, 01:04:24 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2011, 12:54:58 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2011, 12:36:15 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2011, 10:34:23 PM
I love when what we recorded on the podcast the night before agrees with what Ralph posts on Monday morning.
;D

Big smiles and deep belly laugh!

Hey, the podcast is 58 minutes long. I had to get ready for the day job!  ;)

I attribute it to a convergence of minds around the great truths of D3football.com, just after midnight on Sunday.

FCGrizzliesGrad should get some credit for putting the list together!  :)

Yeah I don't mean it is any kind of we-said-it-first ... I think of you (and this board) as a good check and balance for anything I might have missed.

So when this lists the same most likely six Pool C teams as Pat and I just discussed, I feel better that we see what everyone else who is examining closely sees. That's all.

And yes, hat tip to FCGG.
More big smiles!

We have 3 great weeks of ball coming up. 

I wonder if a

Linfield, Cal Lu, Redlands, UMHB, Trinity, McMurry bracket plus two or

Linfield, Cal Lu, Redlands, UMHB, Trinity, a fly-in, and LaCollege hosting Huntingdon bracket

might be drawn.

And find 8 worthy teams in the East (maybe a Salisbury and JHU moved into the east) and keep UMU home this season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on October 25, 2011, 01:30:22 AM
Those are interesting propositions. The throw-all-the-flights-in-one-bracket-and-let-them-eliminate-each-other idea has been bandied about before.

One thing we learned in the past year or two is that distance of flight also matters. So they might not want a Huntingdon or LC in a bracket with Linfield and the SCIAC. Might be better to keep them true West ... who knows?

Another interesting thought ... who gets the home game if two SCIACs make it. Cal Lu would be the conference winner, but has already played at Linfield this season, and would have the same overall record and perhaps a lower SoS (I haven't looked) than Redlands. Runners up have played at home before while conference champs have gone on the road (last year, Montclair State at H-SC, W&L at Thomas More for example.

Lots of ideas to kick around these next few weeks.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2011, 01:13:24 AM
2011 Handbook (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2011/2011_3_football.pdf)

DePauw has been moved to the North Region, but Salisbury is nowhere to be found...

The Seagulls are not listed with the Empire 8 and are not among the South Region independents.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 28, 2011, 01:19:46 AM
Salisbury is in the East, however. I confirmed with the committee today and adjusted our team listings.

In addition, Frostburg State and Gallaudet move from the South to the East. No games were affected.

DePauw's move was reflected on the site earlier and the schedule changed to match. DePauw-Allegheny is now in-region and DePauw-Austin is not.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: bleedpurple on October 28, 2011, 10:47:24 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2011, 08:26:09 AM
The "Pool C'ers" wish list.  Our motto is "None for all and all for none", (but keeping your fingers crossed for your own team.)

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 23, 2011, 01:12:38 AM
I've updated my list from the other day. I believe (and I could be wrong) these are all the teams that could finish with 1 loss but not win their conference. This doesn't include teams that can only finish with 1 loss by winning their conference (such as North Central in the CCIW) or 2 loss teams worthy of Pool C discussion (such as UW-Oshkosh)

Conf        Team                            Record          Conf Deciding Games
ASC:  Louisiana College   6-1 (4-1) (none)  Lose to McMurry on Nov 5
CC:   Johns Hopkins       7-0 (6-0) (vs Ursinus)  Run the table
CCIW**: Illinois Wesleyan   6-1 (3-1) (none)
      Wheaton             6-1 (3-1) (Lose @ North Central)
E8:   Salisbury           7-0 (5-0) (Defeat  St John Fisher and run the table including Wesley)
LL:   Hobart              5-0 (3-0) (Beat RPI)
MAC:* Delaware Valley     8-0 (6-0) (Run the table @ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             7-1 (5-1) (Lose @ Del Val)
      Lycoming            6-1 (4-1) (Lose vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              7-0 (3-0) (Win vs Albion)
MIAC: St Olaf             6-1 (4-1) (Run the table. none)
MWC:  Illinois College    7-1 (6-1) (none)
NCAC: Wabash              7-0 (4-0) (Run the table and win Wittenberg; Okay to lose versus DePauw)
NEFC: Endicott            8-0 (6-0) (Win @ Western New England, NEFC Championship)
NWC:  Linfield            6-0 (4-0) (Win vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       6-0 (3-0) (Lose at least 2 of 3; @ Pacific Lutheran, vs Willamette, @ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         7-0 (6-0) (Run the table and win vs Baldwin-Wallace)
PAC:  Thomas More         7-0 (6-0) (Run the table  and win @ Westminster, vs Waynesburg)
SCAC**: Trinity (TX)        7-0 (3-0) (Run the table vs Birmingham Southern, vs Centre)
      Centre              6-0 (3-0) (@ Millsaps, Lose @Trinity)
      Birmingham Southern 5-1 (2-1) (Lose @ Trinity, vs Millsaps)
SCIAC Redlands            5-1 (3-1) (none)


Pool B
      Wesley              6-1  Lose at Salisbury
      Case Western Reserve 6-1

Pool C leftovers
ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
NAthC None
NJAC: None
ODAC: None
UMAC: None
USAC: None
WIAC: None


**The CCIW and  the SCAC have a great chance to get one Pool C bid.

St Olaf and Redlands look like they are in great shape, too.

Iliinois College has too weak of a schedule.

It looks like there may be 1-2 bids that are up for grabs beyond the "first cut".  I think that 4 Pool C bids are "no-brainers".  The rest get very hard.  The committee will have its job cut out for itself.

Thanks FC and  Ralph for the work on this.  This is a great snapshot. St. Olaf should make for some good drama on November 12th if they take care of business the next two weeks.  They play Concordia-Moorhead.  The Cobbers will be coming off a bye and should be playing relaxed.  After losing by 3 to C-M last year, the Oles will be playing with the pressure of knowing that if they win, they have a great shot at being in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on October 28, 2011, 04:11:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2011, 01:13:24 AM
2011 Handbook (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2011/2011_3_football.pdf)

DePauw has been moved to the North Region, but Salisbury is nowhere to be found...

The Seagulls are not listed with the Empire 8 and are not among the South Region independents.

Why are some things going to be supplied at a later date in the handbook? I understand some things but I would think the D3 Philosophy and the Championship Policy on Sports Wagering won't change much between now and when the playoffs start.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on October 29, 2011, 12:16:06 AM
I guess I am not sure why a 9-1 Wheaton ( presuming a win over NCC) wouldn't make it in the field along with a 9-1 IWU. I think IWU would go fairly early in the process and as long as Wheaton got to the table with a slot left I don't see who would be a better candidate among the pool C candidates. I make this point now because it would be moot if they lose to NCC in a week bu it seems to me they are a near lock at 9-1 based on the numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on October 29, 2011, 04:44:28 PM
Almost had a major shift in Pool C consideration.  IWU barely defeats Millikin 28-25.  Millikin had the ball in the IWU redzone with just over 2 minutes left, but opted to go for it on 4th and 3 instead of kicking a tying FG.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2011, 08:51:05 PM
These are my first impressions.

Wesley just made the E8 a 1-bid conference.

Lewis and Clark won a big one for the NWC.  (If L&C beats Willamette next week, how about a Lewis & Clark at Cal Lu and Redlands at Linfield west coast bracket?)

Trinity took care of business in San Antonio with their win over B-SC.  Next Saturday, they host Centre, who barely edged Millsaps on the road.

After their first win over HSU since Grant Teaff was head coach back in the Kennedy administration, McMurry goes to Louisiana College.

I want Wabash to give Wittenberg its second loss next week.



UW-La Crosse beat UW-Oshkosh, 30-24 in OT.  That cleans up the Oshkosh question.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 29, 2011, 09:07:49 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 29, 2011, 04:44:28 PM
Almost had a major shift in Pool C consideration.  IWU barely defeats Millikin 28-25.  Millikin had the ball in the IWU redzone with just over 2 minutes left, but opted to go for it on 4th and 3 instead of kicking a tying FG.

At least it wasn't like 2009, when we beat both Wheaton and NCC and lost our homecoming game to Millikin!  When I was in school 40+ years ago, Millikin was THE rival.  I sense that that is no longer true from the IWU end, but also sense that it is still true from the Big Blue end.  That can make for some confounding games. :P  (Perhaps somewhat similar to when NPU finally caught you in men's soccer! ;D)

As long as IWU doesn't come apart against Carthage or Augie, we should still be among the first Pool Cs.  I agree with USee that as long as we get out of your way early, Wheaton (IF they beat NCC, a big if) should still be pretty safe as a Pool C also.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Top Notch on October 29, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
LC vs McMurry will be a big one this week. Got playoff implications on the line. Can't ask for more than that in the last 2 weeks of the regular season.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on October 29, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2011, 08:51:05 PM

Lewis and Clark won a big one for the NWC.  (If L&C beats Willamette next week, how about a Lewis & Clark at Cal Lu and Redlands at Linfield west coast bracket?)


As unjust as it might seem, it could just as easily be L&C v. Linfield and Redlands v. Cal Lu to save a flight.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2011, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2011, 08:51:05 PM

Lewis and Clark won a big one for the NWC.  (If L&C beats Willamette next week, how about a Lewis & Clark at Cal Lu and Redlands at Linfield west coast bracket?)


As unjust as it might seem, it could just as easily be L&C v. Linfield and Redlands v. Cal Lu to save a flight.
...to save 2 flights in the first round. But guaranteed a flight in the second round.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2011, 10:05:30 PM
Thanks to UW-La Crosse for their 30-24 OT win over UW-Oshkosh.

UWL missed a 19-yd FG with 0:02 left.  UWO was offsides.  UWL then had the second attempt blocked!

UWO missed the FG in OT. UWL scored the TD!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on October 29, 2011, 10:36:56 PM
Although I doubt it will happen, it wouldn't be a stretch for Wheaton to end up ranked ahead of IWU in the regional rankings if they were to beat NCC. obviously the 3 teams would have won vs each other so one of the 3 teams will have to be ranked ahead of the others and would have suffered a loss. It's not a foregone conclusion that NCC will be ranked ahead of IWU or Wheaton if Wheaton should win next week. If Wheaton beats NCC in Naperville and then handles Millikin in the finale, you could  see Wheaton as the highest rated Pool C team in the North. Again, very big IF's as I am not sure anyone is going to beat NCC this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on October 29, 2011, 10:49:05 PM
Conferences with potential for one-loss runners-up for Pool C (Updated 10:47pm 10/29/11):

(A) CCIW – High potential of Pool C at 1 loss since 3 teams tied with 1 loss and only one H2H left

(A) MWC – Illinois College must win remaining game

(A) NWC – Loser of Linfield/Lewis and Clark must win other remaining game

(A) SCAC – Trinity and Centre both undefeated, loser of H2H must win other game

(B) IND/Pool B – Wesley and Case must both run table

(B) MAC – If DelVal runs table, no 1-loss runner-up.  DelVal still plays 2 games vs. 1-loss MAC teams

(B) MIAC – St. Olaf must run table

(B) NEFC – WNEC and Endicott must run table

(B) SCIAC – Redlands must run table

(C) ASC – McMurry win vs. LA College would likely foreclose 1-loss runner-up possibility (Note: 1 McMurry loss vs. Non-D3 opponent)

(C) MIAA – Adrian must run table

(C) NCAC – Wittenberg must beat Wabash

(D) OAC – Baldwin-Wallace must beat Mount Union for runner-up 1-loss team

-----------

(F) CC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) E8 – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) ECFC – Impossible for runner-up to have 1 loss (Note that Maritime's OOC loss was out of division)

(F) HCAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) IIAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) LL – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) NATHC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) NJAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) ODAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) PAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) UMAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) USAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team

(F) WIAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 30, 2011, 12:13:35 AM
Conf        Team                       Record (conf) Region    Conf Deciding Games
ASC:  Louisiana College   7-1 (5-1) 6-1    (none)
CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   7-1 (4-1) 7-1    (none)
      Wheaton             7-1 (4-1) 7-1    (@ North Central)
MAC:* Delaware Valley     8-0 (6-0) 8-0    (@ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             8-1 (6-1) 8-1    (@ Del Val)
      Lycoming            7-1 (5-1) 7-1    (vs Del Val)
MIAA: Adrian              7-1 (3-1) 6-1    (none)
MIAC: St Olaf             7-1 (5-1) 7-1    (none)
MWC:  Illinois College    8-1 (7-1) 8-1    (none)
NCAC: Wabash              8-0 (5-0) 7-0    (vs Wittenberg)
NEFC: Endicott            8-1 (6-1) 8-1    (none)
NWC:* Linfield            7-0 (4-0) 6-0    (vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       7-0 (4-0) 7-0    (@ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         8-0 (7-0) 7-0    (vs Baldwin-Wallace)
SCAC:*Trinity (TX)        8-0 (4-0) 8-0    (vs Centre)
      Centre              7-0 (4-0) 7-0    (@Trinity)
SCIAC Redlands            6-1 (4-1) 6-1    (none)


Pool B *
      Wesley              7-1       4-1
      Case Western Reserve 7-1      7-0

CC:   None
E8:   None
ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
LL:   None
NAthC None
NJAC: None
ODAC: None
PAC:  None
UMAC: None
USAC: None
WIAC: None
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2011, 12:23:44 AM
Thanks FCGG. Can you add the in-region record to the list?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2011, 12:30:13 AM
My best thought on Endicott to get a Pool C bid would be to run the table (i.e., beat MIT), have the loss to WNEC and not make the NEFC Championship Game.

The loser of the NEFC Championship game will have at least 2 in-region losses.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 30, 2011, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2011, 08:51:05 PM

Lewis and Clark won a big one for the NWC.  (If L&C beats Willamette next week, how about a Lewis & Clark at Cal Lu and Redlands at Linfield west coast bracket?)


As unjust as it might seem, it could just as easily be L&C v. Linfield and Redlands v. Cal Lu to save a flight.
Oooh--you mean Linfield would get to beat Lewis and Clark two weeks in a row?  I like that idea :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 30, 2011, 12:46:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2011, 12:23:44 AM
Thanks FCGG. Can you add the in-region record to the list?
I just added them. I think I have them all right, but you never know.
That 4-1 for Wesley really sticks out
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2011, 01:38:04 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 30, 2011, 12:13:35 AM
Conf        Team                       Record (conf) Region    Conf Deciding Games   Comments
ASC:  Louisiana College   7-1 (5-1) 6-1    (none) Loss to UMHB; hosts McMurry and at HSU (tough games; HSU is getting better each week)
CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   7-1 (4-1) 7-1    (none)  Loss to North Central
      Wheaton             7-1 (4-1) 7-1    (@ North Central)  Loss to IWU
HCAC: Franklin            7-1 (6-0) 6-0    (at Hanover)   Non-region loss to UWW
MAC:* Delaware Valley     8-0 (6-0) 8-0    (@ Lycoming, vs Widener)
      Widener             8-1 (6-1) 8-1    (@ Del Val)  Loss to Wilkes
      Lycoming            7-1 (5-1) 7-1    (vs Del Val)  Loss to Widener
MIAA: Adrian              7-1 (3-1) 6-1    (none)  Loss to Albion
MIAC: St Olaf             7-1 (5-1) 7-1    (none)   Loss to St Thomas
MWC:  Illinois College    8-1 (7-1) 8-1    (none)  Loss to Monmouth
NCAC: Wabash              8-0 (5-0) 7-0    (vs Wittenberg)
NEFC: Endicott            8-1 (6-1) 8-1    (none)   Loss to WNEC
NWC:* Linfield            7-0 (4-0) 6-0    (vs Lewis & Clark)
      Lewis & Clark       7-0 (4-0) 7-0    (@ Linfield)
OAC:  Mount Union         8-0 (7-0) 7-0    (vs Baldwin-Wallace)
SCAC:*Trinity (TX)        8-0 (4-0) 8-0    (vs Centre)
      Centre              7-0 (4-0) 7-0    (@Trinity)
SCIAC Redlands            6-1 (4-1) 6-1    (none)  Loss to CalLu


Pool B *
      Wesley              7-1       4-1                Loss to Kean
      Case Western Reserve 7-1      7-0                Non-region loss to Rochester

CC:   None
E8:   None
ECFC: None
IIAC: None
LL:   None
NAthC None
NJAC: None
ODAC: None
PAC:  None
UMAC: None
USAC: None
WIAC: None

Corrections appreciated.


Thanks to altor for the correction on the HCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wesleydad on October 30, 2011, 08:57:19 AM
thanks for putting this together fcgg.  wesley's 4 - 1 looks bad versus case's 7 - 0, but i still think wesley gets the pool b bid if they win out based on the secondary criteria of previous performance.  making the semis 4 of the last 6 years should help, plus they will have wins against regionally ranked teams, salisbury and huntingdon, if they end up regionally ranked.  i dont think case has any.  too bad the wins against non d3 schools dont count for anything.  if they dont get the pool b i think they could get a pool c, but that would be tougher.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ncc_fan on October 30, 2011, 10:29:17 AM
The criteria include previous playoff performance only when comparing undefeated teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2011, 05:44:48 PM
Wesley's going to have a higher RR than Case. Case as a "C" means a potential 9-0 regional record. Would the committee exclude them even with that record?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2011, 05:56:37 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2011, 05:44:48 PM
Wesley's going to have a higher RR than Case. Case as a "C" means a potential 9-0 regional record. Would the committee exclude them even with that record?
It is hard to leave an undefeated team out!

The Rochester loss makes the 9-0 less pure.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: altor on October 30, 2011, 06:25:54 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on October 29, 2011, 10:49:05 PM
(F) HCAC – Impossible for runner-up 1-loss team
While technically true, if Hanover wins out to win the HCAC, Franklin will have a 7-1 in-region record with an out of region win over I-FCS Valparaiso and loss to UWW.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2011, 06:54:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2011, 05:56:37 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2011, 05:44:48 PM
Wesley's going to have a higher RR than Case. Case as a "C" means a potential 9-0 regional record. Would the committee exclude them even with that record?
It is hard to leave an undefeated team out!

The Rochester loss makes the 9-0 less pure.

That will be a puzzler if it comes to it. It'll show how much the committee truly cares about the regional records.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 30, 2011, 07:29:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2011, 06:54:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 30, 2011, 05:56:37 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2011, 05:44:48 PM
Wesley's going to have a higher RR than Case. Case as a "C" means a potential 9-0 regional record. Would the committee exclude them even with that record?
It is hard to leave an undefeated team out!

The Rochester loss makes the 9-0 less pure.

That will be a puzzler if it comes to it. It'll show how much the committee truly cares about the regional records.

Have to see where they stand in the first regional rankings out this week.  That''ll give us a clue. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Bill McCabe on November 01, 2011, 12:09:49 PM
When do the first regional rankings come out?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2011, 12:13:45 PM
They are typically released on Wednesday, late afternoon ET.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 02, 2011, 04:39:56 PM
Looks like the first regional rankings are up. They can be found here:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/category/regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 04:44:48 PM
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2011/11/02/first-ncaa-regional-rankings/

Well, now...

My biggest shocker is CWRU breaking up the CCIW trio, and at #5 in the North are poised to take a "C" if they go unscathed through the UAA season (and Wesley doesn't lose to Huntingdon).

How far down do either Salisbury or SJF fall after this weekend when one will take loss #2? Will they fall far enough not to be on the board?

Whoever loses between Trinity and Centre could be in trouble for a "C". They weren't as highly ranked as I thought they would be.

Redlands isn't in good shape either with that ranking, I feel.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 05:52:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 04:44:48 PM
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2011/11/02/first-ncaa-regional-rankings/

Well, now...

My biggest shocker is CWRU breaking up the CCIW trio, and at #5 in the North are poised to take a "C" if they go unscathed through the UAA season (and Wesley doesn't lose to Huntingdon).

How far down do either Salisbury or SJF fall after this weekend when one will take loss #2? Will they fall far enough not to be on the board?

Whoever loses between Trinity and Centre could be in trouble for a "C". They weren't as highly ranked as I thought they would be.

Redlands
isn't in good shape either with that ranking, I feel.
Smed, thanks for the post.

Right now, I see Redlands as the #2 Pool C team in the West.  Would you (or anyone else) have ranked them higher than St Olaf? :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 06:09:42 PM
Yes, I would have. They beat NC and have a better SOS.

Being the second "C" in a region isn't a very good position to be in, because then you are relying on others getting selected in your region and then how you stack up against the rest of the crew.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 07:09:23 PM
I posted my thoughts on the blog. :)

I think the East gets shut-out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 08:21:31 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 29, 2011, 04:44:28 PM
Almost had a major shift in Pool C consideration.  IWU barely defeats Millikin 28-25.  Millikin had the ball in the IWU redzone with just over 2 minutes left, but opted to go for it on 4th and 3 instead of kicking a tying FG.

Ouch
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 08:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 07:09:23 PM
I posted my thoughts on the blog. :)

I think the East gets shut-out.

It's highly likely there will be an item in ATN of great interest to this topic tomorrow. I wonder if I should read yours first or stay independent ... hmmm.

(reads)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2011, 08:34:08 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 08:21:31 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on October 29, 2011, 04:44:28 PM
Almost had a major shift in Pool C consideration.  IWU barely defeats Millikin 28-25.  Millikin had the ball in the IWU redzone with just over 2 minutes left, but opted to go for it on 4th and 3 instead of kicking a tying FG.

Ouch

IWU/Millikin results are ALWAYS dicey.  In 2009, we beat both NCC and Wheaton, finishing the season 10-2 with a playoff loss at UWW.  The other loss?  To a so-so Millikin team in our homecoming game, no less!  When I was a Titan (40+ years ago ::)), the Big Blue were the devil incarnate.  My sense is that the rivalry no longer is that strong in B'town, but as strong as ever in Decatur - that can be a recipe for disaster. :P
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 08:44:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 06:09:42 PM
Yes, I would have. They beat NC and have a better SOS.

Being the second "C" in a region isn't a very good position to be in, because then you are relying on others getting selected in your region and then how you stack up against the rest of the crew.

I also would have Redlands ahead of St. Olaf and would make the same exact point. Redlands, as it stands, can't get in until Olaf gets in. Luckily the committee seems to love Olaf.

There are definitely some things that could shake the field up: Delaware Valley losing to one but not both of Lyco and Widener.

We need the LC/McMurry, Centre/Trinity, Wheaton/NCC results, etc. The good news is we get them all this week, not after Week 11's games.

(I see Ralph's analysis makes a lot of assumptions)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 08:55:38 PM
Witt / Wabash would clear things up (or muddy it up). I have a feeling that most every "C" contender is a Little Giants fan this week (as it should be!  ;) )
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 08:57:31 PM
Thanks for the comments, KMack.

Sorry for the "imprecision" and the errors on the projections on won-loss records for overall and in-region.  I did not have the time to complete those fully.  However, I tried to show the correct number of "in-region" losses at the end of the season for all the 40 teams, especially the Pool B/Pool C teams.

In any case, I make one general assumption for all of those projections.

The higher ranked team in the regional rankings, whether at home or away, wins every game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 08:59:51 PM
Smed, do we need a Pool C yell practice for Wabash?

"Wabash Always Fights!"

There. How was that? ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2011, 09:19:16 PM
While I will be rooting for Wabash, in fairness to those who cannot, you could always root for Witt AND an upset (if there is such a thing) in the Monon Bell game! ;)

Then the 'caveboyzz' (as DPU supporters would have it) would be watching from home. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 09:26:44 PM
I'm going to pretend you didn't say that Ypsi...

In fact, I'm going to escort you to Ralph's cheer practice! Don't be late...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2011, 09:50:21 PM
Maybe it's just me being pessimistic and too hard on them... but I was surprised to see Franklin at #2 in the North. If they win out are they really in line to be a high seed?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 09:59:21 PM
If Wabash wins out, then their SOS would improve and I think they'd nudge ahead of Franklin.

But they're in line to host (if they submitted of course...)

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2011, 10:01:36 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 09:26:44 PM
I'm going to pretend you didn't say that Ypsi...

In fact, I'm going to escort you to Ralph's cheer practice! Don't be late...

Now smeds, don't overlook my opening phrase!  Just trying to be helpful to those Pool C fans who would find it impossible to root for the LGs. ;D

FFGG, I, too, was surprised to see them THAT high.   But don't forget that UWW was a free pass.  (At least for the regional committee; we'll see about the national committee - or at least we can guess about the national committee!)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 10:09:08 PM
CCIW tiebreakers (http://www.cciw.org/sports/2010/6/29/Gen._0629100226.aspx?id=616)

Quote3. Point differential between tied teams in conference

Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?

Or does point differential include all games?

"in conference" is throwing me off. Why would a three-way tie for a conference title attempt to use out of conference numbers?

Anyway, I guess since either North Central or Wheaton will pick up its second overall loss, either way IWU is a good Pool C contender. NCC wins the three-way tiebreaker (most likely) and NC wins if Wheaton loses and IWU is tied with NC.

Make any sense? I'm sure I'm messing something up.

All that is good for Redlands :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 10:09:08 PM
Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?
Actually it'd be just 15 points not 30... IWU is -19, Wheaton -5, NCC +24 at the moment... if Wheaton wins by 15 then they'd be at +10 and NCC would be down to +9 thus giving the edge to Wheaton.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Schwami on November 02, 2011, 10:21:46 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 02, 2011, 09:59:21 PM
If Wabash wins out, then their SOS would improve and I think they'd nudge ahead of Franklin.

Not just that, and perhaps more importantly, Wabash would pick up a win against a RRO with a win against Witt.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2011, 10:30:03 PM
K-Mack, the tie-breaker is fairly simple: scores among the tied teams.

Since IWU is -19, they cannot win.  [They are +5 + -24 = -19]

NCC is currently +24; Wheaton is currently -5.

Therefore if Wheaton wins, but by 14 or less, NCC wins.  If Wheaton wins by 15+, they win.

[And, of course, if NCC wins (my prediction), they win.]

As an IWU fan, I'm rooting for either a Wheaton blowout (eliminates NCC, but makes IWU look bad for their loss), or, better, an NCC win (keeps IWU ahead of Wheaton and virtually guarantees a Pool C).  The worst option is a narrow Wheaton win - NCC still gets the AQ, but Wheaton almost certainly jumps IWU in the Pool C queue.

I see I've already been beaten to the punch on some of this (I was taken from the computer for awhile), but I'll post anyway!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 10:09:08 PM
Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?
Actually it'd be just 15 points not 30... IWU is -19, Wheaton -5, NCC +24 at the moment... if Wheaton wins by 15 then they'd be at +10 and NCC would be down to +9 thus giving the edge to Wheaton.

Yeah, that's what I meant.  ;)

The ASC uses this too, and one year IIRC, Hardin-Simmons got jobbed by winning in overtime and not getting to attempt the PAT. They won by 6 and lost by 7, UMHB was 7 & 7 and ETBU was either +1 or went because they took the AQ.

I'm sketchy on the details, but pretty sure I wrote about it in the YIR or an ATN that year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 11:08:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2011, 10:30:03 PM
K-Mack, the tie-breaker is fairly simple: scores among the tied teams.

Gotcha. I understand the concept. Your wording above is better than the wording from the CCIW website. Though I'm glad they actually have a tiebreakers page, so I'm not knocking.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 08:57:31 PM
Sorry for the "imprecision" and the errors on the projections on won-loss records for overall and in-region.  I did not have the time to complete those fully.

The message board is exactly the place for this. I "think out loud" here all the time. Plenty of lazy imprecision on my part makes it to the boards. It's ATN I hope stays clean.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 11:12:39 PM
From the Ten Best conference races in a 2009 ATN:

Quote5. ASC 2003.
Led by junior linebacker Greg Washington, whose Army Reserve unit was called to active duty in Iraq in December, shortly after the season ended, East Texas Baptist briefly broke the Mary Hardin-Baylor/Hardin-Simmons stranglehold on the ASC. But it took a unique three-way tiebreaker to fend off those two teams and send ETBU to the playoffs.

As described in 2003's ATN year-in-review, where this was awarded "best play that seemed meaningless at the time:

"I guess we should call it a non-play, since, by rule, Hardin-Simmons did not attempt a PAT after scoring in overtime to beat East Texas Baptist. But the 20-14 win came back to haunt the Cowboys, because ETBU beat Mary Hardin-Baylor 28-21 in overtime, and UMHB beat Hardin-Simmons 43-36. Since margin of victory in head-to-head games was the American Southwest's three-team tiebreaker, ETBU got the automatic playoff bid due to its plus-one margin of victory in games among the three. UMHB had a seven-point win and seven-point loss, so they were even, and HSU was down one point — the PAT they didn't kick in overtime because they elected to play defense first and held ETBU! What kind of reward is that? The only way they guarantee a chance to kick the PAT is by electing to go first, and since they won the toss, they had that option. But who would think of something like that when the coin is flipped in overtime?"

At least Wheaton isn't able to win by 14.5
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2011, 10:09:08 PM
Do we take that to mean IWU 24, Wheaton 19, and North Central 24, IWU 0 means NCC just has to not lose by 30 to win the conference (assuming no one else loses to anyone else)?
Actually it'd be just 15 points not 30... IWU is -19, Wheaton -5, NCC +24 at the moment... if Wheaton wins by 15 then they'd be at +10 and NCC would be down to +9 thus giving the edge to Wheaton.

Yeah, that's what I meant.  ;)

The ASC uses this too, and one year IIRC, Hardin-Simmons got jobbed by winning in overtime and not getting to attempt the PAT. They won by 6 and lost by 7, UMHB was 7 & 7 and ETBU was either +1 or went because they took the AQ.

I'm sketchy on the details, but pretty sure I wrote about it in the YIR or an ATN that year.
Yes, ETBU, HSU, UMHB in 2003.

Three way ties in the ASC for football are settled by coin flip.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ncc_fan on November 02, 2011, 11:41:50 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 11:32:16 PM
Yes, ETBU, HSU, UMHB in 2003.

Three way ties in the ASC for football are settled by coin flip.

Wow, you have three-sided coins in Texas?  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on November 03, 2011, 12:10:53 AM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 02, 2011, 11:41:50 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 11:32:16 PM
Yes, ETBU, HSU, UMHB in 2003.

Three way ties in the ASC for football are settled by coin flip.

Wow, you have three-sided coins in Texas?  ;D

Get to the coin flip meeting early because last one there is forced to choose the edge  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 03, 2011, 01:17:28 PM
From a North Region perspective, there are a couple of things that I suspect will change when the list gets turned over to the national committee...

- I suspect that CWRU's result vs. Rochester will be factored and the Spartans will not be the first at-large team on the table from the North.  And it makes sense, really.  If you're selecting teams on a national basis for a national tournament, it just doesn't make sense or even seem fair to ignore such an important D-III result. 

- I also suspect that Franklin's result against Whitewater will factor into their placement.  Perhaps if they had an Oshkoshish result against the Warhawks then they wouldn't get dinged for that loss. 

And if Wheaton were to beat NCC but not by enough to prevent NCC from earning the AQ, doesn't it make sense that Wheaton would be seeded higher? They wo0uld have a better record, the h2h leverage, and would be co-champions of the CCIW (if one were to think that that label is important). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2011, 01:54:05 PM
Of course, CWRU may not even be the "C" team.

But regional records are a criteria. And the committee isn't always consistent year over year, or even in the same year.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 03, 2011, 06:22:01 PM
One of the committee members is Tim Lester,Head Coach at Elmhurst. I suspect he has an idea of CWRU vs IWU/Wheaton. And Craig Rundle lost to Wheaton (and his son is the Dcoordinator at IWU). Here is the North Region Committee:

Shannon Griffith, Manchester College, co-chair
Tim Gleason, Ohio Athletic Conference, co-chair
Kevin Doherty, Lakeland College
Mike Hallett, Heidelberg University
Tim Lester, Elmhurst College
Craig Rundle, Albion College
Ted Stanley, Kenyon College
Tyson Veidt, Bluffton University
John Welty, Westminster College (MO)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 04, 2011, 01:08:57 AM
Quote from: USee on November 03, 2011, 06:22:01 PM
One of the committee members is Tim Lester,Head Coach at Elmhurst. I suspect he has an idea of CWRU vs IWU/Wheaton. And Craig Rundle lost to Wheaton (and his son is the Dcoordinator at IWU). Here is the North Region Committee:

Shannon Griffith, Manchester College, co-chair
Tim Gleason, Ohio Athletic Conference, co-chair
Kevin Doherty, Lakeland College
Mike Hallett, Heidelberg University
Tim Lester, Elmhurst College
Craig Rundle, Albion College
Ted Stanley, Kenyon College
Tyson Veidt, Bluffton University
John Welty, Westminster College (MO)

When I published these 1 or 2 ATNs ago (who can recall?) one of the reasons I couldn't write "every conference is represented on the regional advisory committees" is because there is no UAA presence. FWIW.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 04, 2011, 01:19:05 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2011, 01:17:28 PM
From a North Region perspective, there are a couple of things that I suspect will change when the list gets turned over to the national committee...

- I suspect that CWRU's result vs. Rochester will be factored and the Spartans will not be the first at-large team on the table from the North.  And it makes sense, really.  If you're selecting teams on a national basis for a national tournament, it just doesn't make sense or even seem fair to ignore such an important D-III result. 

- I also suspect that Franklin's result against Whitewater will factor into their placement.  Perhaps if they had an Oshkoshish result against the Warhawks then they wouldn't get dinged for that loss. 

And if Wheaton were to beat NCC but not by enough to prevent NCC from earning the AQ, doesn't it make sense that Wheaton would be seeded higher? They wo0uld have a better record, the h2h leverage, and would be co-champions of the CCIW (if one were to think that that label is important).

All of these things make sense.

Seedings do not necessarily rank the AQ winner higher. Just as recently as last season we saw Hampden-Sydney play a home game and W&L get sent to Thomas More, for instance.

I don't see how you take a 9-1 Case with a flat SoS (No. 115, .500 right now) and a loss to Rochester over a 9-1 Illinois Wesleyan with a loss to North Central and a .574 (No. 35) SoS. I think it's safe to assume that would be rectified should both teams end the season with those records, although it's legitimate to ask why would they be ranked the way they are now if those are the facts now. Hmm.

Mike Leonard is thinking big picture. He was at the Stagg Bowl last year and really wants to get Franklin there someday. Playing Whitewater I think was the first step in trying to figure out what Franklin needs to do to get there. Unfortunately the 45-point loss is going to cost his this-year team a little bit. If it had played, say, DePauw and run the table, they'd get a better seed.

He gets it though. The playoffs will be a reward for this year's team. And otherwise, if you want to be the big dog, you gotta beat the big dog.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ncc_fan on November 04, 2011, 09:09:39 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 04, 2011, 01:19:05 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 03, 2011, 01:17:28 PM
From a North Region perspective, there are a couple of things that I suspect will change when the list gets turned over to the national committee...

- I suspect that CWRU's result vs. Rochester will be factored and the Spartans will not be the first at-large team on the table from the North.  And it makes sense, really.  If you're selecting teams on a national basis for a national tournament, it just doesn't make sense or even seem fair to ignore such an important D-III result. 

- I also suspect that Franklin's result against Whitewater will factor into their placement.  Perhaps if they had an Oshkoshish result against the Warhawks then they wouldn't get dinged for that loss. 

And if Wheaton were to beat NCC but not by enough to prevent NCC from earning the AQ, doesn't it make sense that Wheaton would be seeded higher? They wo0uld have a better record, the h2h leverage, and would be co-champions of the CCIW (if one were to think that that label is important).

All of these things make sense.

Seedings do not necessarily rank the AQ winner higher. Just as recently as last season we saw Hampden-Sydney play a home game and W&L get sent to Thomas More, for instance.

I don't see how you take a 9-1 Case with a flat SoS (No. 115, .500 right now) and a loss to Rochester over a 9-1 Illinois Wesleyan with a loss to North Central and a .574 (No. 35) SoS. I think it's safe to assume that would be rectified should both teams end the season with those records, although it's legitimate to ask why would they be ranked the way they are now if those are the facts now. Hmm.

Mike Leonard is thinking big picture. He was at the Stagg Bowl last year and really wants to get Franklin there someday. Playing Whitewater I think was the first step in trying to figure out what Franklin needs to do to get there. Unfortunately the 45-point loss is going to cost his this-year team a little bit. If it had played, say, DePauw and run the table, they'd get a better seed.

He gets it though. The playoffs will be a reward for this year's team. And otherwise, if you want to be the big dog, you gotta beat the big dog.

Better than #2 in the North?  It looks like the North committee has already rewarded Franklin, even though Franklin's record is less impressive than Case's.  Both are unbeaten in-region and have 1 loss overall, but Franklin has a lower SoS (0.459 vs CWRU's 0.498). 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 04, 2011, 01:31:01 PM
ncc_fan-

Obviously not better than #2 in the North...that's going to be UMU until further notice.  I think what is being said is that had Franklin taken on a different team and won, they would wind up with a very good seed...probably 2 or 3.  The expectation, mine at least, is that when this list gets turned over to the national committee, that Whitewater result is going to be factored in and Franklin will have a lower seed than you'd think by looking at this week's rankings.  I'd guess they'll wind up as a 4 or 5 if they get by Hanover next weekend. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2011, 05:17:40 PM
Pool C bids.

Dodging a bullet...

UMU
Montclair State (in OT versus Rowan)
JHU in their quest for a higher bid


Providing flexibility to the committee to move teams around.

Thomas More with their loss today.

Trinity can lock up an undefeated season next week.  With no more than four undefeateds in the South Region, how about McMurry to Trinity and someone flown into UMHB.  JHU and and one loss Hampden-Sydney can host in the northern half of the bracket.

Or Wesley can host CNU



Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 05, 2011, 06:30:37 PM
Now we have teams like St. Olaf's, Wheaton and B-W on the 'board' with two losses.

I think all three are better than Case. But...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 05, 2011, 07:28:56 PM
Baldwin-Wallace season is going to likely end at 8-2 with a shocking loss to Capital as the back breaker.  BW was going in to score to ice the game, fumbles on the Capital 5 yard line, then to allows Capital a 95 yard drive in the last minute to lose 14-11.  Terribly costly loss.

BW is probably a better team than any Mount will face in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 05, 2011, 07:48:59 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 05, 2011, 07:28:56 PM
Baldwin-Wallace season is going to likely end at 8-2 with a shocking loss to Capital as the back breaker.  BW was going in to score to ice the game, fumbles on the Capital 5 yard line, then to allows Capital a 95 yard drive in the last minute to lose 14-11.  Terribly costly loss.

BW is probably a better team than any Mount will face in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs.

Since UMU seems destined to anchor the 'East' again, quite possibly BW is better than their first THREE opponents (though I'll reserve judgment on DelVal, and possibly Salisbury will be placed in the East).  On my North Region Fan Poll I moved BW up to 5th, behind only UMU, NCC, Wabash, and IWU (and that is a close call), and jumping Wheaton.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2011, 09:01:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 08:59:51 PM
Smed, do we need a Pool C yell practice for Wabash?

"Wabash Always Fights!"

There. How was that? ;)
I think that it worked.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 05, 2011, 09:08:18 PM
Yes! Yes it did work!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 05, 2011, 09:25:04 PM
Picture is really beginning to clear up now... these aren't necessarily the top contenders for a Pool C bid... just teams with the potential for the best records

Conf        Team                      Record (conf) Region    Remaining game

CCIW: Illinois Wesleyan   8-1 (5-1) 8-1    vs Augustana
MAC:  Delaware Valley     9-0 (7-0) 9-0    vs Widener *Pool A with win*
MWC:  Illinois College    9-1 (8-1) 9-1    NONE
NEFC: Endicott            9-1 (7-1) 9-1    NONE
NWC:  Linfield            8-0 (5-0) 7-0    vs Lewis & Clark *Pool A with win*
SCAC: Centre              7-1 (4-1) 7-1    vs Rhodes
SCIAC Redlands            6-1 (4-1) 6-1    vs Whittier (tonight), @ Chapman


Pool B *one should be Pool B*
      Wesley              8-1       4-1    vs Huntingdon
      Case Western Reserve 8-1      8-0    @ Carnegie Mellon

One Loss in Region
ASC:  McMurry             7-2 (6-1) 6-1    vs Miss College
ECFC: SUNY-Maritime       7-2 (5-1) 7-1    @ Gallaudet


ASC:  None
CC:   None
E8:   None
ECFC: None
HCAC: None
IIAC: None
LL:   None
MIAA: None
MIAC: None
NAthC None
NCAC: None
NJAC: None
OAC:  None
ODAC: None
PAC:  None
UMAC: None
USAC: None
WIAC: None
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2011, 09:51:23 PM
I think that we may have a Pool C team with 2 in-region losses. Let's use the most recent Regional Rankings. I will eliminate those teams that have clinched.

East Region

1)  DVC                   8-0/9-0  hosts Widener for the MAC crown
2)  Hobart               6-1/6-1   at Rochester to clinch the LL bid.
4)  SJF                   7-2/7-2   E8; at Hartwick
5)  Montclair St        8-1/8-1   Hosts Kean for NJAC bid
6)  Kean                  8-1/8-1   at Montclair for NJAC
7)  Widener              7-1/8-1   at DVC for MAC
8)  Lycoming            6-2/7-2   FDU-Florham
9)  WNEC                 9-1/9-1   NEFC Championship Game
10) SUNY-Maritime     7-1/7-2   at Gallaudet

Clinched:  #3) Salisbury and NR Norwich are not listed.

South Region

#3  Wesley              4-1/8-1   Pool B; Hosts Huntingdon
#5  McMurry             6-1/7-2  Hosts Mississippi College
#6  Centre               7-1/7-1   Hosts Rhodes
#7  LaCollege            6-2/7-2   at Hardin-Simmons
#10 W&L                  8-2/8-2  Finished season

Clinched bids: #1 UMHB, #2 JHU, #4 Trinity, #8 Pres AC, #9 H-SC, NR CNU

North Region

#5  CWRU                8-0/8-1   Pool B; at Carnegie-Mellon
#6  IWU                   8-1/8-1   Hosts Augustana
#7  Wheaton IL         7-2/7-2   Hosts Millikin
#8  BWC                  7-2/7-2   Hosts John Carroll
#9  Witt                   5-2/7-2  Hosts Wooster

Clinched:  #1 UMU, #2 Franklin, #3 Wabash, #4 North Central, #10 Albion, NR Benedictine

West Region

#3 Linfield              7-0/8-0    Hosts Lewis and Clark
#5 St Olaf              7-2/7-2    Hosts Concordia-Moorhead
#8 Redlands            7-1/7-1   Playing Whittier tonight; at Chapman next week
#10 Lewis & Clark    7-1/7-1    Plays at Linfield

Clinched:  #1 UWW, #2 St Thomas, #4 Cal Lu, #6 Dubuque, #7 Monmouth, #9 St Scholastica 



And FCGG posted his update while I was working on mine.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2011, 10:06:19 PM
I am going to leave the projections to the committee.

So far, this is what I see.

South Region:  McMurry and Centre
West Region: Redlands
North Region:  CWRU and IWU
East Region:  Del Valley if they lose.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 05, 2011, 10:11:39 PM
And if Del Val wins out - chaos.

There's Illinois College with one loss in region saying "hey, regional records!"
There's B/W, the Kean / Montclair loser, Wheaton, and Louisiana College (among others) going, "We're better!"

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 06, 2011, 01:02:32 PM
Fisher would have a complaint with two losses to tournament teams, assuming Hobart beats Rochester next week.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
Though SJF's performance against Hobart may put them at the bottom of that list. 56-20 is hard to overlook.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2011, 02:04:13 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 05, 2011, 10:11:39 PM
There's B/W, the Kean / Montclair loser, Wheaton, and Louisiana College (among others) going, "We're better!"

Can't help but think that Baldwin-Wallace is REALLY going to regret that early-season loss to Capital...few teams have been as impressive as B-W over the last couple weeks, with five straight OAC wins in October, and rallying from a 19-0 deficit to take the lead in the second half AT Mount Union is no joke.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 06, 2011, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
Though SJF's performance against Hobart may put them at the bottom of that list. 56-20 is hard to overlook.

Yep. And I'm thinking they aren't going to be the only team with 2 losses to tournament teams. W&L will probably fit that bill with Centre and H-SC and they lost both games on the road by a touchdown each. I don't think W&L deserves much consideration here either. You just can't lose 2 games in D3 and not win your AQ. I don't care how tough your schedule or who you lost to, two losses and arguing for a Pool C is extremely marginal.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 06, 2011, 03:22:46 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2011, 02:04:13 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 05, 2011, 10:11:39 PM
There's B/W, the Kean / Montclair loser, Wheaton, and Louisiana College (among others) going, "We're better!"

Can't help but think that Baldwin-Wallace is REALLY going to regret that early-season loss to Capital...few teams have been as impressive as B-W over the last couple weeks, with five straight OAC wins in October, and rallying from a 19-0 deficit to take the lead in the second half AT Mount Union is no joke.

Yup. I moved them up in the poll, but they have only themselves to blame for the playoff predicament. Even with the loss to Cap they had the chance to close Mount Union out in the final five minutes and gave up a go-down-in-history touchdown drive. At any other school, that's an epic drive for a conference title.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 06, 2011, 03:29:37 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 06, 2011, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
Though SJF's performance against Hobart may put them at the bottom of that list. 56-20 is hard to overlook.

Yep. And I'm thinking they aren't going to be the only team with 2 losses to tournament teams. W&L will probably fit that bill with Centre and H-SC and they lost both games on the road by a touchdown each. I don't think W&L deserves much consideration here either. You just can't lose 2 games in D3 and not win your AQ. I don't care how tough your schedule or who you lost to, two losses and arguing for a Pool C is extremely marginal.

Yeah, at least W&L played both of its games close. SJF got blown out twice, that's not playoff material unless the field is really weak. Wheaton lost to NC and IWU and one of the games was close.

I know Frank wishes and prays for East teams to get the nod, but 1) they have to earn them, and 2) his best bets are probably Endicott (in weak fields, committees have shown favor to 9-1 teams no matter their home conference) and for Widener to clinch the MAC and push Del Val into Pool C.

Although that opens Frank's other favorite can of gripes, since Del Val is the last standing legit No. 1 seed candidate in the East. Unless they want to give Hopkins a No. 1 lol. Even Wesley or Salisbury isn't going to be able to bail the East out.

In reality, if you're rooting for the East, I think you root *for* Del Val. I also think Salisbury is the potentially dangerous East team. I'd like to see how a dominant defense performs in its first shot against a perfectly-executed triple option.

Also the lack of undefeateds in the North (I think it's just Mount Union and Wabash) might necessitate an East team staying home if Del Val wins. Then again, the committee would be wise to split St. Thomas and UW-Whitewater up if possible.

Anyway, yeah, Pool C. That Redlands/St. Olaf problem solved itself, didn't it?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 06, 2011, 03:45:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2011, 10:06:19 PM
I am going to leave the projections to the committee.

So far, this is what I see.

South Region:  McMurry and Centre
West Region: Redlands
North Region:  CWRU and IWU
East Region:  Del Valley if they lose.

The only one I see that you might be missing is Endicott, if Del Val wins and bumps Widener. Then you have the gaggle of two-loss teams, and then 9-1 Case and 9-1 Endicott. I haven't researched how they stack up, but neither of them have a great SoS I would guess, and Endicott's loss is to a WNEC, potentially a 10-1 AQ earner, and Case's is to Rochester, who's what, like 4-5?

If I was a two-loss team, I'd certainly want to take my chances against those 9-1s and Illinois College, whose loss is 55-14 to 9-1 Monmouth.

Centre could've used some help from W&L, but Redlands definitely got it from North Central.

Redlands and IWU are your locks, and Del Val too with a loss. IMHO.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 03:59:08 PM
Case could be undefeated in Regional Record, which erases that loss to Rochester and they'll be high on the board.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: SUADC on November 06, 2011, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 06, 2011, 03:45:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2011, 10:06:19 PM
I am going to leave the projections to the committee.

So far, this is what I see.

South Region:  McMurry and Centre
West Region: Redlands
North Region:  CWRU and IWU
East Region:  Del Valley if they lose.

The only one I see that you might be missing is Endicott, if Del Val wins and bumps Widener. Then you have the gaggle of two-loss teams, and then 9-1 Case and 9-1 Endicott. I haven't researched how they stack up, but neither of them have a great SoS I would guess, and Endicott's loss is to a WNEC, potentially a 10-1 AQ earner, and Case's is to Rochester, who's what, like 4-5?

If I was a two-loss team, I'd certainly want to take my chances against those 9-1s and Illinois College, whose loss is 55-14 to 9-1 Monmouth.

Centre could've used some help from W&L, but Redlands definitely got it from North Central.

Redlands and IWU are your locks, and Del Val too with a loss. IMHO.

I believe the East should be able to have one two-loss team such as Montclair St./Kean, Lycoming/Widener, St. John Fisher. If not, Endicott. Most likely, an eight seed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2011, 04:43:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 03:59:08 PM
Case could be undefeated in Regional Record, which erases that loss to Rochester and they'll be high on the board.

That loss to Rochester is going to count somewhere.  Maybe not in the regional rankings, but when it comes time to select and seed, CWRU is not going to be viewed as an undefeated team.  They just can't be.  That game happened and we all know it. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 05:33:42 PM
But Wally, they'll be on the board ahead of Wheaton and many two loss teams because of their regional record and regional ranking. That's what I'm saying. They'll be high on the North board.

I surmise Case will be #2 on the North "C" board, with IWU #1 and either B/W or Wheaton #3. Is it the way it should be? No, but that's what happens when you emphasize regional records and have a 9-0 RR vs. a 8-2 RR.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 06, 2011, 05:46:21 PM
If CWRU is on the board ahead of Wheaton and B-W it's because they didn't lose TWICE.   Those other teams did. 

Next Sunday, that loss to Rochester is not going to be ignored.  It's going to cost CWRU the Pool B spot and it's going to put them behind IWU in the selection line. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 06:22:15 PM
I said they'd be behind IWU, Wally! I said they'd be #2 in the North! Yeesh.

It won't cost them the "B" either if Wesley loses to Huntingdon, which is possible.

If I had to guess now, the Top 2 on the board for each region will be:

East: Either Del Val and SJF or SJF and the Kean / Montclair loser
North: IWU and CWRU (if they are not the "B")
South: Centre and McMurry
West: Redlands and St. Olaf

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2011, 08:43:55 PM
Barring upsets, I'd agree that Redlands and IWU should go 1 and 2 (in that order; IWU will have a slightly superior SOS, but results against common opponent NCC should trump that), IF IWU jumps Case in the RR.  Keith scared the daylights out of me with a mock selection in ATN, using Case ahead of IWU - Case took the final C, so IWU never reached the table! :P

(Note: if DelVal loses to Widener, they might sneak into the top 2 with the boost to an already highly respectable SOS.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2011, 09:27:15 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 06, 2011, 03:29:37 PMAnyway, yeah, Pool C. That Redlands/St. Olaf problem solved itself, didn't it?

Yes and no. Now we won't actually know if the NCAA fixes it because its position relative to St. Olaf isn't the same.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 06, 2011, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 06:22:15 PM
If I had to guess now, the Top 2 on the board for each region will be:

East: Either Del Val and SJF or SJF and the Kean / Montclair loser
North: IWU and CWRU (if they are not the "B")
South: Centre and McMurry
West: Redlands and St. Olaf

McMurry was ahead of Centre in the regional rankings even before the Colonels lost yesterday. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 06, 2011, 10:44:39 PM
Ack! I went alphabetical. You're right Ron. McMurry up first, then Centre. Both probably go. I'd say it'd be this order:

1. IWU
2. Redlands
3. Del Val or McMurry
4. McMurry or Centre
5. Centre or CWRU
6. CWRU or ????
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2011, 11:06:45 PM
Some of the 1-loss teams appear to be pretty weak.  IF it gets to 2-loss teams, who is in best shape?

I haven't studied that question real closely, but suspect it would be Wheaton by the listed criteria; Bald-Wally if human decision-making takes a major role.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: lakeshore on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AM
based on the criteria...

1.  IWU
2.  Redlands
3.  Delaware Valley
4.  McMurry
5.  Wheaton
6.  Baldwin Wallace/CWRU (possible pool B)

The 9-1 teams left don't have good enough SOS
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 07, 2011, 08:06:37 AM
based on recent history I don't see the committee taking a 2 loss team over a 1 loss team, no matter the SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 07, 2011, 08:46:04 AM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 07, 2011, 08:04:23 AM
based on the criteria...

1.  IWU
2.  Redlands
3.  Delaware Valley
4.  McMurry
5.  Wheaton
6.  Baldwin Wallace/CWRU (possible pool B)

The 9-1 teams left don't have good enough SOS

Badlwin Wallace's SOS is 105, Centre is 5... Not sure where your argument is coming from here.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 07, 2011, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2011, 11:06:45 PM
Some of the 1-loss teams appear to be pretty weak.  IF it gets to 2-loss teams, who is in best shape?

I haven't studied that question real closely, but suspect it would be Wheaton by the listed criteria; Bald-Wally if human decision-making takes a major role.  Thoughts?

Depends on what criteria they use. I highly doubt it will get to a 2 loss team, but I believe Huntingdon, SJF and then W&L have the highest SOS of 2 loss teams currently, all inside the top 11, followed by Wheaton at 14 and Lycoming at 17 to round out the current top 20 2 loss SOSs. While I expect Huntingdon to pick up a third loss at Wesley, if they don't they have to be one of the best candidates. Wins over 2 RROs (H-SC and Wesley). Of course, there would be a real logjam of "south" teams as I'd assume that Huntingdon would be the third South team nominated in this case (behind 1 D3 loss McM and Centre).

Bald-Wally's SOS is not very strong at 105, so being a 2 loss team that far down the pecking order could be a tough sell unless they throw all the metrics out the window. Especially when you can find 2 East teams with good cases and one North team without trying very hard.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 07, 2011, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: USee on November 07, 2011, 08:06:37 AM
based on recent history I don't see the committee taking a 2 loss team over a 1 loss team, no matter the SOS.

Only if it's Illinois College or Endicott vs. Wheaton or B/W. But even then, who knows?

But Centre definitely gets in over Wheaton.

And the 2-loss teams better hope Del Val wins.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 07, 2011, 10:32:41 AM
Endicott is an interesting case.  They weren't listed in the Regional Rankings for the East, so the best they could be was 11th.  They should leap SUNY-Maritime and potentially Lycoming, but does St. John Fisher and the loser of Kean/Montclair fall far enough that they end up below Endicott?  And if Widener loses, would they remain above Endicott?  That's at least 2 and maybe 3 two-loss teams that Endicott would have to pass in order to even get on the board during the Pool C discussion.  If Endicott is higher than Fisher in the second RR, then I bet the committee will continue to move the Gulls over any other two-loss teams after the next week's games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Schwami on November 07, 2011, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 07, 2011, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2011, 11:06:45 PM
Some of the 1-loss teams appear to be pretty weak.  IF it gets to 2-loss teams, who is in best shape?

I haven't studied that question real closely, but suspect it would be Wheaton by the listed criteria; Bald-Wally if human decision-making takes a major role.  Thoughts?

Depends on what criteria they use. I highly doubt it will get to a 2 loss team, but I believe Huntingdon, SJF and then W&L have the highest SOS of 2 loss teams currently, all inside the top 11, followed by Wheaton at 14 and Lycoming at 17 to round out the current top 20 2 loss SOSs. While I expect Huntingdon to pick up a third loss at Wesley, if they don't they have to be one of the best candidates. Wins over 2 RROs (H-SC and Wesley). Of course, there would be a real logjam of "south" teams as I'd assume that Huntingdon would be the third South team nominated in this case (behind 1 D3 loss McM and Centre).

Bald-Wally's SOS is not very strong at 105, so being a 2 loss team that far down the pecking order could be a tough sell unless they throw all the metrics out the window. Especially when you can find 2 East teams with good cases and one North team without trying very hard.

If Huntingdon beats Wesley, they would have three wins against RROs --- Witt is regionally ranked, and will probably still be so when the new rankings come out.  (Witt also beat Capital who beat B-W, FWIW.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: SUADC on November 07, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
As for Pool "C" consideration for East regional. St. John Fisher and the 2nd Place NJAC would give the east a stronger eight seed than Endicott. However, Endicott has only one loss to Western New England who has already beaten Norwich, even though I do not think it counts for anything. Still, Endicott has a good case, not a strong one, but a good case. On the other side, St. John Fisher losses are to two other Playoff bound opponents, they can argue that, but the games between both of those teams weren't close. The 2nd Place NJAC team has the best Case either Kean or Montclair State. Kean can argue that it beat national powerhouse Wesley and Montclair can say they lost a close game to College of New Jersey and Kean (If close) that beat Wesley. Personally, I think St. John Fisher, Montclair, and Kean bring more to the table as far as athletes and a team as a whole. Also, historically St. John Fisher and Montclair have been in the playoffs and won. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 07, 2011, 12:34:32 PM
Illinois College has the same kind of case as well. If Del Val wins, then IC and Endicott make their arguments about a one-loss team vs. the phalanx of two-losses from the power conferences.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2011, 04:07:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2011, 08:43:55 PM
Barring upsets, I'd agree that Redlands and IWU should go 1 and 2 (in that order; IWU will have a slightly superior SOS, but results against common opponent NCC should trump that), IF IWU jumps Case in the RR.  Keith scared the daylights out of me with a mock selection in ATN, using Case ahead of IWU - Case took the final C, so IWU never reached the table! :P

(Note: if DelVal loses to Widener, they might sneak into the top 2 with the boost to an already highly respectable SOS.)

Mea culpa, when I posted this I totally overlooked Centre.  With only one loss and the 5th highest SOS, they might well be the first Pool C (and certainly among the first three). :-[
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 07, 2011, 04:54:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2011, 04:07:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2011, 08:43:55 PM
Barring upsets, I'd agree that Redlands and IWU should go 1 and 2 (in that order; IWU will have a slightly superior SOS, but results against common opponent NCC should trump that), IF IWU jumps Case in the RR.  Keith scared the daylights out of me with a mock selection in ATN, using Case ahead of IWU - Case took the final C, so IWU never reached the table! :P

(Note: if DelVal loses to Widener, they might sneak into the top 2 with the boost to an already highly respectable SOS.)

Mea culpa, when I posted this I totally overlooked Centre.  With only one loss and the 5th highest SOS, they might well be the first Pool C (and certainly among the first three). :-[

McMurry was ranked higher in last week's Regional Rankings even having one more loss, so after the loss Centre won't be the first Pool C despite the high SOS.  McM's is top 30 (I think) and a one-point loss to UMHB's a bit more impressive than a six-point loss to Trinity (TX).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 07, 2011, 05:51:32 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 07, 2011, 04:54:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2011, 04:07:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 06, 2011, 08:43:55 PM
Barring upsets, I'd agree that Redlands and IWU should go 1 and 2 (in that order; IWU will have a slightly superior SOS, but results against common opponent NCC should trump that), IF IWU jumps Case in the RR.  Keith scared the daylights out of me with a mock selection in ATN, using Case ahead of IWU - Case took the final C, so IWU never reached the table! :P

(Note: if DelVal loses to Widener, they might sneak into the top 2 with the boost to an already highly respectable SOS.)

Mea culpa, when I posted this I totally overlooked Centre.  With only one loss and the 5th highest SOS, they might well be the first Pool C (and certainly among the first three). :-[

McMurry was ranked higher in last week's Regional Rankings even having one more loss, so after the loss Centre won't be the first Pool C despite the high SOS.  McM's is top 30 (I think) and a one-point loss to UMHB's a bit more impressive than a six-point loss to Trinity (TX).

Perhaps, but it depends on how the committee sees things. Personally, I see Centre, at 9-1 with a win over once RRO W&L and an extremely high SOS, as an early lock to get a Pool C bid. McM, with a very impressive resume, still has 2 losses and ONLY a 7-1 record against D3 teams (1-1 against other opponents). So if you know the other regions are going to throw out 9-1 teams, I'm not sure the South committee leads with an 8-2 overall (7-1 D3) McMurry. You might get stuck going a few rounds and lose your chance to put out 9-1 Centre later on. That being said, McM should be higher in the regional rankings, so they should go first. I'm just thinking in terms of gamesmanship if that is how I would want to start off if I was a South Region Committee aiming for 2 Pool C bids...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
IMHO, jknezek, if McMurry and Centre are both in the top six of the "Pool C" teams, the order in which they come to the board shouldn't be an issue (in theory).

I see what you're saying - that 8-2 McMurry could be dismissed in favor of 9-1 teams from other regions, so perhaps the South should put Centre up first (hoping that they go in as the first C), and then hope that McMurry slides in through the back door later - but either way, McMurry is competing against those same teams for a Pool C slot.

Moving on...if Endicott gets in the playoffs at 9-1 without winning the NEFC title, that's an absolute travesty, and I don't care how good they look via the criteria.  SOS numbers are meaningless for a conference with such limited intraconference play (I pointed out previously that Endicott and UW-Oshkosh - who played Mount Union in a nonconference game, plus the WIAC meatgrinder - have about the same SOS ranking).  The committee, presumably, will take that into account and all but dismiss Endicott's SOS numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 07, 2011, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
IMHO, jknezek, if McMurry and Centre are both in the top six of the "Pool C" teams, the order in which they come to the board shouldn't be an issue (in theory).

I notice you add that (in theory) and that's the problem. This isn't theory. You have 6 rounds of Pool C voting. If you throw up a team that is 8-2 (7-1) in round 1 and it takes 4 rounds before the other 3 teams put up against them start to look unappealing on strength, since presumable they are going to be 9-1 (9-1) type teams, then you only have 2 more rounds for your second team to get picked. If you put up a 9-1 (9-1) in the first round and they go in round 1 or 2 because they have the highest 9-1 (9-1) SOS, you get 4 tries to get your second team off the board. The more tries your second team has, the more likely they are to get picked. It's simple really. You have to lead with the team you think will come off the board first.

The team most likely to come off the board first is the team that looks most like the others, with an arguable edge. That edge, for Centre, is going to be the SOS. I'd presume you'll end up arguing Centre's SOS versus some other 9-1 (9-1) two RRO victories for the first couple spots. That's a reasonable argument and one you will win at some point.

I'd much rather be trying to make that argument than sitting there pushing McM with the argument of: hey! they only lost by 1 point to the 1 seed in the South! While trying to counter, yeah, but my team only has 1 loss TOTAL in 10 games, not one loss in 8 games. You have to remember, these are a bunch of people on a conference call all trying to make an argument for why their team is the best choice. You need an edge. I just don't think the best "edge" is a margin of loss. Especially on a partial schedule (7-1). That's a bad argument...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 08, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
It would seem that Redlands will be the first off the board with their win over NCC.  After that, I don't see any 2-loss team in the East or either of the 1-loss, regionally unranked teams (Endicott and Illinois College) having a better case than Case, IWU, McMurry or Centre.  The real intrigue would come if both Del Valley and Linfield lost since positioning amongst those four would then matter immensely.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 08, 2011, 10:55:20 AM
I think IWU's body of work may make it a better first pick than Redlands. However, they'll be off the board quickly so it's a moot point.

And yes, Linfield could lose but it's a remote possibility. I think that a Linfield loss and a Del Val loss knocks CWRU out unless they get the "B".
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 08, 2011, 01:08:23 PM
As much as I would like to see B-W in the playoffs because I think they're a quality team, anything that keeps Case out is OK in my book.  If you can't go 10-0 playing that schedule, you have no business qualifying.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 03:02:34 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
if Endicott gets in the playoffs at 9-1 without winning the NEFC title, that's an absolute travesty, and I don't care how good they look via the criteria.

Plymouth State went in this manner a few years ago, and although they lost at Cortland, that was the year Curry won in the first round at Ithaca.

I think Endicott going is much more of a possibility than people seem to be considering, if DelVal wins.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 09, 2011, 07:45:51 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 03:02:34 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
if Endicott gets in the playoffs at 9-1 without winning the NEFC title, that's an absolute travesty, and I don't care how good they look via the criteria.

...

I think Endicott going is much more of a possibility than people seem to be considering, if DelVal wins.

I agree.  I know that it might happen...I just don't have to like it >:(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2011, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 03:02:34 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
if Endicott gets in the playoffs at 9-1 without winning the NEFC title, that's an absolute travesty, and I don't care how good they look via the criteria.

Plymouth State went in this manner a few years ago, and although they lost at Cortland, that was the year Curry won in the first round at Ithaca.

I think Endicott going is much more of a possibility than people seem to be considering, if DelVal wins.

You got it backwards, Keith.  Plymouth State went via the NEFC AQ and Curry claimed a Pool C the year after beating Hartwick in the first round.  Semantics perhaps, but while Endicott made the dance last year they didn't win.  It'll be interesting to see what happens in regards to regional rankings today and selections on Sunday.  Plus, I'd guess it's a 50/50 proposition that one of the 1-loss Pool C contenders loses this weekend (though it's likely the same proposition that Del Valley loses, so it could be a wash for teams on the bubble).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2011, 03:21:04 PM
New regional rankings:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2011/11/09/second-ncaa-regional-rankings-2/
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2011, 03:24:51 PM
The final regional rankings (that we get to see) are now posted.  As I feared (but expected), Case is still ahead of IWU.  My hope is that the national committee will reverse that, as Case would be likely to block IWU even reaching the table for a long time (perhaps even forever).

Just to be safe, I will be rooting for CMU to knock off Case and/or Huntingdon to knock off Wesley (likely making Case the B). ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: softballrz on November 09, 2011, 03:25:37 PM
Endicott at 8. no one saw that coming
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: softballrz on November 09, 2011, 03:26:57 PM
as a fan of the nefc I will take it
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2011, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 07, 2011, 10:32:41 AM
Endicott is an interesting case.  They weren't listed in the Regional Rankings for the East, so the best they could be was 11th.  They should leap SUNY-Maritime and potentially Lycoming, but does St. John Fisher and the loser of Kean/Montclair fall far enough that they end up below Endicott?  And if Widener loses, would they remain above Endicott?  That's at least 2 and maybe 3 two-loss teams that Endicott would have to pass in order to even get on the board during the Pool C discussion.  If Endicott is higher than Fisher in the second RR, then I bet the committee will continue to move the Gulls over any other two-loss teams after the next week's games.

Endicott indeed is ahead of Fisher, so expect the NJAC loser to fall below them as well as Widener if they fail at their bid to take the MAC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2011, 04:04:06 PM
As I see it, a "loss" and a "result" are 2 different things.  Kean has a result/win versus Wesley.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 04:18:19 PM
Did a little Pool C analysis...a couple of things that I'm assuming:
- Hobart either goes to Pool A or gets knocked below Endicott
- The NJAC runner up will fall below Endicott
- The national committee will reorder IWU and CWRU on the North tableau
- Linfield isn't losing to Lewis & Clark
- Wesley beats Huntingdon and is selected in Pool B

So I've got two scenarios...one if Delaware Valley wins, one if Delaware Valley loses. 

If Del Val wins, my selections are:
Round 1: Endicott, IWU, McMurry, Redlands - Titans have the same number of wins over RR'd teams as McMurry and Redlands, but have a higher SOS
Round 2: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Redlands -  Redlands and McMurry have very similar resumés, I think the edge goes to Redlands because they have a better win
Round 3: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Illinois College - McMurry is quite clearly the best of this group...the other three do not have a win over a RR'd team and have inferior SOS's
Round 4: Endicott, CWRU, Centre, Illinois College - Centre, I believe actually looks better than McMurry and probably would have been taken immediately if they were on the board.  The national committee may "fix" that order in the South
Round 5: Endicott, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - Louisiana College has a stronger schedule, but they have zero wins against ranked teams and have the extra loss.  Endicott is the choice based on SOS.
Round 6: NJAC runner up, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - The NJAC runner up will have a strong case here, particularly if it's Kean as they will have a win over a ranked team (the SOS will get a boost as well this week).  Ultimately, I think the committee prefers that you don't lose twice and Illinois College has a slight SOS edge on CWRU. 

Now, if Del Val loses, Del Val will be the first up in the East.  I won't go through the whole process again...IWU, Redlands, McMurry, and Centre and still my choices for the first four rounds all ahead of Delaware Valley.  Then Del Val comes off, then Endicott.  Del Val could go ahead of McMurry, but then McMurry will go followed immediately by Centre, then we're back to the same final four at the table for the last spot.  Basically, if Del Val loses, they're in, Illinois College is out. 

And now let the week 11 hysteria begin and blow all of this right out of the water. :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 04:28:52 PM
I think CWRU goes in before Endicott or Illinois College. What's your reasoning for leaving them out? Their undefeated regional record should be a pretty big factor, even nationally. Otherwise, don't make it a criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 04:33:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 04:28:52 PM
I think CWRU goes in before Endicott or Illinois College. What's your reasoning for leaving them out?

SOS.  Endicott is done and ranks 82. CWRU is 126 and their game against CMU doesn't look like it'll change their number much.  Illinois College is at 118 and is done.  And I'm also not pretending that CWRU didn't lose a game. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 04:34:27 PM
I'm not either. But if they want to make a system based on regionality, they'd have to reward an undefeated regional record.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 04:34:27 PM
I'm not either. But if they want to make a system based on regionality, they'd have to reward an undefeated regional record.

CWRU lost a game to team that they share a conference with in every other NCAA sponsored sport.  I know this isn't every other sport, but come on.  That game has to count.  It's not like they lost to Grand Valley State.  They lost to a Division III team that we know isn't great.  The result is relevant. 

The point is moot...if the regional record is going to carry that much weight, then CWRU will be the Pool B selection and won't be on this board anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: SUADC on November 09, 2011, 04:43:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 04:18:19 PM
Did a little Pool C analysis...a couple of things that I'm assuming:
- Hobart either goes to Pool A or gets knocked below Endicott
- The NJAC runner up will fall below Endicott
- The national committee will reorder IWU and CWRU on the North tableau
- Linfield isn't losing to Lewis & Clark
- Wesley beats Huntingdon and is selected in Pool B

So I've got two scenarios...one if Delaware Valley wins, one if Delaware Valley loses. 

If Del Val wins, my selections are:
Round 1: Endicott, IWU, McMurry, Redlands - Titans have the same number of wins over RR'd teams as McMurry and Redlands, but have a higher SOS
Round 2: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Redlands -  Redlands and McMurry have very similar resumés, I think the edge goes to Redlands because they have a better win
Round 3: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Illinois College - McMurry is quite clearly the best of this group...the other three do not have a win over a RR'd team and have inferior SOS's
Round 4: Endicott, CWRU, Centre, Illinois College - Centre, I believe actually looks better than McMurry and probably would have been taken immediately if they were on the board.  The national committee may "fix" that order in the South
Round 5: Endicott, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - Louisiana College has a stronger schedule, but they have zero wins against ranked teams and have the extra loss.  Endicott is the choice based on SOS.
Round 6: NJAC runner up, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - The NJAC runner up will have a strong case here, particularly if it's Kean as they will have a win over a ranked team (the SOS will get a boost as well this week).  Ultimately, I think the committee prefers that you don't lose twice and Illinois College has a slight SOS edge on CWRU. 

Now, if Del Val loses, Del Val will be the first up in the East.  I won't go through the whole process again...IWU, Redlands, McMurry, and Centre and still my choices for the first four rounds all ahead of Delaware Valley.  Then Del Val comes off, then Endicott.  Del Val could go ahead of McMurry, but then McMurry will go followed immediately by Centre, then we're back to the same final four at the table for the last spot.  Basically, if Del Val loses, they're in, Illinois College is out. 

And now let the week 11 hysteria begin and blow all of this right out of the water. :)

Definitely right about the hysteria...the rest of this week and the weekend is going to bring everything to light. Some may like, a lot will not.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
I'm just looking at the criteria, Wally. You can say "the game has to count" all you want but for the primary criteria, it doesn't, and you always pointing out that it 'should' count (and my acknowledgement that it should count, realistically, but doesn't), means nothing.

It's all dependent on how the NCAA wants to look at the primary criteria. And there's a big chasm in SOS numbers between Wesley's SOS and CWRU, but not so much, really between IC, Endicott and CWRU.

I could see the criteria applied this way:

The difference between SOS for Wesley, and their beating of regionally ranked Salisbury, outflanks CWRU's regional record for the "B".
The regional record of CWRU outflanks the advantage in SOS for IC and Endicott.

That's very plausible.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2011, 04:51:15 PM
The Handbook doesn't say "wins". It says "results".  That is the way that the committee can consider how the game counts!

If Kean/Montclair State is a close game, why do you drop the loser too far?  Any game between those two teams will have a loser. A 4-point outcome, plus or minus 3 points Home Field Advantage is what I would expect.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
I'm just looking at the criteria, Wally. You can say "the game has to count" all you want but for the primary criteria, it doesn't, and you always pointing out that it 'should' count (and my acknowledgement that it should count, realistically, but doesn't), means nothing.

I approached this all from the same perspective last year.  Apply the criteria, primary then secondary, and select teams accordingly.  But if the committee did that, Wabash was a slam dunk for invitation because the loss to WashU never gets evaluated.  But the committee did include that loss in their evaluation and Wabash just missed out.  And they were right. 

With just 10 games to try and distinguish between teams, you just can't ignore results that are obviously relevant.  I don't know how relevant McMurry's loss to SFA is.  How do you judge what the expectation is for that game?  I can absolutely judge CWRU's loss to in-division Rochester...in the same way that we could all judge Wabash's in-division loss to WashU last season.  In practice, or so it seems, the lines of regionality get stomped out a bit when it comes to football selection.  And rightly so.  There just aren't enough results to throw some out based on arbitrarily determined "regions". 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 05:14:24 PM
Then don't make it as part of the criteria, then. Why have criteria when they don't use it? Again, the written primary criteria ignores that result.

And there's a big difference between a one-loss region team (Wabash last year ) and a undefeated region team (CWRU).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 05:16:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2011, 04:51:15 PM
The Handbook doesn't say "wins". It says "results".  That is the way that the committee can consider how the game counts!

If Kean/Montclair State is a close game, why do you drop the loser too far?  Any game between those two teams will have a loser. A 4-point outcome, plus or minus 3 points Home Field Advantage is what I would expect.

I dropped the Montclair/Kean loser below Endicott because there just isn't much precedent for the committee selecting 2-loss teams ahead of 1-loss teams, regardless of SOS or results vs. ranked teams.  In today's rankings there is not an instance of a 2-loss team being ranked ahead of a 1-loss team. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 05:14:24 PM
Then don't make it as part of the criteria, then. Why have criteria when they don't use it? Again, the written primary criteria ignores that result.

I said the same exact thing last year.  I think it was Pat that answered back, and I'm paraphrasing...I'll try to find the exchange later, that these criteria are used throughout the division in all sports and there might be something un-D3 about writing a different set of rules for football even if it completely makes sense and doesn't in any way sully the greatness of Division III events. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2011, 06:59:39 PM
Yeah. Pat got me with that one a few weeks ago on the same topic. Football, with it's limited schedule, is a different animal. Sometimes common sense has to apply. Unfortunately we are very good at writing rules so no one has to apply common sense. The committee has the leeway to do whatever it wants. If I was in the North region, I'd be praying that CWRU gets the Pool B because I could see them tying up a Pool C slot for a good long time...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 09, 2011, 07:22:45 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 05:11:40 PM
With just 10 games to try and distinguish between teams, you just can't ignore results that are obviously relevant.  I don't know how relevant McMurry's loss to SFA is.  How do you judge what the expectation is for that game?  I can absolutely judge CWRU's loss to in-division Rochester...in the same way that we could all judge Wabash's in-division loss to WashU last season.  In practice, or so it seems, the lines of regionality get stomped out a bit when it comes to football selection.  And rightly so.  There just aren't enough results to throw some out based on arbitrarily determined "regions".

I've gone around in circles on this subject a few times recently, so I'll try not to continue, but let's just say that I agree with the bolded parts 100%.  With such a short schedule, I hate throwing away any Division III results, especially because they're relatively easy to evaluate.

However, wally, Keith made a nice point for the origins of the focus on regional-record, even if it doesn't hold up well in practice.  As Keith put it, under the criteria, the idea was "play the good teams close to you and you'll get in."  Teams wouldn't have to feel like they had to travel in search of an impressive nonconference win. 

Do I still disagree?  Yeah.  I don't think that eliminating the emphasis on regional games will result a sudden arms-race for nonconference games, but as Keith/Pat constantly have to remind us (and you just said above), most of these rules are written with all sports in mind, not just football.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 09, 2011, 07:22:45 PM
However, wally, Keith made a nice point for the origins of the focus on regional-record, even if it doesn't hold up well in practice.  As Keith put it, under the criteria, the idea was "play the good teams close to you and you'll get in." Teams wouldn't have to feel like they had to travel in search of an impressive nonconference win. 

With the recent adjustments to what counts as "in region", we don't have any idea what playing good teams close to you means anymore.  Wabash playing a game vs. a team from St. Louis is not regional.  North Central playing a team from southern California is.  CWRU playing a team in northwestern New York is not regional.  Wittenberg playing a team in Alabama is.  There's a pretty serious disconnect there.  I understand the idea behind the administrative regions and how it helps to give teams more options for finding regional games, but why stop there?  There really isn't a good reason why we can't replace the language about "in-region" and just call it "in-division" because, in practice, I think that's what teams get judged on.  And I don't think saying that explicitly in the football handbook makes D-III football any less D-III. 

As far as encouraging teams to play other teams close to them, I think that happens organically.  Schools are naturally going to gravitate toward games against natural geographic rivals.  Most teams aren't going to want to spend the money to travel all over the country playing football (see the dissolution of the SCAC as a prime example).  For a majority of D-III, there are plenty of games to be had fairly close to home.  For the parts of D-III that are on what's become known as "islands", some travel for non-league games is just going to be the nature of the beast. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 09, 2011, 08:25:42 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2011, 06:59:39 PM
Yeah. Pat got me with that one a few weeks ago on the same topic. Football, with it's limited schedule, is a different animal. Sometimes common sense has to apply. Unfortunately we are very good at writing rules so no one has to apply common sense. The committee has the leeway to do whatever it wants. If I was in the North region, I'd be praying that CWRU gets the Pool B because I could see them tying up a Pool C slot for a good long time...

As a fan of IWU (the team most likely to get screwed if current regional standings persist and Wesley beats out Case for the B), I'm fervently hoping for one (or more ;)) of the following:

The (secret) final-final rankings flip Case and IWU.
CMU takes down Case and renders the point moot.
Huntingdon takes down Wesley, which makes Case the likely B (unless Huntingdon then jumps them!)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 08:58:09 PM
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2011, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 03:02:34 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
if Endicott gets in the playoffs at 9-1 without winning the NEFC title, that's an absolute travesty, and I don't care how good they look via the criteria.

Plymouth State went in this manner a few years ago, and although they lost at Cortland, that was the year Curry won in the first round at Ithaca.

I think Endicott going is much more of a possibility than people seem to be considering, if DelVal wins.
You got it backwards, Keith.  Plymouth State went via the NEFC AQ and Curry claimed a Pool C the year after beating Hartwick in the first round.  Semantics perhaps, but while Endicott made the dance last year they didn't win.  It'll be interesting to see what happens in regards to regional rankings today and selections on Sunday.  Plus, I'd guess it's a 50/50 proposition that one of the 1-loss Pool C contenders loses this weekend (though it's likely the same proposition that Del Valley loses, so it could be a wash for teams on the bubble).

Gotcha, I do too much of my board posting off the top of my head. After 12 years, stuff runs together. Curry indeed beat Hartwick in the first round one year, and Ithaca the next.

This actually strengthens the point though. No longer can we assume having a Pool C team from the NEFC is a "travesty" if it is capable of beating a playoff team from one of the better leagues in D-III, the Empire 8.

I'm not saying I would pick Endicott to beat Baldwin-Wallace straight up, but committees seem to favor 9-1 teams to 8-2 teams, and I don't know that it would reach travesty level if they did it in this case.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 09:01:28 PM
I do feel that if Case finishes 9-0 in region, and doesn't make the playoffs, then it blows the whole 'regional' concept to heck.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 09:08:29 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 04:18:19 PM
Did a little Pool C analysis...a couple of things that I'm assuming:
- Hobart either goes to Pool A or gets knocked below Endicott
- The NJAC runner up will fall below Endicott
- The national committee will reorder IWU and CWRU on the North tableau
- Linfield isn't losing to Lewis & Clark
- Wesley beats Huntingdon and is selected in Pool B

So I've got two scenarios...one if Delaware Valley wins, one if Delaware Valley loses. 

If Del Val wins, my selections are:
Round 1: Endicott, IWU, McMurry, Redlands - Titans have the same number of wins over RR'd teams as McMurry and Redlands, but have a higher SOS
Round 2: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Redlands -  Redlands and McMurry have very similar resumés, I think the edge goes to Redlands because they have a better win
Round 3: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Illinois College - McMurry is quite clearly the best of this group...the other three do not have a win over a RR'd team and have inferior SOS's
Round 4: Endicott, CWRU, Centre, Illinois College - Centre, I believe actually looks better than McMurry and probably would have been taken immediately if they were on the board.  The national committee may "fix" that order in the South
Round 5: Endicott, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - Louisiana College has a stronger schedule, but they have zero wins against ranked teams and have the extra loss.  Endicott is the choice based on SOS.
Round 6: NJAC runner up, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - The NJAC runner up will have a strong case here, particularly if it's Kean as they will have a win over a ranked team (the SOS will get a boost as well this week).  Ultimately, I think the committee prefers that you don't lose twice and Illinois College has a slight SOS edge on CWRU. 

Now, if Del Val loses, Del Val will be the first up in the East.  I won't go through the whole process again...IWU, Redlands, McMurry, and Centre and still my choices for the first four rounds all ahead of Delaware Valley.  Then Del Val comes off, then Endicott.  Del Val could go ahead of McMurry, but then McMurry will go followed immediately by Centre, then we're back to the same final four at the table for the last spot.  Basically, if Del Val loses, they're in, Illinois College is out. 

And now let the week 11 hysteria begin and blow all of this right out of the water. :)

This is very close to what my analysis looks like, except I don't think it's safe to assume the committee will prefer to IWU to CWRU. I can't figure out why, but this is twice now that they've had Case in front of the Titans -- has to be on regional record.

Therefore I think I go CWRU 4th, IWU 5th, Endicott 6th if Del Val wins, and Del Val in early, CWRU 5th and IWU 6th if Widener wins. So Widener could bump Endicott by winning.

Again, this is not what I would do if I were on the commitee, it's what I think they will do based on the quick analysis and consideration of history I've done so far.

That said, you're right ... Week 11 usually brings some crazy carnage. One reason I like Endicott to withstand it all is becaue they can't lose, and because they played both WNEC and Framingham State, their SoS can't suffer. (They'd be better off if WNEC won though).
And yes, some wacky
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 09:20:18 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 09, 2011, 07:22:45 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 05:11:40 PM
With just 10 games to try and distinguish between teams, you just can't ignore results that are obviously relevant.  I don't know how relevant McMurry's loss to SFA is.  How do you judge what the expectation is for that game?  I can absolutely judge CWRU's loss to in-division Rochester...in the same way that we could all judge Wabash's in-division loss to WashU last season.  In practice, or so it seems, the lines of regionality get stomped out a bit when it comes to football selection.  And rightly so.  There just aren't enough results to throw some out based on arbitrarily determined "regions".

I've gone around in circles on this subject a few times recently, so I'll try not to continue, but let's just say that I agree with the bolded parts 100%.  With such a short schedule, I hate throwing away any Division III results, especially because they're relatively easy to evaluate.

However, wally, Keith made a nice point for the origins of the focus on regional-record, even if it doesn't hold up well in practice.  As Keith put it, under the criteria, the idea was "play the good teams close to you and you'll get in."  Teams wouldn't have to feel like they had to travel in search of an impressive nonconference win. 

Do I still disagree?  Yeah.  I don't think that eliminating the emphasis on regional games will result a sudden arms-race for nonconference games, but as Keith/Pat constantly have to remind us (and you just said above), most of these rules are written with all sports in mind, not just football.

For the record, I agree with the stuff in bold too.

I was just trying to guess/explain where the regional focus comes from.

You guys have pretty much hit all the nails on their heads. Bottom line, we all understand the issues, we seem to prefer that the strong two-loss teams be considered, but it all matters how the committee interprets.

I wonder how much changing members of the committee can influence results.

Also bringing up the Wabash example from last year is very relevant.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2011, 11:44:48 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 08:58:09 PM
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2011, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 03:02:34 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
if Endicott gets in the playoffs at 9-1 without winning the NEFC title, that's an absolute travesty, and I don't care how good they look via the criteria.

Plymouth State went in this manner a few years ago, and although they lost at Cortland, that was the year Curry won in the first round at Ithaca.

I think Endicott going is much more of a possibility than people seem to be considering, if DelVal wins.
You got it backwards, Keith.  Plymouth State went via the NEFC AQ and Curry claimed a Pool C the year after beating Hartwick in the first round.  Semantics perhaps, but while Endicott made the dance last year they didn't win.  It'll be interesting to see what happens in regards to regional rankings today and selections on Sunday.  Plus, I'd guess it's a 50/50 proposition that one of the 1-loss Pool C contenders loses this weekend (though it's likely the same proposition that Del Valley loses, so it could be a wash for teams on the bubble).

Gotcha, I do too much of my board posting off the top of my head. After 12 years, stuff runs together. Curry indeed beat Hartwick in the first round one year, and Ithaca the next.

This actually strengthens the point though. No longer can we assume having a Pool C team from the NEFC is a "travesty" if it is capable of beating a playoff team from one of the better leagues in D-III, the Empire 8.

I'm not saying I would pick Endicott to beat Baldwin-Wallace straight up, but committees seem to favor 9-1 teams to 8-2 teams, and I don't know that it would reach travesty level if they did it in this case.

I think we're getting a little overreliant on one game for a conference that is 2-13 in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2011, 06:55:46 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2011, 11:44:48 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 08:58:09 PM
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2011, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 09, 2011, 03:02:34 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
if Endicott gets in the playoffs at 9-1 without winning the NEFC title, that's an absolute travesty, and I don't care how good they look via the criteria.

Plymouth State went in this manner a few years ago, and although they lost at Cortland, that was the year Curry won in the first round at Ithaca.

I think Endicott going is much more of a possibility than people seem to be considering, if DelVal wins.
You got it backwards, Keith.  Plymouth State went via the NEFC AQ and Curry claimed a Pool C the year after beating Hartwick in the first round.  Semantics perhaps, but while Endicott made the dance last year they didn't win.  It'll be interesting to see what happens in regards to regional rankings today and selections on Sunday.  Plus, I'd guess it's a 50/50 proposition that one of the 1-loss Pool C contenders loses this weekend (though it's likely the same proposition that Del Valley loses, so it could be a wash for teams on the bubble).

Gotcha, I do too much of my board posting off the top of my head. After 12 years, stuff runs together. Curry indeed beat Hartwick in the first round one year, and Ithaca the next.

This actually strengthens the point though. No longer can we assume having a Pool C team from the NEFC is a "travesty" if it is capable of beating a playoff team from one of the better leagues in D-III, the Empire 8.

I'm not saying I would pick Endicott to beat Baldwin-Wallace straight up, but committees seem to favor 9-1 teams to 8-2 teams, and I don't know that it would reach travesty level if they did it in this case.

I think we're getting a little overreliant on one game for a conference that is 2-13 in the playoffs.

We? I didn't know I had any company.

NEFC beat Empire 8 twice, once as a Pool C. At the very least, given the weakness of the Pool C playoff candidates this year and given the fact that the NEFC has been given a C before and its team went on the road and beat an E8, it's enough to convince me that it would not be a "travesty" if it happened again.

I would prefer two-loss teams with powerful schedules got greater consideration. Yet Endicott making it at the expense of this particular two-loss crowd doesn't bother me as much as it apparently bothers others. No big. Differing opinions are encouraged.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ADL70 on November 10, 2011, 07:40:11 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 09, 2011, 09:01:28 PM
I do feel that if Case finishes 9-0 in region, and doesn't make the playoffs, then it blows the whole 'regional' concept to heck.

Or would it just mean the committee gave greater weight to results against in-region regionally ranked teams, if Wesley, Huntingdon or Illinois Wesleyan keep CWRU out?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: lakeshore on November 10, 2011, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: SUADC on November 09, 2011, 04:43:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2011, 04:18:19 PM
Did a little Pool C analysis...a couple of things that I'm assuming:
- Hobart either goes to Pool A or gets knocked below Endicott
- The NJAC runner up will fall below Endicott
- The national committee will reorder IWU and CWRU on the North tableau
- Linfield isn't losing to Lewis & Clark
- Wesley beats Huntingdon and is selected in Pool B

So I've got two scenarios...one if Delaware Valley wins, one if Delaware Valley loses. 

If Del Val wins, my selections are:
Round 1: Endicott, IWU, McMurry, Redlands - Titans have the same number of wins over RR'd teams as McMurry and Redlands, but have a higher SOS
Round 2: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Redlands -  Redlands and McMurry have very similar resumés, I think the edge goes to Redlands because they have a better win
Round 3: Endicott, CWRU, McMurry, Illinois College - McMurry is quite clearly the best of this group...the other three do not have a win over a RR'd team and have inferior SOS's
Round 4: Endicott, CWRU, Centre, Illinois College - Centre, I believe actually looks better than McMurry and probably would have been taken immediately if they were on the board.  The national committee may "fix" that order in the South
Round 5: Endicott, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - Louisiana College has a stronger schedule, but they have zero wins against ranked teams and have the extra loss.  Endicott is the choice based on SOS.
Round 6: NJAC runner up, CWRU, Louisiana College, Illinois College - The NJAC runner up will have a strong case here, particularly if it's Kean as they will have a win over a ranked team (the SOS will get a boost as well this week).  Ultimately, I think the committee prefers that you don't lose twice and Illinois College has a slight SOS edge on CWRU. 

Now, if Del Val loses, Del Val will be the first up in the East.  I won't go through the whole process again...IWU, Redlands, McMurry, and Centre and still my choices for the first four rounds all ahead of Delaware Valley.  Then Del Val comes off, then Endicott.  Del Val could go ahead of McMurry, but then McMurry will go followed immediately by Centre, then we're back to the same final four at the table for the last spot.  Basically, if Del Val loses, they're in, Illinois College is out. 

And now let the week 11 hysteria begin and blow all of this right out of the water. :)

Definitely right about the hysteria...the rest of this week and the weekend is going to bring everything to light. Some may like, a lot will not.

I think SJF, W&L & Wheaton get to the table way before Louisiana because of SOS and probably before Endicott and IC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2011, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 10, 2011, 08:29:31 AM
I think SJF, W&L & Wheaton get to the table way before Louisiana because of SOS and probably before Endicott and IC.

Perhaps that should happen, but wally has pointed out, the committee has show a strong preference for one-loss teams.  wally's scenario is quite plausible, although I really think that it SHOULDN'T unfold that way. 

W & L is 8-2 with no wins over regionally ranked teams and is currently unranked, while LaCollege is ranked #9 in the latest regional rankings.  Assuming LaCollege beats HSU this week, it's hard to see how W & L jumps ahead of them now.

SJF could be stuck behind Endicott because they'll be 8-2 to Endicott's 9-1, and they are currently behind Endicott in the regional rankins.  There is a precedent here for a 9-1 NEFC team to be selected as a Pool C (Curry in 2008).

Wheaton is 8-2 and is currently ranked behind CWRU in the regional rankings; while they probably are a better team, it's not that farfetched to imagine them sitting there waiting behind CWRU for a while.

IWU, Redlands, McMurry, and Centre all seem deserving of Pool C's, but Endicott and Illinois College probably aren't.  I'd much prefer to see the NJAC runner-up in place of Endicott (which is conceivable, as Kean & Montclair are currently #3 and #4 in the regional rankings...they might end up on the board before Endicott even with an 8-2 record), and despite my misgivings about CWRU, I think that they deserve to go before Illinois College (although I see why wally thinks that might happen).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2011, 09:26:20 AM
Thought about this more.

If Huntingdon beats Wesley, then they'll have results against several regionally ranked teams. That may put them over the top in "B" even if Case goes 9-0.

Then the committee needs to figure out what to do with Wesley. They'd have to slot in behind the NJAC runner-up with their loss to Kean, so they may be out. Does that further remove Endicott from the table?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 10, 2011, 09:32:14 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2011, 08:42:25 AM
I'd much prefer to see the NJAC runner-up in place of Endicott (which is conceivable, as Kean & Montclair are currently #3 and #4 in the regional rankings...they might end up on the board before Endicott even with an 8-2 record.

The Montclair/Kean game, like Salisbury/Fisher, pits the #s 3 and 4 teams in the East for the second straight week.  Fisher's loss dropped them below Endicott who was unranked a week ago.  That seems like clear evidence that the NJAC loser will also fall below Endicott in the "final-final" rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: SUADC on November 10, 2011, 09:35:45 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2011, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 10, 2011, 08:29:31 AM
I think SJF, W&L & Wheaton get to the table way before Louisiana because of SOS and probably before Endicott and IC.

I'd much prefer to see the NJAC runner-up in place of Endicott (which is conceivable, as Kean & Montclair are currently #3 and #4 in the regional rankings...they might end up on the board before Endicott even with an 8-2 record

Totally agree with you Tartan, I think that the runner-up of the NJAC espescially if Montclair State losses a close game to Kean can use that they only lost by six to a good TCNJ team and Kean, who had beaten #7 Wesley. However, if Kean losses, I believe they will have a tougher time proving their case, because that loss to 2-7 Brockport State (even though Brockport State only lost by an average of 11 points in all of its 7 losses, including two 21 point losses) hurts. Nevertheless, I know Endicott has only 1-loss, but they're only going to be #3 in their conference at the end of the day and I don't think the Committee is going to allow a #3 place finisher out of a weak conference (not taking anything away from Endicott)into the playoffs. Based on how last year played out with Montclair State going to the South and the South inserting Salisbury to the "East", you can see it like this with MUC playing the #5 seed because of travel.

1) MUC (Pool A)
2) Johns Hopkins (Pool A)
3) Salisbury (Pool A)
4) Widener (Pool A)
5) NJAC Winner (Pool A)
6) Hobart (Pool A)
7) NEFC Winner (Pool A)
8) Norwich (Pool A)


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 10, 2011, 09:54:34 AM
I know this IS a Pool C board so we are fired up about who gets it, but I really don't think the committee is going to do anything drastic. History shows the 1 loss teams get preference. At this point, we have enough 1 loss teams to fill the Pool C slots without too much problem. Of those 1 loss teams, we are arguing about whether the last two, Endicott especially, should be subbed for a two loss team. In a field of 32 teams, to only really have qualms about 2 teams is pretty good. I have to admit, even if Case and Endicott hit the field above two very strong two loss teams, I'm not going to be upset.

At the beginning of the year you know you need to win your conference. Barring that, you need to lose one game to be in consideration. If there were a whole bunch of 1 loss teams and we were arguing their relative SOS I'd be more interested. At this point, the two loss teams have gotten pretty much what they deserved... a spot on the outside praying the committee doesn't follow history... Essentially you have lost 20% of your games.  Given only 32 out of 240 teams (roughly 13%) make the playoffs, that's just too much and I don't really care who you played (although I would have eaten those words if UWO went 8-2 with losses only to the Purple Powers).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 10, 2011, 10:10:56 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 06, 2011, 02:04:13 PM
Can't help but think that Baldwin-Wallace is REALLY going to regret that early-season loss to Capital...few teams have been as impressive as B-W over the last couple weeks, with five straight OAC wins in October, and rallying from a 19-0 deficit to take the lead in the second half AT Mount Union is no joke.

I agree.  I just can't understand how a team that can give Mount Union a scare can only put up 11 points and lose to a not very good Capital team (which JCU handled pretty easily, scoring 37 points).

I think the JCU/BW game will be a much better game than most people think.  JCU traditionally gives BW a good game, such as last year when BW came in with the same record (losses only to UMU and ONU) and JCU beat them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2011, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 10, 2011, 09:54:34 AM
At the beginning of the year you know you need to win your conference. Barring that, you need to lose one game to be in consideration. If there were a whole bunch of 1 loss teams and we were arguing their relative SOS I'd be more interested. At this point, the two loss teams have gotten pretty much what they deserved...

Well said.  I did argue this a while back on the East Region boards a little bit, when the subject was whether AQ's should be granted to very weak conferences, and I said that any team in Pool C ultimately shouldn't have THAT big of a gripe because they DID have a chance to get in via Pool A.

Certainly, several two-loss teams could claim that they are better than some teams in the field (heck, the entire top half of the WIAC and ASC might be better than the last few Pool A teams in) but that's not the point.  It's a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP tournament; you can't very well stake a claim to the national title when you did not win your conference.

With that said - I suppose my arguments are more of an objection to a team like Endicott being IN (since they didn't win their conference either, and their conference is widely acknowledged as one of the 3-4 weakest in Division III) than to any specific Pool C team being left OUT.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 10, 2011, 01:25:43 PM
If the committee has been consistent about one thing from year to year and from committee to committee, it is that they really prefer you not lose twice, regardless of what league you play in or what your schedule strength might be.  Is that an absolute?  Of course not, but that's been the strong tendency over the years. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: emma17 on November 10, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2011, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 10, 2011, 09:54:34 AM
At the beginning of the year you know you need to win your conference. Barring that, you need to lose one game to be in consideration. If there were a whole bunch of 1 loss teams and we were arguing their relative SOS I'd be more interested. At this point, the two loss teams have gotten pretty much what they deserved...

Well said.  I did argue this a while back on the East Region boards a little bit, when the subject was whether AQ's should be granted to very weak conferences, and I said that any team in Pool C ultimately shouldn't have THAT big of a gripe because they DID have a chance to get in via Pool A.

Certainly, several two-loss teams could claim that they are better than some teams in the field (heck, the entire top half of the WIAC and ASC might be better than the last few Pool A teams in) but that's not the point. It's a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP tournament; you can't very well stake a claim to the national title when you did not win your conference.
With that said - I suppose my arguments are more of an objection to a team like Endicott being IN (since they didn't win their conference either, and their conference is widely acknowledged as one of the 3-4 weakest in Division III) than to any specific Pool C team being left OUT.

Tell that to the St. Louis Cardinals.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 10, 2011, 08:52:36 PM
I've always said MLB and their wildcards was one the last big sellouts in pro sports. Done for the money, not to make the game better...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2011, 09:16:40 PM
Grabbing my baseball historian hat - it does make the game better.

The game was at its worst in the 1890's, when it was one league, no playoffs, and four to six teams each year were buried by June, if not before. August games between the 10th and 11th place teams, both about 30 to 40 games behind, were sparsely attended and only fit for gamblers and drunks - and some of those were on the field.

Adding more teams to a pennant race causes more games to be relevant. It's why the D-3 playoffs are so much better at 32 teams than before. Of course, it's a balance, 8 out of 32 in baseball is pretty much right on. 32 in D-3 football is right on as well.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2011, 09:30:59 PM
Quote from: SUADC on November 10, 2011, 09:35:45 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 10, 2011, 08:42:25 AM
Quote from: lakeshore on November 10, 2011, 08:29:31 AM
I think SJF, W&L & Wheaton get to the table way before Louisiana because of SOS and probably before Endicott and IC.

I'd much prefer to see the NJAC runner-up in place of Endicott (which is conceivable, as Kean & Montclair are currently #3 and #4 in the regional rankings...they might end up on the board before Endicott even with an 8-2 record

Totally agree with you Tartan, I think that the runner-up of the NJAC espescially if Montclair State losses a close game to Kean can use that they only lost by six to a good TCNJ team and Kean, who had beaten #7 Wesley. However, if Kean losses, I believe they will have a tougher time proving their case, because that loss to 2-7 Brockport State (even though Brockport State only lost by an average of 11 points in all of its 7 losses, including two 21 point losses) hurts. Nevertheless, I know Endicott has only 1-loss, but they're only going to be #3 in their conference at the end of the day and I don't think the Committee is going to allow a #3 place finisher out of a weak conference (not taking anything away from Endicott)into the playoffs. Based on how last year played out with Montclair State going to the South and the South inserting Salisbury to the "East", you can see it like this with MUC playing the #5 seed because of travel.

1) MUC (Pool A)
2) Johns Hopkins (Pool A)
3) Salisbury (Pool A)
4) Widener (Pool A)
5) NJAC Winner (Pool A)
6) Hobart (Pool A)
7) NEFC Winner (Pool A)
8) Norwich (Pool A)

To be fair, it's No. 3 out of 16. If the NEFC wanted, it could be like everyone else and have an automatic bid for every eight teams.

Montclair already beat a good NEFC team this year so we know they're probably the more deserving team. But if your logic is going to be that a No. 3 team from a conference shouldn't go, at least recognize that the NEFC is twice the size of many conferences and that No. 3 is no different than a runner up in an eight-team conference.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 10, 2011, 10:27:26 PM
I don't think actual placement in the conference is a big deal. The NCAC hasn't had a round-robin for a while (and won't next year) and it's possible that a team finishing third could get a "C", especially this year when teams in a nine-team conference played just six conference games that counted. (Don't get me started...)

Hypothetically:

A 6-0, 10-0
B 6-0, 8-2
C 5-1, 9-1
D 3-3, 6-4
E 3-3, 5-5
F 2-4, 4-6
G 1-5, 3-7
H 1-5, 3-7
I 0-6, 1-9

B lost the tiebreaker to "A", "C" gets the "C" because of only one loss. So the third place team gets the bid.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wesleydad on November 10, 2011, 11:46:56 PM
really surprised by the number of people that think widener wins the game with del val.  i dont see it, del val will do what they need to do to win.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 09:36:30 AM
And pray tell, what will they do in order to win, besides score more points?  ;)

The discussion is definitely a 'what if' not 'for sure Widener willl win'.

Massey has Del Val as 14th and Widener as 28th. It wouldn't be a colossal upset, so these diverse scenarios are in play.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 11, 2011, 09:39:53 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 10, 2011, 09:16:40 PM
Grabbing my baseball historian hat - it does make the game better.

The game was at its worst in the 1890's, when it was one league, no playoffs, and four to six teams each year were buried by June, if not before. August games between the 10th and 11th place teams, both about 30 to 40 games behind, were sparsely attended and only fit for gamblers and drunks - and some of those were on the field.

Adding more teams to a pennant race causes more games to be relevant. It's why the D-3 playoffs are so much better at 32 teams than before. Of course, it's a balance, 8 out of 32 in baseball is pretty much right on. 32 in D-3 football is right on as well.

I don't think making more games relevant necessarily defines "best". Personally I've found our (American) insistence on playoffs to be ridiculous. The single bracket European soccer leagues with perfectly balanced schedules crown their champion on who the best team is over the entire season. That to me has always been the absolute best method. If baseball can't figure out who the best team is over 150 games its just ridiculous to give a whole host more teams second shots in essentially an abbreviated second season where anything can occur becomes you have fewer results to let the "best" shine through.

That being said, for sports like D3 football where it is impossible to play a balanced schedule against every team, playoffs are perfectly reasonable. Of course MLS, NHL, and the NBA make it ridiculous by allowing almost every team with a pulse into the playoffs. Football and baseball followed the same course of action when they started allowing wildcards in the interests of money. If you can't win your bracket/region/conference etc over the course of a season, it is completely beyond me why a second place team in a small pool gets a chance at winning a larger championship. Completely ridiculous logic for any rationale except... we make more money this way.

If your argument is there are too many teams to to play a balanced schedule then you set up a playoff between only the conference champions, with no stupid interleague play to unbalance the schedule, and let them play a best of several series to limit the odds of a fluke.

Logic dictates a second place team over a long schedule should not come into the playoffs with an even chance at winning during a second much shorter season. It's completely illogical, done only for the money, and something that Americans love and accept. None of that, however, makes it a better way of doing something and by any rationale thought it is a seriously flawed methodology.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Well, one of the most exciting time in sports is the NCAA D-1 basketball tourney, which only grew when the field opened up to 64 teams. It makes money because there is fan interest, which makes the sport inherently more interesting. I find it ironic you're discussing this in the "Pool C" board where we are discussing the runners-up and leftovers!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: gobash83 on November 11, 2011, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 11, 2011, 09:39:53 AM
The single bracket European soccer leagues with perfectly balanced schedules crown their champion on who the best team is over the entire season. That to me has always been the absolute best method.

While I tend to favor the European soccer league approach as well, the fact that those leagues have promotion and relegation as well as the opportunity for inter-league play (e.g. UEFA Champions League) makes more games relevant later in the season for teams that can no longer compete for the top spot.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 11, 2011, 09:58:05 AM
Not ironic. It is where the discussion belongs. And I've posted many times that I wouldn't cry if Pool C went away and the tournament only consisted of conference champions and correct percentage Pool B teams. We just have different arguments. You look at this from the fan's perspective and say what makes the most exciting tournament? Well, having more teams draws in more fans. I look at it from a champions perspective. What makes the most sense for crowning a national champion? Its not the team that can get a hot streak at the right time. Its the BEST team over the entire length of the season. The odds on discovering the best team are greatly stacked in favor of playing the most number of games. It weeds out the flukes and oddballs. Therefore abbreviated winner take all "seasons", essentially a playoff, are not particularly good at crowning the best team over an entire season, simply the best team in the abbreviated season. Why play the regular season at all? The last place team could get hot those last few weeks and win the playoffs, and the equivalent of this has happened several times in the travesty that MLS calls a playoff.

I'm fine with having Pool C as the concept is part of the fabric of American sports these days. I also understand that the second place teams in the OAC and the WIAC and a lot of other conferences are going to be better than the best team in many, many other conferences, or at least it is easy to make that assumption. The fact of the matter is, however, they are already the SECOND PLACE team over the course of a season to somebody. It has been PROVEN. Why give them a second shot in a short winner take all if you are trying to find the best team over the course of a season? Completely irrational, but, as you point out, lots of fun for the fans and, in sports that make money, extremely lucrative. Not, however, a good way of finding the best team from Sept until Dec....
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 11, 2011, 10:13:29 AM
Quote from: gobash83 on November 11, 2011, 09:56:41 AM

While I tend to favor the European soccer league approach as well, the fact that those leagues have promotion and relegation as well as the opportunity for inter-league play (e.g. UEFA Champions League) makes more games relevant later in the season for teams that can no longer compete for the top spot.

I won't get into promotion/relegation because it is never going to happen in the U.S. Our professional and even big-time collegiate sports are based on franchises and the money invested by those franchises is never going to be put at risk in a promotion/relegation system. We, in the U.S., are ridiculously partial to winners. In Europe, your team is your team, whether they are the equivalent of MLB (England's Premier League) or AAA (the NPower Championship) or even lower. Americans have never been good at that kind of thought and that's why most fans of D3 teams support a D1 college program they grew up with more than their alma mater.

As someone who played in a promotion/relegation system all through middle and high school (club soccer), I can tell you the heartbreak of playing on a relegated team as well as the joy of promotion from a lower league. It is, by far, a superior system, to what Americans are stuck with. But since it isn't going to change, I don't worry about it.

As for the inter-league play, most European soccer fans outside of England, Germany, Spain and Italy hate that the Champions League allows second and even third place teams from the big leagues into the tournament. It wasn't this way in the old European Cup, as only the top league champion and national cup winner got in. In other words you needed to be a champion to play for a greater championship. However, as with American sports, money forced the inclusion of wildcards and we ended up with a situation a few years ago where Liverpool won the Champions League, bombed in their home league the same year, and petitioned to be allowed as the fourth English team into the tournament to defend their title the next. Completely ridiculous and I was thrilled when Liverpool bombed out of the tournament at the group stage that year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 10:56:06 AM
With football having an extremely finite series of games, a playoff is the best option to crown a champ. It's definitely better than the Bowl system.

From my experience, D3 fans support their school as passionately as their D1 team.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 11, 2011, 02:17:59 PM
Rowan University Athletic Director and NCAA Division III Football Selection Committee Chairwoman Joy Solomen will be joining us on "In the HuddLLe" this Sunday night at http://InTheHuddLLe.com -- this is the fourth consecutive year that the Committee Chair will join us to discuss the brackets, seedings and process, and to answer questions concerning any surprises inside the brackets that will be released during the NCAA.com Selection Show at 6:00pm ET.

We invite you to post your questions for Director Solomen in the East Region Fan Poll Post Patterns message board before and during the show Sunday.  We will ask as many as we can during our interview of Director Solomen.  We will also review the brackets and provide our own commentary on any surprises and disappointments.

Again, join us Sunday on "In the HuddLLe" at http://InTheHUddLLe.com, starting at 7:30pm ET.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2011, 04:02:55 PM
Just for fun I decided to take my Pool C picks from Wednesday and push out a bracket...busted out a map and put dots down and everything so that I could visualize distances.  It was kind of fun.  In related news, it's a slow week at work.  Anyway, here we go. 

I chose four #1 seeds to start...drumroll: UWW, Mount Union, UMHB, St. Thomas (Linfield is an acceptable alternative to St. Thomas, which doesn't really change anything as far as first round matchups go)

Matchups in the UWW quadrant:
8 Albion @ 1 UWW
5 Franklin @ 4 IWU
7 Benedictine @ 2 Wabash
6 Thomas More @ 3 North Central

Seeds hold for matchups, zero flights involved.

UMU quadrant:
8 Norwich @ 1 UMU (it's really close, but I think Norwich can bus to Alliance)
5 Hobart @ 4 NJAC winner
7 SUNY Maritime @ 2 Delaware Valley
6 Endicott @ 3 Wesley

Now, if Kean wins the NJAC it would seem that they would have to be seeded ahead of Wesley, so swap the 3 and 4 seeds if that happens.  Seeds hold for matchups here as well and we have zero flights.  Rejoice.  Also, the only team here that would have to fly to Alliance is Endicott which wouldn't happen until the regional final.  I think the NCAA is safe there. 

UMHB quadrant:
5 Centre @ 1 UMHB
4 McMurry @ 2 Trinity(TX)
8 Christopher Newport @ 3 Johns Hopkins
7 Hampden Sydney @ 6 Salisbury

or

8 Christopher Newport @ 1 UMHB
4 McMurry @ 2 Trinity(TX)
6 Salisbury @ 3 Johns Hopkins
7 Hampden Sydney @ 5 Centre

So obviously the seeds won't hold here as they never do.  You're going to get a Texas sub-region.  One alternative here would be to send CNU to UMHB, have Salisbury go to Hopkins and Hampden Sydney go to Centre (or vice versa).  The rankings have Hampden Sydney ahead of Centre, but Centre seems to be a little better per the criteria.  I'll have Centre higher now...really it doesn't matter much because we're coloring outside the lines in this quadrant anyway.  Just the one flight which was unavoidalbe with the odd number of teams in Texas. 

Finally, the St. Thomas quadrant:
8 Illinois College @ 1 St. Thomas
5 Monmouth @ 4 Dubuque
7 St. Scholastica @ 2 Linfield
6 Redlands @ 3 Cal Lutheran

The seeds hold here organically, although you could debate whether or not Redlands needs to be seeded lower than Monmouth/Dubuque.  Won't quibble much here because it all fits.  We get just one flight (unavoidable with the Linfield on the island) and looking ahead to round 2, the California winner would go to Oregon which is probably the AA's preference. 

So that's what I got.  Seems like a pretty fair bracket, really. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: BashDad on November 11, 2011, 04:04:15 PM
Please tweet that map, Wally. I just want to see it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 11, 2011, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 11, 2011, 09:39:53 AM

I don't think making more games relevant necessarily defines "best". Personally I've found our (American) insistence on playoffs to be ridiculous. The single bracket European soccer leagues with perfectly balanced schedules crown their champion on who the best team is over the entire season. That to me has always been the absolute best method. If baseball can't figure out who the best team is over 150 games its just ridiculous to give a whole host more teams second shots in essentially an abbreviated second season where anything can occur becomes you have fewer results to let the "best" shine through.


I would take that a step farther and suggest in your baseball example, that the 162 game schedule is far more indicative of a team's worth than is a 3 or 4 game playoff. Milwaukee and St Louis were very good teams. But honestly neither could match up with the Philadelphia rotation over a 162 game season. I have a hard time believing Detroit could come within 5 games of the Yankees if they played in the AL East.

And don't even get started on March Madness. It's pretty rare that the best team during the season wins the NCAA tournament. Heck, we gleefully send 10-20 teams to the NCAA tournament because they won a 3 or 4 game conference tournament, and leave out the regular season champion which won 20+ games.

Yes, we are playoff addicted.

But as was rightly stated, the playoff system in pro sports keeps interest high in more cities, for longer periods of time. Without the playoff system, we completely miss out on the Tampa-Boston and St Louis-Atlanta dramas, which were truly epic.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 11, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2011, 09:30:59 PM
To be fair, it's No. 3 out of 16. If the NEFC wanted, it could be like everyone else and have an automatic bid for every eight teams.

Absolutely, which would be par for the course in Eastern region. That we are handing out an automatic bid to the ECFC is rather insane, especially when you consider what happened to Norwich against the bottom of the E8.

What's needed imo is some type of criteria or a probationary period for these automatic bids. For instance, if you form a conference with a team which has won a playoff game in the last 5 years, you are fine. But if nobody in your conference has done anything in the playoffs in recent history, you get put on probation. If your conference fails to win a single NCAA playoff game after x-seasons, you lose that Pool A automatic bid and have to re-qualify by future playoff performance as a Pool B.

I think the biggest problem in Eastern Region isn't that we lack a MUC or a UWW. It's that we send one very questionable conference champion to the playoffs every season, and now one completely undeserving team to the playoffs. In most seasons, two of the Eastern Region teams in the playoffs don't belong there and everyone knows it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
Quote from: BashDad on November 11, 2011, 04:04:15 PM
Please tweet that map, Wally. I just want to see it.

Done...it may not live up to the hype.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2011, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 11, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
What's needed imo is some type of criteria or a probationary period for these automatic bids. For instance, if you form a conference with a team which has won a playoff game in the last 5 years, you are fine. But if nobody in your conference has done anything in the playoffs in recent history, you get put on probation. If your conference fails to win a single NCAA playoff game after x-seasons, you lose that Pool A automatic bid and have to re-qualify by future playoff performance as a Pool B.

I can't say I agree with this.  This makes access to the tournament extremely reliant on your tournament draw.  For instance...for a long time, Trinity would win the SCAC and get paired up with UMHB because they pretty much had to be.  Should Trinity and the entire SCAC get shut out because of geography and the NCAA's financial restrictions?  Also, this year we're going to have two SCIAC teams playing in the first round.  How equitable is it to everybody else that somebody from the SCIAC is guaranteed to win? 

What's great about this tournament is that everybody has a chance to qualify.  Its access is fair and open to everybody.  It is a tournament of conference champions, as it should be. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 04:41:07 PM
But I believe you are one of the lone contrarians not adding CWRU into the playoffs, so throwing CWRU and leaving out Illinois College means this:

1. I think CWRU becomes the 5 or 6 in the UWW bracket.

2. That may push either Benedictine or IWU to the St. Thomas bracket OR

3. That may push Thomas More to the UMHB bracket which means that JHU or Salisbury could go to the UMU bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 11, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 10, 2011, 09:30:59 PM
To be fair, it's No. 3 out of 16. If the NEFC wanted, it could be like everyone else and have an automatic bid for every eight teams.

Absolutely, which would be par for the course in Eastern region. That we are handing out an automatic bid to the ECFC is rather insane, especially when you consider what happened to Norwich against the bottom of the E8.


That's totally against the spirit of D-3 and the NCAA. They are members in full standing and their conference is accredited by the NCAA and has enough members in it to warrant representation. Therefore they should and must be allowed to participate.

I hated, hated, hated the play-in game when the NCAA D-1 men's hoops tourney was 65 because it penalized teams that did what they were supposed to do.

If the NCAA decided that the SWAC or MEAC couldn't participate in the D-1 tournament, then there would be no Hampton winning as a 15 seed.

I don't care if the ECFC loses their playoff game by 100 - they belong in the playoffs because they met the criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2011, 07:55:06 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 04:41:07 PM
But I believe you are one of the lone contrarians not adding CWRU into the playoffs, so throwing CWRU and leaving out Illinois College means this:

1. I think CWRU becomes the 5 or 6 in the UWW bracket.

2. That may push either Benedictine or IWU to the St. Thomas bracket OR

3. That may push Thomas More to the UMHB bracket which means that JHU or Salisbury could go to the UMU bracket.

That I am.  Other projections will just use the RR's as a master list, which is probably the most fair thing to do...I'm definitely taking some liberty and using the RR's as more of a guide.  I also think that of the teams that really need to win tomorrow to get in, CWRU is super ripe to be one of those teams that plays their way out...on the road against a sneaky Tartan team.  Just a feeling I have. 

But if we put CWRU in, that would knock out my last team in (Illinois College) which kind of starts the dominos in my projected field of 32.  The beauty is that CWRU is in a flexible spot and doesn't have to necessarily go straight to the North-ish quadrant.  I kind of like putting them into the UMU quadrant, pushing Wesley to the UMHB quadrant, which pushes Centre to the UWW quadrant, and then maybe IWU to the St. Thomas quadrant.  I think that keeps things still relatively balanced and doesn't create more flights.  There are definitely plenty of options. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wesleydad on November 11, 2011, 11:00:28 PM
smed, i only say that based on the number of projections that have widener in the playoffs which only happens if they win.  i just dont see it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: SUADC on November 12, 2011, 03:12:51 PM
Pool C could be shaken up if Widener can pull off one against Del Val. Each team is making big plays. This is a great game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2011, 04:07:28 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 04:46:44 PM
That's totally against the spirit of D-3 and the NCAA. They are members in full standing and their conference is accredited by the NCAA and has enough members in it to warrant representation. Therefore they should and must be allowed to participate.

I hated, hated, hated the play-in game when the NCAA D-1 men's hoops tourney was 65 because it penalized teams that did what they were supposed to do.

I don't care if the ECFC loses their playoff game by 100 - they belong in the playoffs because they met the criteria.

I completely agree; I was about to bring up the same parallel re: the play-in game.  The NCAA decided that rather than give up a few precious at-large spots (so some 19-13 team from the bottom of the Big Ten could make the tournament), they should penalize the teams that actually EARNED their guaranteed spot in the tournament by winning their conference.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2011, 04:49:42 PM
Thanks to Kean and Del Valley for taking care of business
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 12, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 04:46:44 PM
That's totally against the spirit of D-3 and the NCAA. They are members in full standing and their conference is accredited by the NCAA and has enough members in it to warrant representation. Therefore they should and must be allowed to participate.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Smed. And I do respect your opinion.

It is my opinion that the open invitation to any conference with 7 teams to be given an automatic bid is easily exploited, which in its own right would be against the spirit of D-3 and the NCAA. Any 7+ bottom feeding teams from competitive conferences can opt to join together and swallow a bid.

I believe this is exactly what the ECFC did. Note that the ECFC is a one sport conference: football. This is not an established conference with a history of multi-sport competition. 

None of the teams in the conference have anything in common geographically or academically as far as I can ascertain. The only commonality they seem to share is that they either were terrible football programs in their former conferences, or they had no program at all. Rather than choose to stay in conference (Norwich in the E8) and fight to improve, they took the easy way out and formed a conference with doormats worse than them.

If a high school senior takes all AP-Level courses and comes out with a 3.9 GPA, should she be usurped for Valedictorian by a student who skated by with joke senior year courses which "earned" a 4.0 GPA? Should Yale take the 4.0 GPA student because all that matters is GPA, and not the quality of the education?

This is where we disagree. I believe the ECFC is an example of beating the system, rather than achieving a goal. The danger is that any conference can be formed to take advantage of this NCAA rule. There should be qualifications, like any other endeavor in life, for being given a Pool A bid. Non-performers should be forced to improve if they wish to maintain automatic accreditation.


Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2011, 04:46:44 PM
I don't care if the ECFC loses their playoff game by 100 - they belong in the playoffs because they met the criteria.

I care. I believe the NCAA and D3 stands for excellence and competitiveness. Trailing 50-0 at the half pretty much sums up that you are in over your head, and don't belong.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 12, 2011, 07:22:29 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2011, 04:49:42 PM
Thanks to Kean and Del Valley for taking care of business

Especially Del Valley. 580 yards and 56 points against Widener - darn impressive!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:37:25 PM
They didn't beat the system - they helped form a league where they would be competitive. More power to them. Remember they were kind of left out when the FFC went belly up.

The auto bid was a sidebar. It's not swallowing a bid. And their competitiveness in the playoffs shouldn't matter. You meet the criteria, you qualify. Period. This is just sports, man. And there is nothing wrong with them playing in the playoffs. It's a reward for a championship of a legitimate conference.

I just can't see Norwich scheming to say, "Hey let's for a conference so we can get an automatic bid!" That's comical! And I can't think of any team want to jump a conference SOLELY to get a bid. It's inane!





Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 12, 2011, 07:44:44 PM
They do swallow a spot in the playoffs. That's one deserving team out, to make way for an undeserving team getting in without the least bit of on-field qualification. Do you really want to see Norwich play Mount Union? Is that what competition should be about?

And it is beating the system. If the only qualification for getting into an Ivy league school was an average of 90 or higher, no high school student would take a single challenging class. I'm tired of the "everyone gets a trophy" society. We should reward teams which work hard to get there, and not reward teams which dodge all true competition so they can sneak in the back door.

College should be about challenging yourself. It shouldn't be about figuring out the easiest way to slip by.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 12, 2011, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:37:25 PM
I just can't see Norwich scheming to say, "Hey let's for a conference so we can get an automatic bid!" That's comical! And I can't think of any team want to jump a conference SOLELY to get a bid. It's inane!

Is it? Explain to me why they left the Empire 8 then. Was it because they didn't respect Ithaca's academics, but they thought SUNY Maritime's academics were better to align with? Please. They bolted because they lost in the Empire 8 every year. And they joined a weak league because they wanted to win every year. You seriously don't see it?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:53:09 PM
They qualified. They won their conference! They deserve to be there! And they did have a probationary period, like all conferences.

The 33rd team can't say they deserve to be there. They had a chance to get in, and they didn't because they didn't win their league. I know from experience. Wabash was that team last year - but two losses did them in. And because of that loss to Wash U., Wabash could not complain.

B-W could be team #33, but they lost to Capital.
St. Olaf could be team #33, but lost twice in the MIAC. Same with Bethel.
Wheaton could be team #33 but they lost twice as well.

Are those teams better than 1/3 of the team in the field? Yes.
Do they deserve to be in the field? NO!
Why? They didn't win their league and they have a second loss.

And if team 32 is Endicott or Illinois College, do you think they'd be closer than 49-0 with a Purple team anyway? Are you going to complain about THEM? Let's not be elitist which is anathema to D3.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:57:43 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 12, 2011, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:37:25 PM
I just can't see Norwich scheming to say, "Hey let's for a conference so we can get an automatic bid!" That's comical! And I can't think of any team want to jump a conference SOLELY to get a bid. It's inane!

Is it? Explain to me why they left the Empire 8 then. Was it because they didn't respect Ithaca's academics, but they thought SUNY Maritime's academics were better to align with? Please. They bolted because they lost in the Empire 8 every year. And they joined a weak league because they wanted to win every year. You seriously don't see it?

I think you're more upset about the E8 having to scramble than anything. If it was a better fit for Norwich's student athletes then it was in the best decision for them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2011, 08:24:21 PM
Here's all the conferences that have won less than 1 out of 5 playoff games between 1999 and 2010 according to the d3 site...

USAC/Dixie  3-12 .200
HCAC        3-13 .188 (Two by Franklin in 2008)
SCIAC       2-9  .182 (Both by Occidental in 2004)
MIAA        2-11 .154
MWC         2-12 .143
NEFC        2-13 .133
ECFC        0-1  .000
NATHC       0-3  .000


Should all those conferences have their automatic bid stripped just because their conference isn't as good as others? I think we all agree that it's impossible for every conference to be perfectly equal because most conferences are based on geographical characteristics.

Sure some teams will get in with an automatic berth when they're worse than a team who got left out. I remember in 2006 when Franklin went 9-1 and their lone loss was to the conference champions who also went 9-1 but the Grizzlies were on the outside looking in.

No matter how you decide who is in the playoffs someone will get screwed. If you use the current system, then decent 8-2 or 9-1 teams may be left out for lesser teams at 6-4 with an automatic berth. If you have no automatic berths then some unbeaten team will get left out in favor of 8-2 or 7-3 teams because a team with multiple losses is in a top conference and the unbeaten is stuck with bad teams. The entire point of the playoffs is to let those who have earned their spot by being the best of their conference battle it out and show just who is the best team.

Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:53:09 PM
And if team 32 is Endicott or Illinois College, do you think they'd be closer than 49-0 with a Purple team anyway? Are you going to complain about THEM? Let's not be elitist which is anathema to D3.
Exactly. Let the weaker conferences have something to play for otherwise they might as well be like the NESCAC and not even bother with anyone else. Let them lose to the #1 seed rather than adding in a 3rd team from a conference to lose to the #1 seed. No one complains about a mediocre basketball team that wins the SWAC getting crushed in the first round by mighty Duke 90-33 do they?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2011, 10:12:03 PM
What may cost me sleep tonight:

Following today's games, I am sure Wesley will get the B, leaving CWRU competing for a C.  IF the North Region committee leaves Case ahead of IWU (who, IMO, would be among the top 3 selected), Case with their atrocious SOS may not get picked until 6th (if at all), in which case (pun intended) the Titans never even REACH the table.

And since we peons never get to see the final RRs, I'll be nervous right up to the selection show. >:(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 12, 2011, 10:24:34 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2011, 10:12:03 PM
Case with their atrocious SOS

What was their SOS?  I was under the impression it was more "mediocre or a little worse" than "atrocious".
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 10:29:50 PM
Ypsi, let me talks ya down. First CWRU's SOS isn't that horrific, and it improved today.

Here's the top 2 in each region in this case:

East
1. Endicott
2. Montclair
North
1. CWRU
2. IWU
South
1. McMurry
2. Centre
West
1. Redlands
2. Illinois College

It goes like this: Redlands, McMurry, Centre...

So with pick four: you have Endicott, IC, Case and some team like BSC.

Case goes in there, IWU goes next, then Endicott or IC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2011, 10:34:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 10:29:50 PM
Ypsi, let me talks ya down. First CWRU's SOS isn't that horrific, and it improved today.

Here's the top 2 in each region in this case:

East
1. Endicott
2. Montclair
North
1. CWRU
2. IWU
South
1. McMurry
2. Centre
West
1. Redlands
2. Illinois College

It goes like this: Redlands, McMurry, Centre...

So with pick four: you have Endicott, IC, Case and some team like BSC.

Case goes in there, IWU goes next, then Endicott or IC.
I think that you are right.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: shepherd on November 12, 2011, 10:40:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2011, 10:12:03 PM
What may cost me sleep tonight:

Following today's games, I am sure Wesley will get the B, leaving CWRU competing for a C.  IF the North Region committee leaves Case ahead of IWU (who, IMO, would be among the top 3 selected), Case with their atrocious SOS may not get picked until 6th (if at all), in which case (pun intended) the Titans never even REACH the table.

And since we peons never get to see the final RRs, I'll be nervous right up to the selection show. >:(

I think your pretty safe but it seems if they do something Wacky it is usually the last pick they swap around as Wheaton well knows.  Although I think with the top Purple teams having trouble getting non conference games scheduled one of these years their going to reward a two loss maybe a three loss team that plays them.  Anyway good luck while I drown my sorrows in a diet Snapple. :'(
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 10:48:19 PM
Well, I think Wheaton is the best two-loss team. Unfortunately, that didn't help Wabash last year. Gotta win 'em to keep playin' 'em!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 10:56:06 PM
Looks like the SOS numbers are out:

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2011/schedule?tmpl=sos-template

Endicott looks safe.

Don't think the slight (16 spot) difference in SOS will outrank an undefeated regional record. So Case in and Illinois College out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: shepherd on November 12, 2011, 11:02:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 10:48:19 PM
Well, I think Wheaton is the best two-loss team. Unfortunately, that didn't help Wabash last year. Gotta win 'em to keep playin' 'em!
Wabash proved that sometimes having a bad scrimmage can be a good thing.  They were able fix their problems after the Wheaton scrimmage and Wheaton didn't see their weakness until IWU exposed it.  It just goes to show scrimmages are about fixing weaknesses and mean little else.  Good luck in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ADL70 on November 12, 2011, 11:05:31 PM
If memory serves me, the ECFC teams are "orphans," they are in conferences that do not sponsor football.  The ECFC includes 2 other teams from Norwich's conference, the GNAC (Anna Marie, just third year of football, and Mt. Ida).

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 11:07:49 PM
Thanks, Thunder. I hope that in 2013 (when the NCAC is done with the UAA), Wabash and Wheaton can actually play a for-reals game in Week 2 (since we'll never play in Week 1).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2011, 11:18:36 PM
Thanks for talking me down off the ledge, guys! ;D

I'm still hoping that the regional committee will 'go with their best shot first' and move IWU ahead of Case, but yeah, Case's SOS is not as bad as I was remembering.  (I mixed them in my mind with Franklin, from a discussion on whether a likely 4/5 game would be at IWU, then 19th in SOS, or Franklin, undefeated IN REGION but 217th in SOS.)  Once the NATIONAL committee looks to seeding I'm hoping (and half-expecting) that three NATIONALLY 9-1 teams in the 'North' will be seeded 4. IWU (43rd) 5. Franklin (211) and 6. Case (144).  [I place Franklin over Case as the only defeats being vs. UWW or Rochester - not much of a comparison!]
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 12:22:29 AM
I hop IWU over Case in my regional rankings. Just doesn't make sense to go otherwise.

Illinois Wesleyan   9-1   .540   WvWtn, LvNCtrl
Case Western Reserve   9-0(1)   .487   NA
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 01:23:23 AM
Pat (and/or Keith),

While you may well be right about IWU @ Franklin (and I agree it will almost certainly be the 4/5 game), I'm curious on your reasoning for the location.  IWU is SO far ahead of Franklin in SOS, that I'm hoping once the NATIONAL committee gets to seeding, their order will be reversed (NO WAY will IWU be ahead of Franklin in the REGIONAL rankings).  While neither location would surprise me, I figure it is probably 55% likely to be in B'town.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 01:41:00 AM
Well, it matches what the NCAA has been doing already, first of all. :)

But I'll say this -- if you go to the secondary criteria and count all Division III opponents, Franklin's SOS increases by 40 points. Actually, so does UWW's. The gap may not be as big as it looks.

I don't see the order changing. All of these regional rankings go through the national committee every week anyway. There's nothing particularly magic about tonight, in my mind.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Hemingway13 on November 13, 2011, 02:01:43 AM
After seeing the sagacious D3 Playoff Bracketology of "Coleman The Magnificent" and his merry band of Entrails-readers, Redlands' supporters will be hoping the D3football.com soothsayers have got it right with their forecast of a Redlands rematch at Cal-Lu (on 1 Oct., Kingsmen defeated U.R. 28-24).
[/size]
[/size]And, of course, this match-up would save some travel $$$.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 02:25:12 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 01:41:00 AM
Well, it matches what the NCAA has been doing already, first of all. :)

But I'll say this -- if you go to the secondary criteria and count all Division III opponents, Franklin's SOS increases by 40 points. Actually, so does UWW's. The gap may not be as big as it looks.

I don't see the order changing. All of these regional rankings go through the national committee every week anyway. There's nothing particularly magic about tonight, in my mind.

This I didn't know.  I always thought regional committees went strictly by regional criteria, while the national committee would tend to downgrade regional limitations.

And it totally slipped my mind that SOS was solely on regional games; once looking at the national picture, of course Franklin (and UWW) would both rise in SOS! :-[

Nonetheless, IWU still remains a 'fair amount' above Franklin on SOS, and has an identical overall record.  I'm holding out hope the game (assuming it comes off) is in B'town - though Franklin IS about an hour closer to Ypsi! :P
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: bleedpurple on November 13, 2011, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: Hemingway13 on November 13, 2011, 02:01:43 AM
After seeing the sagacious D3 Playoff Bracketology of "Coleman The Magnificent" and his merry band of Entrails-readers, Redlands' supporters will be hoping the D3football.com soothsayers have got it right with their forecast of a Redlands rematch at Cal-Lu (on 1 Oct., Kingsmen defeated U.R. 28-24).
[/size]
[/size]And, of course, this match-up would save some travel $$$.

Thank you, Ernest. I think there's a great chance that this is the first time I've seen the word "sagacious" used on these boards, not to mention any reference at all of the word "entrails"! It's a bit early in the morning for an entrail reference for me personally, but nothing a good bowl of cereal won't overcome!  ;) Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on November 13, 2011, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: Go Thunder on November 12, 2011, 11:02:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 10:48:19 PM
Well, I think Wheaton is the best two-loss team. Unfortunately, that didn't help Wabash last year. Gotta win 'em to keep playin' 'em!
Wabash proved that sometimes having a bad scrimmage can be a good thing.  They were able fix their problems after the Wheaton scrimmage and Wheaton didn't see their weakness until IWU exposed it.  It just goes to show scrimmages are about fixing weaknesses and mean little else.  Good luck in the playoffs.

IWU didn't expose a weakness.  They played a solid defensive game and converted on Wheaton miscues.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 11:11:14 AM
This is my projection for the "east" portion of the bracket. Like D3FB, I have Endicott getting a Pool C. I don't for a second believe Endicott is better than a lot of the other Pool C contenders who will be left out, but since the NCAA has a love affair with the highly flawed SOS metric, it looks like a no-brainer.

http://d3east-football.blogspot.com/2011/11/projections-for-ncaa-eastern-bracket.html (http://d3east-football.blogspot.com/2011/11/projections-for-ncaa-eastern-bracket.html)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:57:43 PM
I think you're more upset about the E8 having to scramble than anything. If it was a better fit for Norwich's student athletes then it was in the best decision for them.

Not an E8 fan. I'm a Cortland/NJAC graduate. I don't care who is scrambling in the E8.

Norwich is traveling from Vermont to DC to play Gallaudet because it is a better fit for them? And not taking the much shorter trip to Utica and Ithaca, which are both highly regarded institutions. Why do you make so many excuses for the ECFC making a joke out of the Pool A process?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
It's not a joke at all! How is it a joke? Is it more of a joke than the UMAC or the NATHC or NEFC?

The ECFC are institutions that are sponsoring football but their leagues do not - so why not form a league when it's relatively close by? When other more like-minded schools decided to form a football conference, they jumped. And yes, Vermont to DC is a bit of a stretch but so is all of the travel in the ASC.

The big thing is that D3 is served by Gaulladet having a place to play football - where it can be competitive. They're a perfect fit for this league.

And I'm sorry that a two-loss NJAC team won't make it. But just don't lose two!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 12, 2011, 08:24:21 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2011, 07:53:09 PM
And if team 32 is Endicott or Illinois College, do you think they'd be closer than 49-0 with a Purple team anyway? Are you going to complain about THEM? Let's not be elitist which is anathema to D3.
Exactly. Let the weaker conferences have something to play for otherwise they might as well be like the NESCAC and not even bother with anyone else. Let them lose to the #1 seed rather than adding in a 3rd team from a conference to lose to the #1 seed. No one complains about a mediocre basketball team that wins the SWAC getting crushed in the first round by mighty Duke 90-33 do they?

There are major inconsistencies in your arguments.

First and foremost, the only reason for the D3 tournament to exist is to crown a champion and find out who the best team is. Therefor there is no logical reason not to make more of an effort to determine that the best teams are actually competing for the championship. If this was all about fair play and inclusion, there would be no reason for a tournament to begin with. Just end the season per the NESCAC and crown multiple champions across the country.

Secondly, I find it interesting that you believe the ECFC deserves a Pool A bid, but you don't believe the east as a region should be able to crown its own champion for the final four. Suddenly, you want Mount Union in the east because the bracket is not "strong enough" to your liking. I thought you didn't care about strength, and that this was just about meeting one qualification (7 teams in a conference)? At least be consistent in your arguments. The east as a region has plenty of enough teams to crown its own champion. Haven't they met their own qualification?

And finally...stating the ECFC went through a probationary period is rather weak. What was their probation? That they wouldn't cease to exist? Please, don't set the bar too high for them. I'd hate to see anyone fail.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
And I'm sorry that a two-loss NJAC team won't make it. But just don't lose two!

I never argued that a two-loss NJAC team should be in the tournament.

If your daughter was competing in a national spelling bee championship and had to emerge from 1 of 4 groups to make the finals, would you be upset if her group was spelling keitloa and preux to emerge, while the next group was forcing its members to spell dog and cat?

I know we'll never agree on this. I believe in challenging yourself, and that only people who challenge themselves should be awarded high accreditation (in this case, the ability to compete for a national sports championship). Actively seeking out the weakest challenges does not make you highly accredited when you pass those challenges. I believe low standards leads to a lazy society in general.

You say, "It's just sports." But that we are crowning a national champion proves it is taken much more seriously and held in a much higher regard than you are admitting.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 11:51:59 AM
The D3 tournament does crown the champion. But it also about inclusion. Those aren't mutually exclusive. If it was about exclusion, then it'd be back to the old days where deserving conference champs were on the outside looking in. That did happen back in the 70's and 80's.

The NCAA is following its rules - and if they can balance the brackets they should. Del Val is 10-0, yes. But if they're going to win the championship they'd have to play Mt. Union, Whitewater or St. Thomas anyway.

The ECFC went through the required probationary period before it received its automatic bid - much like the SAA will after they get the required number of football playing schools.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 11:53:24 AM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 11:38:40 AM
And I'm sorry that a two-loss NJAC team won't make it. But just don't lose two!

I never argued that a two-loss NJAC team should be in the tournament.

If your daughter was competing in a national spelling bee championship and had to emerge from 1 of 4 groups to make the finals, would you be upset if her group was spelling keitloa and preux to emerge, while the next group was forcing its members to spell dog and cat?

I know we'll never agree on this. I believe in challenging yourself, and that only people who challenge themselves should be awarded high accreditation (in this case, the ability to compete for a national sports championship). Actively seeking out the weakest challenges does not make you highly accredited when you pass those challenges. I believe low standards leads to a lazy society in general.

You say, "It's just sports." But that we are crowning a national champion proves it is taken much more seriously and held in a much higher regard than you are admitting.

Do you not think that everyone deserves a chance to attend a college or university, or only those from the elite private prep schools?

Do you not think that Norwich playing Mt. Union can help Norwich? I do.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 11, 2011, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 11, 2011, 09:39:53 AM

I don't think making more games relevant necessarily defines "best". Personally I've found our (American) insistence on playoffs to be ridiculous. The single bracket European soccer leagues with perfectly balanced schedules crown their champion on who the best team is over the entire season. That to me has always been the absolute best method. If baseball can't figure out who the best team is over 150 games its just ridiculous to give a whole host more teams second shots in essentially an abbreviated second season where anything can occur becomes you have fewer results to let the "best" shine through.


I would take that a step farther and suggest in your baseball example, that the 162 game schedule is far more indicative of a team's worth than is a 3 or 4 game playoff. Milwaukee and St Louis were very good teams. But honestly neither could match up with the Philadelphia rotation over a 162 game season. I have a hard time believing Detroit could come within 5 games of the Yankees if they played in the AL East.

And don't even get started on March Madness. It's pretty rare that the best team during the season wins the NCAA tournament. Heck, we gleefully send 10-20 teams to the NCAA tournament because they won a 3 or 4 game conference tournament, and leave out the regular season champion which won 20+ games.

Yes, we are playoff addicted.

But as was rightly stated, the playoff system in pro sports keeps interest high in more cities, for longer periods of time. Without the playoff system, we completely miss out on the Tampa-Boston and St Louis-Atlanta dramas, which were truly epic.

Basically, this.

Relegation is awesome. And jknezek is right, there are certainly better ways to determine a more worthy champion.

But the playoffs are exciting, and they leave no room for dispute over who won it and why. In world full of uncertainty, playoffs provide an absolute. And since we watch sports to be excited, I don't have a problem sacrifcing a teeny bit of the perception of worthiness for the ton of excitement we gain.

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 11:59:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 11:53:24 AM
Do you not think that everyone deserves a chance to attend a college or university, or only those from the elite private prep schools?

That wasn't the point I was making, and I think you know that. But if you want to go down that path, who gets the higher paying job most of the time...the state school grad or the Ivy league grad?

It's not about being elite, it's about who YOU would choose as a Dean of Admissions. If your choice is the kid who skated by with a high GPA but ridiculously easy classes, and no outside activities, versus the kid with a slightly lower GPA in AP courses and many outside activities, who do you choose? Which student has the best chance to make your institution grow?

An arbitrary decision to set the bar at 7 schools is just as arbitrary of deciding that any student with a 90 average gets in, whereas any student with an 89 average does not, with no regard to which classes were taken.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 13, 2011, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

I think the 32nd team getting in, Endicott, is a joke and they'll be sent home in embarrassing fashion in the first round along with their NEFC Pool A rep...

The first round of the UMU bracket is going to be a massacre for the lower seeds...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:04:21 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

If Endicott gets in (which I predict they will), then I do believe that will lead to a fair amount of outrage. But if you are referring to MUC coming East again, yes I think that will be a point of much outrage since it was "suggested" the last few years that the only reason the East didn't crown its own champion was the lack of an undefeated team. If MUC comes East yet again (as I believe they will), it will be clear that the NCAA committee is saying eastern football is not worthy.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 11:51:59 AM
The D3 tournament does crown the champion. But it also about inclusion. Those aren't mutually exclusive. If it was about exclusion, then it'd be back to the old days where deserving conference champs were on the outside looking in. That did happen back in the 70's and 80's.


And '90s.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:11:30 PM
Who makes society better? The teacher or the hedge fund manager? And does higher pay = best for society?

Back on point:

How would the playoffs be any better if Illinois College (the probably team 33) made it instead of Norwich?

How?

How would the playoffs be any better if Wheaton is in the playoffs instead of Benedictine?

Why not go back to an 8-team playoff bracket with arbitrary and capricious selections, instead of having a legitimate and well-thought out process?

So if Mt. Ida goes 10-0 next year, they should be excluded for an 8-2 team in the OAC that lost to Mt. Union (expected) and then to another team (like Otterbien?)

I find that elitist and exclusionary and not in the spirit of the NCAA. It's a false equivalence to compare admissions standards at institutions to the NCAA playoff structure which benefits ALL member institutions. 



Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

I think the 32nd team getting in, Endicott, is a joke and they'll be sent home in embarrassing fashion in the first round along with their NEFC Pool A rep...

The first round of the UMU bracket is going to be a massacre for the lower seeds...

A. The first round against any of the Purple won't be pretty
B. How is 49-35 a joke? Yes it was 42-14 at one point but Endicott fought back.
C. How is Maine Maritime losing to Montclair 38-22 a joke, when the next week Montclair lost 62-14? What's the bigger joke?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:21:00 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:04:21 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

If Endicott gets in (which I predict they will), then I do believe that will lead to a fair amount of outrage. But if you are referring to MUC coming East again, yes I think that will be a point of much outrage since it was "suggested" the last few years that the only reason the East didn't crown its own champion was the lack of an undefeated team. If MUC comes East yet again (as I believe they will), it will be clear that the NCAA committee is saying eastern football is not worthy.

Each region complains, dude. They complain about seedings, travel and the top-heavy nature of the brackets. Just win, that's all you need to do.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: retagent on November 13, 2011, 12:27:41 PM
I feel everyone's pain.

HOWEVER, as nice as it is to see "deserving " teams make the playoffs. The  reason for playing is to "win the game." In this case - to win the Championship game. We can pee and moan about which team is 33rd, and get's left out, but in reality there are only a few teams that have a realistic chance of going to the Stagg. This year, it may be as open as it has been in a decade, and still, IMHO, there are only about 6 or maybe 7 teams that can get there. Usually, that number may be only 4 or 5. No matter who feels they were deserving of making it into the field of 32, just know that if you are 30, 31, or 32, your chances are slim and none of winning it all, and slim just left the building.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:29:04 PM
But, that's no reason to arbitrarily exclude conference champs, even if there's not much of a chance they can win the whole thing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 13, 2011, 12:38:28 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

I think the 32nd team getting in, Endicott, is a joke and they'll be sent home in embarrassing fashion in the first round along with their NEFC Pool A rep...

The first round of the UMU bracket is going to be a massacre for the lower seeds...

A. The first round against any of the Purple won't be pretty
B. How is 49-35 a joke? Yes it was 42-14 at one point but Endicott fought back.
C. How is Maine Maritime losing to Montclair 38-22 a joke, when the next week Montclair lost 62-14? What's the bigger joke?

A. I didn't single out UMU, the entire UMU brackets lower seeds are going to get demolished in the first rounds if the D3.com bracket holds.

B. Endicott didn't belong on the field, they got two defensive TDs w/ under 8:30 to play & then they tacked on a TD w/ 30 seconds left to make the score somewhat close.  Cortland wiped them off the field and that was the NEFC rep.

C. What on gods green earth does Maine Maritime & Montclair have to do with anything I said?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
So what we have learned is the best way to ensure a bid to the NCAA tournament is to dodge all strong competitors by any means necessary. Create a schedule of cupcakes who do not belong on the same field as you, and run the table year after year.

What a wonderful message to send, let alone defend.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:48:00 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:38:28 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

I think the 32nd team getting in, Endicott, is a joke and they'll be sent home in embarrassing fashion in the first round along with their NEFC Pool A rep...

The first round of the UMU bracket is going to be a massacre for the lower seeds...

A. The first round against any of the Purple won't be pretty
B. How is 49-35 a joke? Yes it was 42-14 at one point but Endicott fought back.
C. How is Maine Maritime losing to Montclair 38-22 a joke, when the next week Montclair lost 62-14? What's the bigger joke?

A. I didn't single out UMU, the entire UMU brackets lower seeds are going to get demolished in the first rounds if the D3.com bracket holds.

B. Endicott didn't belong on the field, they got two defensive TDs w/ under 8:30 to play & then they tacked on a TD w/ 30 seconds left to make the score somewhat close.  Cortland wiped them off the field and that was the NEFC rep.

C. What on gods green earth does Maine Maritime & Montclair have to do with anything I said?

Maine Maritime was the NEFC rep in 2009 and they played Montclair.
The NEFC rep in 2008 WON a playoff game.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:48:00 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:38:28 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

I think the 32nd team getting in, Endicott, is a joke and they'll be sent home in embarrassing fashion in the first round along with their NEFC Pool A rep...

The first round of the UMU bracket is going to be a massacre for the lower seeds...

A. The first round against any of the Purple won't be pretty
B. How is 49-35 a joke? Yes it was 42-14 at one point but Endicott fought back.
C. How is Maine Maritime losing to Montclair 38-22 a joke, when the next week Montclair lost 62-14? What's the bigger joke?

A. I didn't single out UMU, the entire UMU brackets lower seeds are going to get demolished in the first rounds if the D3.com bracket holds.

B. Endicott didn't belong on the field, they got two defensive TDs w/ under 8:30 to play & then they tacked on a TD w/ 30 seconds left to make the score somewhat close.  Cortland wiped them off the field and that was the NEFC rep.

C. What on gods green earth does Maine Maritime & Montclair have to do with anything I said?

Maine Maritime was the NEFC rep in 2009 and they played Montclair.
The NEFC rep in 2008 WON a playoff game.

No, the NEFC Pool C rep in 2008 won.  The Pool A rep did not.  (Curry beat Ithaca; Cortland beat Plymouth St.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:54:36 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
No, the NEFC Pool C rep in 2008 won.  The Pool A rep did not.  (Curry beat Ithaca; Cortland beat Plymouth St.)

Correct. The NEFC is 2-13 all time in NCAA play, and most of the games have an embarrassing margin of victory by the opponent. But the ECFC makes the NEFC look like the SEC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
So what we have learned is the best way to ensure a bid to the NCAA tournament is to dodge all strong competitors by any means necessary. Create a schedule of cupcakes who do not belong on the same field as you, and run the table year after year.

What a wonderful message to send, let alone defend.

I still find it hilarious that you think Norwich jumped to the ECFC solely to make the playoffs. Yep that sure worked in 2010. Oh, yeah, they didn't win the ECFC last year.

And BOY did they crush their opponents this year. That 10-7 win over Gaulladet was a lambasting. Their game against SUNY - Maritime was a 16-9 laugher.

That's the false assumption you're starting with.

Conferences are formed not just for football and if a conference (the GNAC and the NAC) does not support football those members that support football should find a conference or wade into independent land, where games are very hard to find. It's only right and logical that they form a conference for football.

It's only logical. I'm Norwich, and I play football. The GNAC doesn't have enough football playing schools to support it. The NAC is in my neck of the woods and they have some teams that are starting or play football. Instead of trying to compete in a league that's not a good fit for us athletically, we can play some schools that are a better fit, football-wise, since we're at somewhat of a disadvantage because of the type of school we are. ("Hey, Mr. Football Player, come play at a military school in the middle of nowhere, Vermont...)

The fact that they now qualify for the playoffs, I think, is and always will be secondary to the reasons of the formation of the ECFC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:59:51 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:54:36 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
No, the NEFC Pool C rep in 2008 won.  The Pool A rep did not.  (Curry beat Ithaca; Cortland beat Plymouth St.)

Correct. The NEFC is 2-13 all time in NCAA play, and most of the games have an embarrassing margin of victory by the opponent. But the ECFC makes the NEFC look like the SEC.

So. What.

Why aren't you complaining about the OTHER conferences? The ones that serve up the first round fodder for Mt. Union and Whitewater?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 12:52:57 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:48:00 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:38:28 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2011, 11:55:50 AM

Re: Pool C, mark these words (or don't): This is going to be a year when all the outrage is about the seeds and matchups, not the 32 teams that get in.

I think the 32nd team getting in, Endicott, is a joke and they'll be sent home in embarrassing fashion in the first round along with their NEFC Pool A rep...

The first round of the UMU bracket is going to be a massacre for the lower seeds...

A. The first round against any of the Purple won't be pretty
B. How is 49-35 a joke? Yes it was 42-14 at one point but Endicott fought back.
C. How is Maine Maritime losing to Montclair 38-22 a joke, when the next week Montclair lost 62-14? What's the bigger joke?

A. I didn't single out UMU, the entire UMU brackets lower seeds are going to get demolished in the first rounds if the D3.com bracket holds.

B. Endicott didn't belong on the field, they got two defensive TDs w/ under 8:30 to play & then they tacked on a TD w/ 30 seconds left to make the score somewhat close.  Cortland wiped them off the field and that was the NEFC rep.

C. What on gods green earth does Maine Maritime & Montclair have to do with anything I said?

Maine Maritime was the NEFC rep in 2009 and they played Montclair.
The NEFC rep in 2008 WON a playoff game.

No, the NEFC Pool C rep in 2008 won.  The Pool A rep did not.  (Curry beat Ithaca; Cortland beat Plymouth St.)

My bad, but a Pool C from that horrific conference won. That better illustrates my point, I think.

Excluding these conferences denies them a right to improve - to stack up on how they are against the elite.

I can tell you from first hand experience, when Wabash played Mt. Union in 2002, that was an eye-opening. To compete with them on the field was program-changing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:59:06 PM
Instead of trying to compete in a league that's not a good fit for us athletically, we can play some schools that are a better fit, football-wise, since we're at somewhat of a disadvantage because of the type of school we are.

All this time you have been arguing against my point that Norwich left a conference they could not compete in, because they wanted to go to a weak conference where they could win. And then you write this. Amazing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:09:29 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:59:06 PM
Instead of trying to compete in a league that's not a good fit for us athletically, we can play some schools that are a better fit, football-wise, since we're at somewhat of a disadvantage because of the type of school we are.

All this time you have been arguing against my point that Norwich left a conference they could not compete in, because they wanted to go to a weak conference where they could win. And then you write this. Amazing.

No, you were arguing that Norwich left simply to make the playoffs. Your point was that the ECFC gamed the system and that the conference shouldn't be in the playoffs and Norwich left SOLELY to make the playoffs.

That's a HUGE difference.

Norwich left the E8. But they had no ties to the E8 except that's where they played football.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:59:51 PM
So. What.

Very mature response. So what? The NCAA playoff record and margin of victory was quoted because you made a big issue out of a Pool C NEFC team winning a game. So what? They are 1-13 outside of games which you cherry picked, that's why.

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:09:29 PM
No, you were arguing that Norwich left simply to make the playoffs. Your point was that the ECFC gamed the system and that the conference shouldn't be in the playoffs and Norwich left SOLELY to make the playoffs.

What part of going to a conference where they can be competitive, and going to a conference which has an auto bid to the playoffs, is confusing you?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 01:11:00 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
Norwich is traveling from Vermont to DC to play Gallaudet because it is a better fit for them? And not taking the much shorter trip to Utica and Ithaca, which are both highly regarded institutions.
First, every team besides Norwich was either an independent or didn't have a team before the ECAC started and Norwich had been in a conference that ceased to exist a few years earlier. Second, Gallaudet is the outlier in the conference not Norwich. The rest are all close to Norwich.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:15:17 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:59:51 PM
So. What.

Very mature response. So what? The NCAA playoff record and margin of victory was quoted because you made a big issue out of a Pool C NEFC team winning a game. So what? They are 1-13 outside of games which you cherry picked, that's why.

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:09:29 PM
No, you were arguing that Norwich left simply to make the playoffs. Your point was that the ECFC gamed the system and that the conference shouldn't be in the playoffs and Norwich left SOLELY to make the playoffs.

What part of going to a conference where they can be competitive, and going to a conference which has an auto bid to the playoffs, is confusing you?

Competitive does not equal "we will win this every year". Competitive means "we can play competitive games and not have a huge disadvantage against everyone we play against".

The auto bid is and always will be secondary. The ECFC allows these schools to play competitive games against schools which support football, are in the same logical area, and are in conferences that don't support football. The same for Norwich goes for Mt. Ida, SUNY - Maritime and the rest. To pile on Norwich is wrong.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:24:08 PM
Dude, I piled on the entire ECFC. Not just Norwich. The only reason they are in the playoffs is because of the 7-team conference rule, which completely disregards the quality of the competition within the conference. You like things that way, fine. Most posters who follow eastern region football consider the ECFC to be a bad joke, and would rather not want to see a team completely in over their heads get beat up in the first round.

They aren't ready to compete on a playoff level. Convincing losses to Hartwick and St Lawrence are all the proof I need of that statement.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:00:39 PM
My bad, but a Pool C from that horrific conference won. That better illustrates my point, I think.

Excluding these conferences denies them a right to improve - to stack up on how they are against the elite.

I can tell you from first hand experience, when Wabash played Mt. Union in 2002, that was an eye-opening. To compete with them on the field was program-changing.

They have the right to improve:  BY SCHEDULING TEAMS OTHER THAN NEFC TEAMS.  Salve Regina would've earned a Pool C bid with their leaps in scheduling (Union and Montclair).  I hope they eventually get rewarded for transcending the mediocrity that the rest of the conference seems to be comfortable maintaining.  Endicott played no teams outside the NEFC.  It helps artificially inflate SOS numbers when this happens -- and they benefit from their game with the NEFC Championship participant since that game guarantees a higher OOWP.  It's a multi-stacked deck in the NEFC.

I think we forget that Pool A grants teams and conferences the access we discuss.  It's Pool C that is supposed to reward the best that didn't make Pool A.  If a conference refuses to test itself during the regular season, why are we rewarding them with a coveted extra playoff slot -- they already get one automatically.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
The unintended consequences of your statement affects many other conferences and it affects many programs. Saying the ECFC shouldn't exist is almost tantamount to saying those schools shouldn't play football. In this day and age, where young men aren't going to college in the numbers they used to, and a football program may be one lure for them to go to college, why are you denigrating this? The same could be said of the UMAC or NATHC. The MWC has struggled in the playoffs, too. Should we keep THEM out because they don't meet some artificial standard?

I can't see how an ECFC rep being in the playoffs makes it tarnished. Next up in the mix if Norwich doesn't exist is Illinois College - which is probably cannon fodder for St. Thomas or Whitewater.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:34:20 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:26:18 PM

They have the right to improve:  BY SCHEDULING TEAMS OTHER THAN NEFC TEAMS.  Salve Regina would've earned a Pool C bid with their leaps in scheduling (Union and Montclair).  I hope they eventually get rewarded for transcending the mediocrity that the rest of the conference seems to be comfortable maintaining.  Endicott played no teams outside the NEFC.  It helps artificially inflate SOS numbers when this happens -- and they benefit from their game with the NEFC Championship participant since that game guarantees a higher OOWP.  It's a multi-stacked deck in the NEFC.

To take this statement an additional step, Endicott scheduled RPI every season from 2004 to 2010 and lost all 7 games. So they have never won an NCAA playoff game, and they dropped a mid pack Liberty League team who beat them every season for 7 consecutive years. And they are likely going to get an at-large bid to the playoffs because they are 9-1. Makes sense to me?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:00:39 PM
My bad, but a Pool C from that horrific conference won. That better illustrates my point, I think.

Excluding these conferences denies them a right to improve - to stack up on how they are against the elite.

I can tell you from first hand experience, when Wabash played Mt. Union in 2002, that was an eye-opening. To compete with them on the field was program-changing.

They have the right to improve:  BY SCHEDULING TEAMS OTHER THAN NEFC TEAMS.  Salve Regina would've earned a Pool C bid with their leaps in scheduling (Union and Montclair).  I hope they eventually get rewarded for transcending the mediocrity that the rest of the conference seems to be comfortable maintaining.  Endicott played no teams outside the NEFC.  It helps artificially inflate SOS numbers when this happens -- and they benefit from their game with the NEFC Championship participant since that game guarantees a higher OOWP.  It's a multi-stacked deck in the NEFC.

I think we forget that Pool A grants teams and conferences the access we discuss.  It's Pool C that is supposed to reward the best that didn't make Pool A.  If a conference refuses to test itself during the regular season, why are we rewarding them with a coveted extra playoff slot -- they already get one automatically.

People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 01:37:15 PM
And Illinois College shouldn't have ... what? :)

Enjoying this argument. Haven't weighed in because I can see both sides of the discussion. I would be in favor of a longer probationary period for new single-sport conferences.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:38:08 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:34:20 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:26:18 PM

They have the right to improve:  BY SCHEDULING TEAMS OTHER THAN NEFC TEAMS.  Salve Regina would've earned a Pool C bid with their leaps in scheduling (Union and Montclair).  I hope they eventually get rewarded for transcending the mediocrity that the rest of the conference seems to be comfortable maintaining.  Endicott played no teams outside the NEFC.  It helps artificially inflate SOS numbers when this happens -- and they benefit from their game with the NEFC Championship participant since that game guarantees a higher OOWP.  It's a multi-stacked deck in the NEFC.

To take this statement an additional step, Endicott scheduled RPI every season from 2004 to 2010 and lost all 7 games. So they have never won an NCAA playoff game, and they dropped a mid pack Liberty League team who beat them every season for 7 consecutive years. And they are likely going to get an at-large bid to the playoffs because they are 9-1. Makes sense to me?

Yes, it does. They didn't lose a second game. Everyone knows the implications when they start the season. Don't have two losses and expect a "C".

What Endicott did in 2004 means nothing now. Nothing. What Endicott did in 2010 means nothing to 2011.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:41:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:32:09 PM
The unintended consequences of your statement affects many other conferences and it affects many programs. Saying the ECFC shouldn't exist is almost tantamount to saying those schools shouldn't play football.

Never said the ECFC shouldn't exist. I stated there should be some accreditation required for a 7 team conference getting an automatic bid to the playoffs. Something a little more strenuous than saying, "There are 7 of us. Let us in."

I don't understand what is wrong with asking a conference formed with teams with no recent success on the field of any kind, to prove their worth in the playoffs before being awarded an automatic bid into the playoffs. Give them a Pool B bid. That forces them to play out of conference competition during the season to prove their playoff worthiness.

That means Norwich doesn't make it in 2011 because Hartwick and St Lawrence both beat them convincingly. It also means SUNY Maritime doesn't make it in 2010 because they too avoided any strong competition out of conference.

If they beat good teams during the season, they get a Pool B. If they win as a Pool B, the conference gets a Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 01:37:15 PM
And Illinois College shouldn't have ... what? :)

Lost, I guess. At least there's only one loss team on the sidelines this year. I can't say the NCAA criteria is flawless (I really don't like it) but at least the message is clear. A 2-loss team doesn't have an argument, whilst a 1-loss team can come to the debate table.

QuoteEnjoying this argument. Haven't weighed in because I can see both sides of the discussion. I would be in favor of a longer probationary period for new single-sport conferences.

I'm not disagreeing with that, Pat. But at some point the ECFC should be allowed a bid. And if its three years from now some would still have the same argument against their inclusion.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:43:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

You say this.

I say, Endicott should have played Kean, or Hobart, or Fisher...and proven that they could post a 1-loss season by playing a challenging schedule. Period. Until then, no Pool C soup for you.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:38:08 PM
What Endicott did in 2004 means nothing now. Nothing. What Endicott did in 2010 means nothing to 2011.

Sure it does, unless you think nothing which occurred in history should challenge us to think about how we interpret the present.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:48:36 PM
Now is it "avoiding"? That's the language that infuriates me.

Do you know if the AD and football coach are going out of their way to avoid certain teams?

In 2010, SUNY Maritime had three non-conference games. Two were against Mass. Maritime and Merchant Marine. Why WOULDN'T they play them?

The other was Western Connecticut. When were those games scheduled? It could have been five or six years ago? But that's an NJAC school, not exactly a weak conference. Yeah, they're the dregs of that conference, but it's possible that when that game was scheduled, it was when Western was not a doormat. Who knows?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:43:53 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

You say this.

I say, Endicott should have played Kean, or Hobart, or Fisher...and proven that they could post a 1-loss season by playing a challenging schedule. Period. Until then, no Pool C soup for you.

And what if there are no room in those schedules? What if Kean or SJF decides its not in THEIR interest to play Endicott? Why would Kean play Endicott? Thus, you create a system where teams like Endicott are automatically excluded from a "C" because teams would avoid playing them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:38:08 PM
What Endicott did in 2004 means nothing now. Nothing. What Endicott did in 2010 means nothing to 2011.

Sure it does, unless you think nothing which occurred in history should challenge us to think about how we interpret the present.

History informs, but the men playing football in 2004 have nothing to do with the men playing football in 2011.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 01:51:23 PM
The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'!  Afterall, being considered for Pool C, almost by definition, means you lost a conference game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:53:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:55:12 PM
Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:57:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:55:12 PM
Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:58:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
I'm not disagreeing with that, Pat. But at some point the ECFC should be allowed a bid. And if its three years from now some would still have the same argument against their inclusion.

I don't think you give us enough credit. I am far more accepting of the NEFC now that they at least have two wins to show for their efforts. I may still believe they are a weak conference, but I welcome their Pool A bid. If the ECFC challenged quality competition outside of conference during the season, and showed success as a Pool B, we would welcome them too.

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:49:49 PM
What if Kean or SJF decides its not in THEIR interest to play Endicott? Why would Kean play Endicott? Thus, you create a system where teams like Endicott are automatically excluded from a "C" because teams would avoid playing them.

I seriously doubt Endicott would not be able to find one competitive team to put on their schedule if they made an effort. Union and Montclair were willing to give Salve Regina a game. I doubt Salve Regina was close to scheduling D2 and FCS teams to fill 10 games.

Actually Salve is a perfect example to use, since they took the time to raise their level of competition and nobody else in conference did.

I think it is funny that you think maybe SUNY Maritime chose to play West Conn several years in advance, because they thought West Conn was better back then. No seriously, it was very funny. The entire ECFC and NEFC failed to schedule a respectable out of conference opponent, with the exception of Salve Regina. It's not coincidence. They know what they are doing. They know a lot of committee members think like you...that all that matters is final record and not who you play.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:53:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.

But...

Wheaton lost two CCIW games.
St. Olaf lost two MIAC games.
Baldwin - Wallace lost two OAC games.
Montclair State lost two NJAC games.

Why would their non-conference schedule affect their "C" chances?


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 01:51:23 PM
The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:57:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:55:12 PM
Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.

I can. Being near the OAC, they know if they win the rest of their OAC games they go to the playoffs. Much like any other conference. Same with the WIAC. Any worthy OAC or WIAC team that can run the table outside of the purple won't lose a non-conference game, except if they decide to schedule a team like North Central or St. Thomas.

And if they do schedule a North Central or a St. Thomas, it may give them a chance to compete against the Purples. They proved this year they're not invincible. They CAN be beaten if played hard for 60-minutes. it just didn't happen.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 01:51:23 PM
The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.

Except that most all of the best two-loss candidates had their two losses in league. So there goes that argument.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 02:03:36 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 01:37:15 PM
And Illinois College shouldn't have ... what? :)

Enjoying this argument. Haven't weighed in because I can see both sides of the discussion. I would be in favor of a longer probationary period for new single-sport conferences.
I, too, am enjoying the debate.  A 2-year probation is what is required of the other all-sport conferences when they are forming.

Practically, there are so few other options for the schools that eventually land in single-sport conferences, e.g., geography, mission-vision, other non-affiliated schools, that I just don't see the problem.  Two years is one-half of the athlete's experience.  The probationary period should not be as long as moving between divisions, which is 4 years in most cases (3 in some).

The adoption of the AQ model for D-III has made for more opportunities for student-athletes in everything from football to lacrosse to men's and women's golf.  A deficiency in providing effect opportunities that could be solved by Single-Sport Conferences was identified, voted and implemented by the 430-member institutions in D-III. 

More student-athletes are participating!  That is D-III, not how many at-large "do-over" chances we have in Pool C in the national tournament

Personally, I am not looking forward to D-II where the AQ is not used in several sports, including football.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:53:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.

But...

Wheaton lost two CCIW games.
St. Olaf lost two MIAC games.
Baldwin - Wallace lost two OAC games.
Montclair State lost two NJAC games.

Why would their non-conference schedule affect their "C" chances?

CCIW:  Wheaton isn't in my discussion list here.  Not sure why you keyed in on their third-place team.
MIAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.
OAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference ganes, 1 OOC.
NJAC: 10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.

Each of those last three conferences have teams with decent playoff experience -- therefore, it's not their OOC schedules I'm looking at (NJAC will get 1 additional OOC game starting next year with Buffalo St. leaving).  How about we look at the teams like St. John Fisher -- loss was to Hobart OOC.  Why keep scheduling Hobart if this trend continues?  The entire Empire 8 is beginning to lean in that thought process, from my discussions.  Some Liberty League coaches are saying the same thing to me.  These are conferences that have to schedule OOC games and are watching this landscape carefully because of it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:06:27 PM
Do you when exactly NY Maritime put W. Conn on their schedule?

Do you know if the NEFC and the ECFC are PURPOSELY avoiding the LL, E8 and NJAC?

Do you not know the reverse could be happening, where a LL team says, "why would I play this ECFC team when it doesn't do me any good?" Then you get stuck in the rathole. People complain that you don't play a competitive schedule, and when you try the competitive teams don't schedule you.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:07:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:57:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:55:12 PM
Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.

I can. Being near the OAC, they know if they win the rest of their OAC games they go to the playoffs. Much like any other conference. Same with the WIAC. Any worthy OAC or WIAC team that can run the table outside of the purple won't lose a non-conference game, except if they decide to schedule a team like North Central or St. Thomas.

And if they do schedule a North Central or a St. Thomas, it may give them a chance to compete against the Purples. They proved this year they're not invincible. They CAN be beaten if played hard for 60-minutes. it just didn't happen.

So, essentially, you're requiring the OAC and WIAC teams to go undefeated for a bid (tossing out the Purple games) -- but the NEFC has a fudge factor of one game.  OK, got it.  You have lost all veracity.  Have a good night.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:53:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.

But...

Wheaton lost two CCIW games.
St. Olaf lost two MIAC games.
Baldwin - Wallace lost two OAC games.
Montclair State lost two NJAC games.

Why would their non-conference schedule affect their "C" chances?

CCIW:  Wheaton isn't in my discussion list here.  Not sure why you keyed in on their third-place team.
MIAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.
OAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference ganes, 1 OOC.
NJAC: 10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.

Each of those last three conferences have teams with decent playoff experience -- therefore, it's not their OOC schedules I'm looking at (NJAC will get 1 additional OOC game starting next year with Buffalo St. leaving).  How about we look at the teams like St. John Fisher -- loss was to Hobart OOC.  Why keep scheduling Hobart if this trend continues?  The entire Empire 8 is beginning to lean in that thought process, from my discussions.  Some Liberty League coaches are saying the same thing to me.  These are conferences that have to schedule OOC games and are watching this landscape carefully because of it.

Wheaton is very relevant. They are team 34. They're the best two-loss team out there.

And what happens when the LL or E8 decided to schedule an ECFC team, then all of a sudden start getting beat by said ECFC team? I bet they drop them fast!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:07:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 01:57:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:55:12 PM
Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.

I can. Being near the OAC, they know if they win the rest of their OAC games they go to the playoffs. Much like any other conference. Same with the WIAC. Any worthy OAC or WIAC team that can run the table outside of the purple won't lose a non-conference game, except if they decide to schedule a team like North Central or St. Thomas.

And if they do schedule a North Central or a St. Thomas, it may give them a chance to compete against the Purples. They proved this year they're not invincible. They CAN be beaten if played hard for 60-minutes. it just didn't happen.

So, essentially, you're requiring the OAC and WIAC teams to go undefeated for a bid (tossing out the Purple games) -- but the NEFC has a fudge factor of one game.  OK, got it.  You have lost all veracity.  Have a good night.

No, that's not what I'm saying AT ALL!

The one way to guarantee a bid is to go undefeated. Otherwise you are dealing with the committee. Period. Don't put yourself in that situation. But if there was an OAC and a WIAC team that had just one loss, Endicott wouldn't be on the table, and we wouldn't have this discussion.

You can't reserve spots for just the elite. It doesn't work.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:06:27 PM
Do you when exactly NY Maritime put W. Conn on their schedule?

Do you know if the NEFC and the ECFC are PURPOSELY avoiding the LL, E8 and NJAC?

Do you not know the reverse could be happening, where a LL team says, "why would I play this ECFC team when it doesn't do me any good?" Then you get stuck in the rathole. People complain that you don't play a competitive schedule, and when you try the competitive teams don't schedule you.



I have heard some reliable rumors that the New England teams have complained about being matched up against New York-based teams in ECAC Bowls because of their results the past decade.  So, yes, I have heard that "they are PURPOSELY avoiding the LL, E8 and NJAC."
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 01:51:23 PM
The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.

Except that most all of the best two-loss candidates had their two losses in league. So there goes that argument.

No, the argument itself is still sound, regardless of this year's results.  And as several posters (including both Pat and Keith, I believe) pointed out, if Oshkosh had not gone and lost a third game, it sure would have been a test of 2-loss vs. 1-loss teams if their only two losses were UWW (conference) and UMU (non-con)! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
That's the bowls. How about regular season schedules. Any reliable rumors from disgruntled insiders or just sour grapes from 8-2 or 7-3 teams?

Scheduling is pretty tough when you have conferences that have only one week and some that have multiple weeks.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 13, 2011, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:11:13 PM
You can't reserve spots for just the elite. It doesn't work.

But giving pool C bids to crap conferences that, as a whole, doesn't schedule any meaningful OOC games does?

I thought we were looking for the best 32 teams?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 01:51:23 PM
The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.

Except that most all of the best two-loss candidates had their two losses in league. So there goes that argument.

No, the argument itself is still sound, regardless of this year's results.  And as several posters (including both Pat and Keith, I believe) pointed out, if Oshkosh had not gone and lost a third game, it sure would have been a test of 2-loss vs. 1-loss teams if their only two losses were UWW (conference) and UMU (non-con)! ;)

UMU was out of region, though.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:11:13 PM
You can't reserve spots for just the elite. It doesn't work.

But giving pool C bids to crap conferences that, as a whole, doesn't schedule any meaningful OOC games does?

I thought we were looking for the best 32 teams?

It was never about 'the best 32 teams'. Otherwise, it'd be a tournament full of four or five conferences. No NCAA tournament is about slotting the 'best X' teams. Hardly any playoff system has the exact best teams in it. Think of the NFL last year - Seattle wasn't amongst the best 12 teams, but they got in AND WON A GAME!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 02:16:00 PM
Man, this conversation is going too fast for me!  Everytime I hit 'post' I get the message that 4 more posts are up so you may want to revise your post; so I read those 4, hit 'post', and it says 2 more! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:17:41 PM
It's not "reserving slots for the elite," Sir.  I said earlier that Salve would've deserved a bid at 9-1 in Endicott's shoes this year.  Salve is hardly "elite."  You need to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.  Endicott's scheduling is AWFUL.  WNEC's is, too.  The OAC has no choice in scheduling Mount Union.  The WIAC has no choice in scheduling Whitewater.  So, you are essentially requiring OAC teams and WIAC teams to go undefeated in games other than the monsters in their conferences.  There is no such monster in the NEFC.  You are allowing the NEFC a free pass of a loss in doing so, based on your statements.  You can try to distance yourself as much as you want.  We're so far from elitism in the brackets now with 25 Pool A bids and 6 Pool C bids, it's no longer funny.  It's having adverse effects on scheduling policies now for teams that CAN control their schedules.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:18:35 PM
This is what happens when the bracket show gets delayed, YPSI. Though I think this conversation would be better sitting around the room with adult beverages. By hour two we'd all agree on something. Maybe Ralph's point about D-2. Maybe about the NESCAC. Something!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
That's the bowls. How about regular season schedules. Any reliable rumors from disgruntled insiders or just sour grapes from 8-2 or 7-3 teams?

Scheduling is pretty tough when you have conferences that have only one week and some that have multiple weeks.

I'm sorry, but what additional proof would you need of who's avoiding whom?  It's consistent with the scheduling policies we witness.  It's now up to you to tell me the proof you have that the NEFC is NOT avoiding those teams, with the exception of Salve.  Can you?  Didn't think so.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:17:41 PM
It's not "reserving slots for the elite," Sir.  I said earlier that Salve would've deserved a bid at 9-1 in Endicott's shoes this year.  Salve is hardly "elite."  You need to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.  Endicott's scheduling is AWFUL.  WNEC's is, too.  The OAC has no choice in scheduling Mount Union.  The WIAC has no choice in scheduling Whitewater.  So, you are essentially requiring OAC teams and WIAC teams to go undefeated in games other than the monsters in their conferences.  There is no such monster in the NEFC.  You are allowing the NEFC a free pass of a loss in doing so, based on your statements.  You can try to distance yourself as much as you want.  We're so far from elitism in the brackets now with 25 Pool A bids and 6 Pool C bids, it's no longer funny.  It's having adverse effects on scheduling policies now for teams that CAN control their schedules.

It takes two to schedule, though.

Remember, we're dealing with trying to jigsaw together non-conference games where teams have limited slots and limited weeks to put them together. The OAC is easy - one non-conference game. And frankly, the NEFC and the ECFC are different because they're football only leagues, not a full-blown conference like the OAC or WIAC. Leaving the OAC over football affects every other sport.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 02:23:35 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:18:35 PM
This is what happens when the bracket show gets delayed, YPSI. Though I think this conversation would be better sitting around the room with adult beverages. By hour two we'd all agree on something. Maybe Ralph's point about D-2. Maybe about the NESCAC. Something!

I agree - especially about the adult beverages! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
That's the bowls. How about regular season schedules. Any reliable rumors from disgruntled insiders or just sour grapes from 8-2 or 7-3 teams?

Scheduling is pretty tough when you have conferences that have only one week and some that have multiple weeks.

I'm sorry, but what additional proof would you need of who's avoiding whom?  It's consistent with the scheduling policies we witness.  It's now up to you to tell me the proof you have that the NEFC is NOT avoiding those teams, with the exception of Salve.  Can you?  Didn't think so.

You're the one with the inside dope. Not a bowl schedule. I'm just saying its difficult to put together schedules with limited availability, and with contract that can be set up many years in advance and run for multiple years.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:28:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:17:41 PM
It's not "reserving slots for the elite," Sir.  I said earlier that Salve would've deserved a bid at 9-1 in Endicott's shoes this year.  Salve is hardly "elite."  You need to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis.  Endicott's scheduling is AWFUL.  WNEC's is, too.  The OAC has no choice in scheduling Mount Union.  The WIAC has no choice in scheduling Whitewater.  So, you are essentially requiring OAC teams and WIAC teams to go undefeated in games other than the monsters in their conferences.  There is no such monster in the NEFC.  You are allowing the NEFC a free pass of a loss in doing so, based on your statements.  You can try to distance yourself as much as you want.  We're so far from elitism in the brackets now with 25 Pool A bids and 6 Pool C bids, it's no longer funny.  It's having adverse effects on scheduling policies now for teams that CAN control their schedules.

It takes two to schedule, though.

Remember, we're dealing with trying to jigsaw together non-conference games where teams have limited slots and limited weeks to put them together. The OAC is easy - one non-conference game. And frankly, the NEFC and the ECFC are different because they're football only leagues, not a full-blown conference like the OAC or WIAC. Leaving the OAC over football affects every other sport.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, except to the idea that the OAC and WIAC are locked in with the monsters on top for the foreseeable future.  The NEFC and ECFC are not.  You know, Endicott can't sit there and say, "We were undefeated except for that BIG, BAD WNEC team."  OAC and WIAC teams deserve that same free pass you're giving Endicott here; perhaps a larger one since Endicott's OOC scheduling is actually inside their own conference.  The OAC and WIAC could choose to double-schedule OAC and WIAC teams to eliminated all extra-conference play, like Endicott chose.  They didn't.  At least we can draw some level of comparisons by this.  We can't do so from Endicott.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
That's the bowls. How about regular season schedules. Any reliable rumors from disgruntled insiders or just sour grapes from 8-2 or 7-3 teams?

Scheduling is pretty tough when you have conferences that have only one week and some that have multiple weeks.

I'm sorry, but what additional proof would you need of who's avoiding whom?  It's consistent with the scheduling policies we witness.  It's now up to you to tell me the proof you have that the NEFC is NOT avoiding those teams, with the exception of Salve.  Can you?  Didn't think so.

You're the one with the inside dope. Not a bowl schedule. I'm just saying its difficult to put together schedules with limited availability, and with contract that can be set up many years in advance and run for multiple years.

A bowl schedule is being influenced by the New England teams' gripes about the New York opponents.  Avoid this argument all you want.  There's no contract involved here.  It's a free opportunity to step outside the conference.  They're asking for it not to happen.  Salve will probably want to play a New York team, and I hope the ECAC Committee grants them that.  The other teams, though, are not going to do it.  It's time for someone to flex their muscle in the direction of the New England teams to force them to branch out a bit for the sake of the entire Division.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: pg04 on November 13, 2011, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 13, 2011, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:11:13 PM
You can't reserve spots for just the elite. It doesn't work.

But giving pool C bids to crap conferences that, as a whole, doesn't schedule any meaningful OOC games does?

I thought we were looking for the best 32 teams?

They definitely aren't looking for the best 32 teams, so you are incorrect there.  It's more about chances than picking the best. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:35:43 PM
The WIAC actually plays a non-conference conference game. The WIAC has a lot of scheduling problems in football, which is a whole 'nuther argument. Stout played Black Hills St., Jamestown and UW-Oshkosh as their non-league games.

Frankly, you should be thrilled the NEFC doesn't take two playoff spots, like they could. They're actually helping get more "C" teams in the mix.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:24:24 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
That's the bowls. How about regular season schedules. Any reliable rumors from disgruntled insiders or just sour grapes from 8-2 or 7-3 teams?

Scheduling is pretty tough when you have conferences that have only one week and some that have multiple weeks.

I'm sorry, but what additional proof would you need of who's avoiding whom?  It's consistent with the scheduling policies we witness.  It's now up to you to tell me the proof you have that the NEFC is NOT avoiding those teams, with the exception of Salve.  Can you?  Didn't think so.

You're the one with the inside dope. Not a bowl schedule. I'm just saying its difficult to put together schedules with limited availability, and with contract that can be set up many years in advance and run for multiple years.

A bowl schedule is being influenced by the New England teams' gripes about the New York opponents.  Avoid this argument all you want.  There's no contract involved here.  It's a free opportunity to step outside the conference.  They're asking for it not to happen.  Salve will probably want to play a New York team, and I hope the ECAC Committee grants them that.  The other teams, though, are not going to do it.  It's time for someone to flex their muscle in the direction of the New England teams to force them to branch out a bit for the sake of the entire Division.

The bowl schedule is irrelevant to the regular season scheduling issue. The bowl schedule doesn't affect THIS argument.

The NEFC and ECFC HELPS all of D-3. It HELPS to keep these schools' football programs. It HELPS them recruit male students. It HELPS get male students engaged. It HELPS in growing the D-3 football footprint.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
A 2-loss team doesn't have an argument, whilst a 1-loss team can come to the debate table.

In all honesty, there's no reason it shouldn't. The goal is to get the best six at-large teams, not the best six 8-1 and 9-1 teams. There's no reason one of those best six can't be an 8-2 team.

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2011/two-loss-teams-need-not-apply
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 02:41:37 PM
I don't wish Pool B on anybody.  Poor Huntingdon. They were left out of the acquisition of the GSAC by the USA South. With an even-numbered conference in the SAA and the even-numbered new USA South, I don't know where they will find their games in October and November.

As for the "two-loss logjam", we can almost always reserve that scenario for a balanced conference race in any sport.  It may even happen in hoops later this year, just like the logjam in WIAC Men about 2-3 years ago.

As for not scheduling a hard opponent in OOC, then that just dooms Wesley.  If the E8 needs affiliates to keep the AQ, I am sure Wesley would love to have a home and some predictable D-III foes in October and November.

The advantage of a strong OOC opponent is for the teams that think that they will earn a bid and want to host in the playoffs.  North Central had a better chance of hosting the bracket with a quality win over a strong Redlands.  Redlands' win over NCC gave them a strong case for the Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
A 2-loss team doesn't have an argument, whilst a 1-loss team can come to the debate table.

In all honesty, there's no reason it shouldn't. The goal is to get the best six at-large teams, not the best six 8-1 and 9-1 teams. There's no reason one of those best six can't be an 8-2 team.

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2011/two-loss-teams-need-not-apply

I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just being very realistic.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: WashedUp on November 13, 2011, 02:48:03 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
MIAC:  10-team conference, 9 conference games, 1 OOC.

MIAC only has 9 football teams (Macalester is independent).  So 8 conference games, 2 OOC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
A 2-loss team doesn't have an argument, whilst a 1-loss team can come to the debate table.

In all honesty, there's no reason it shouldn't. The goal is to get the best six at-large teams, not the best six 8-1 and 9-1 teams. There's no reason one of those best six can't be an 8-2 team.

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2011/two-loss-teams-need-not-apply

I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just being very realistic.

As was our projection, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to go.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:58:24 PM
But again, I can't see presidents and athletics directors of small colleges in New England forming football conferences for the sole purpose of denying SJF or Wheaton a Pool "C" bid!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 03:01:13 PM
I actually agree that the at-large bids,  should go to the BEST teams in quality that did not make the tourney.....  whether they have two losses or not.  Baldwin Wallace and Wheaton deserve to be in this tourney.  Just not as a #7 seed in the North  ;

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 03:02:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:36:40 PM
The bowl schedule is irrelevant to the regular season scheduling issue. The bowl schedule doesn't affect THIS argument.

The NEFC and ECFC HELPS all of D-3. It HELPS to keep these schools' football programs. It HELPS them recruit male students. It HELPS get male students engaged. It HELPS in growing the D-3 football footprint.

You asked the question of whether we had any evidence that the NEFC and ECFC are avoiding the other East conferences.  You thought it was going to be a rhetorical question.  You're surprised I have some nominal proof that they are.  Stop avoiding the evidence.  Their own scheduling backs up that evidence that they are avoiding better teams, especially when it shouldn't matter who they play. 

Nobody is suggesting the NEFC and ECFC disappear.  They have Pool A bids.  Go win them, Men.  Leave Pool C bids for teams that actually schedule somebody and need some assistance, perhaps because they have a monster in their conference to contend with every year, assuming they have some level of verifiable strength independent of that one asterisk game (loss).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 02:58:24 PM
But again, I can't see presidents and athletics directors of small colleges in New England forming football conferences for the sole purpose of denying SJF or Wheaton a Pool "C" bid!

No, they did it for a Pool A bid.  Over the years, especially in 2008, those teams saw that the system could be gamed, whether or not they intended to do so.  Now, with that evidence, it's apparent that scheduling internally only can help create an artificial resume for a second bid.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: softballrz on November 13, 2011, 03:07:49 PM
half of the nefc are are state schools, travel cost is a large factor when scheduling is discussed.  the rest can schedule one ooc game, and some have asked.  I can tell you for fact rpi pulled out of the Endicott schedule.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 03:08:27 PM
I would suggest they formed the conference for the benefits of their football playing student-athletes. Otherwise, they may not have incentive to keep the football program, or in some cases, start one. And that would be bad for D-3.

Travel budgets are a big factor as well. So you can be all high-and-mighty when you are a private school that has resources. But a struggling public, well, you have limits and constraints. (Thanks softballrz.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: B.W. jacket on November 13, 2011, 03:22:15 PM
 I totaly agree with Mr Coleman and Bashbrother that you want the BEST Teams in the tournament that actually have a chance to win it, not a tune up team, for Mount or Whitwater, then again I'm biased.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: B.W. jacket on November 13, 2011, 03:22:15 PM
I totaly agree with Mr Coleman and Bashbrother that you want the BEST Teams in the tournament that actually have a chance to win it, not a tune up team, for Mount or Whitwater, then again I'm biased.

I feel for you. But that pesky loss to Capital hurts the case, just like last year when Wabash lost to Wash U. and sat home with two losses.

But frankly, it seems that any game before the quarter-finals is a 'tune-up' for Mt. Union!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 03:31:06 PM
Smeds.... agree they shouldn't have lost to Capital....  but we all know they are a better football team.   Lessor teams have winning their conference as their way into the tourney.... SOS has to count for something, or the tourney is diluted in my opinion.

Just as in the NCAA Div I Basketball Tourney,  at-large bids are mostly if not all about quality.  (Well also about money, but that is dynamic that doesn't apply to Div III, other than travel.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 13, 2011, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
So what we have learned is the best way to ensure a bid to the NCAA tournament is to dodge all strong competitors by any means necessary. Create a schedule of cupcakes who do not belong on the same field as you, and run the table year after year.

What a wonderful message to send, let alone defend.


I have very little problem with the current playoff selection process.  It's simple.  Win your conference and you're in.  Much better situation now than it was a few decades ago when they arbitrarily selected 4 teams in each region. 

The only issue I have with the NCAA is their selection of the Pool C bids.  I wish they would put more emphasis on the actual strength of the teams and the leagues they play in and not just the team's record.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 13, 2011, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
So what we have learned is the best way to ensure a bid to the NCAA tournament is to dodge all strong competitors by any means necessary. Create a schedule of cupcakes who do not belong on the same field as you, and run the table year after year.

What a wonderful message to send, let alone defend.


I have very little problem with the current playoff selection process.  It's simple.  Win your conference and you're in.  Much better situation now than it was a few decades ago when they arbitrarily selected 4 teams in each region. 

The only issue I have with the NCAA is their selection of the Pool C bids.  I wish they would put more emphasis on the actual strength of the teams and the leagues they play in and not just the team's record.

Nobody disagrees with Part One, HSCoach.  One problem I keep pointing to, though, is the increase in Pool A bids and what will eventually be a reduction in Pool C bids.  That will necessitate a change at some point, perhaps in the football Pool A minimum to free up some at-large bids.

Regardless of Endicott making the Tournament tonight, I will be asking the Committee Chair on "In the HuddLLe" about objective vs. subjective SOS.  We went down this path last year, and I think it's a very interesting answer from the Chair that you'll hear.  It's not so much the Committee per se, but the edicts the NCAA is trying to maintain across all sports.  The NCAA is trying to avoid the admission that football is a special animal because of the scheduling limitations, statistical limitations and the length of season limitations.  However, they made one step in the right direction, allowing the seeding of undefeated teams to be influenced by those teams' recent playoff histories (since comparing undefeated teams with similar schedule strengths would be tough otherwise, leading to the UWW anomaly at the #2 seed last year).  They need to make the next step to legitimize the Pool C process.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 04:17:43 PM
Perhaps we're at the absolute limit of "A", anyway? We're at 25. Next year it should be 24 with the SCAC going kaput (for all intents and purposes). The SAA will add one, eventually, but we have to see how the SCAC works itself out, perhaps with the UAA.

I think the most we'll have is 26 "A" bids. I can't see the NEFC wanting two bids, otherwise they'd already have them. What I can see is that "B" goes by the wayside because they may have just have a small handful of teams left.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
Programs keep adding football at the D3 level... We'll be in the 245 vicinity soon.  Do the math as conferences begin to even out.  Taking out the NESCAC, 235 divided by 7 = ~34.  We wouldn't have enough Pool A bids, let alone Pool C, if conferences begin to scatter out more.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
Thanks to everyone in the debate for staying on topic. I know my position on Pool A is controversial and there are going to be a lot of people who vehemently disagree.

@Smed - We definitely disagree on some important points, but you are a good poster and I appreciate your opinion. Much respect.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 04:35:21 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 04:17:43 PM
Perhaps we're at the absolute limit of "A", anyway? We're at 25. Next year it should be 24 with the SCAC going kaput (for all intents and purposes). The SAA will add one, eventually, but we have to see how the SCAC works itself out, perhaps with the UAA.

I think the most we'll have is 26 "A" bids. I can't see the NEFC wanting two bids, otherwise they'd already have them. What I can see is that "B" goes by the wayside because they may have just have a small handful of teams left.

We could go to 27 bids with the UAA/SCAC linkage and a new bid for the SAA in 2014.  (Two new schools are adding football in the SAA.)

Pool B should be gone by then.  The independents will be Finlandia, Macalester, Wesley and Huntingdon.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 04:39:31 PM
That's still just a net gain of one, though, Ralph. 25 includes a current SCAC bid. The SAA would make it 26.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 04:40:05 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 04:35:21 PM
The independents will be Finlandia, Macalester, Wesley and Huntingdon.

Simple solution to all our problems then. Wesley isn't too far down the road from Gallaudet, so Wesley joins the ECFC as
an East Region member. Wesley gives the ECFC instant Pool A and Pool C credibility. I write this sarcastically of course, because I don't think the ECFC has any interest in finding out where their founding members rank nationally.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: softballrz on November 13, 2011, 04:45:55 PM
is it as simple as pool A auto bids require a min number of teams in the conference.  9? 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 04:47:00 PM
Seven is the minimum, and currently that is the only real standard -- seven full members of Division III.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 04:51:46 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
Thanks to everyone in the debate for staying on topic. I know my position on Pool A is controversial and there are going to be a lot of people who vehemently disagree.

@Smed - We definitely disagree on some important points, but you are a good poster and I appreciate your opinion. Much respect.

Thanks! You as well.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
Programs keep adding football at the D3 level... We'll be in the 245 vicinity soon.  Do the math as conferences begin to even out.  Taking out the NESCAC, 235 divided by 7 = ~34.  We wouldn't have enough Pool A bids, let alone Pool C, if conferences begin to scatter out more.
I hear what you are saying, but the access ratio is not likely to change much.

We will continue to have the 10-team conferences and even the 11-team conferences such as the Midwest Conference when Cornell joins.

If you move the requirement for Pool A bid to 8 teams, the Access Ratio would go up a tiny bit.  The MIAA might add Finlandia to get to 8.  The SAA might add Huntingdon, unless Oglethorpe added football.  Chapman has already joined the SCIAC. Shenandoah has gone to the ODAC.  The USA South replaces Shenandoah with LaGrange.

The only other 7-team conference (and I defer to the East Region posters to update the shuffling) is the E8.  With the access ratio at 8+, that means that Pool B can hold 16 teams for one bid!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 04:55:15 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 04:39:31 PM
That's still just a net gain of one, though, Ralph. 25 includes a current SCAC bid. The SAA would make it 26.
Thanks.  My bad!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
Programs keep adding football at the D3 level... We'll be in the 245 vicinity soon.  Do the math as conferences begin to even out.  Taking out the NESCAC, 235 divided by 7 = ~34.  We wouldn't have enough Pool A bids, let alone Pool C, if conferences begin to scatter out more.

They won't scatter. They'll try to have an even number (8 or 10 teams). You seem to still think it's some nefarious plot to wind up only at 7. That causes all kinds of headaches.

Again, the ECFC is interested in football as it relates to their institutions and their student athletes. Not every school, nor conference, cares about the D-3 playoffs as intently as the power conferences. The playoffs are a cherry. But it is in their interest to qualify for them.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
Programs keep adding football at the D3 level... We'll be in the 245 vicinity soon.  Do the math as conferences begin to even out.  Taking out the NESCAC, 235 divided by 7 = ~34.  We wouldn't have enough Pool A bids, let alone Pool C, if conferences begin to scatter out more.
I hear what you are saying, but the access ratio is not likely to change much.

We will continue to have the 10-team conferences and even the 11-team conferences such as the Midwest Conference when Cornell joins.

If you move the requirement for Pool A bid to 8 teams, the Access Ratio would go up a tiny bit.  The MIAA might add Finlandia to get to 8.  The SAA might add Huntingdon, unless Oglethorpe added football.  Chapman has already joined the SCIAC. Shenandoah has gone to the ODAC.  The USA South replaces Shenandoah with LaGrange.

The only other 7-team conference (and I defer to the East Region posters to update the shuffling) is the E8.  With the access ratio at 8+, that means that Pool B can hold 16 teams for one bid!

Wouldn't Finlandia be a better fit in the UMAC?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 05:04:22 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 04:26:46 PM
Programs keep adding football at the D3 level... We'll be in the 245 vicinity soon.  Do the math as conferences begin to even out.  Taking out the NESCAC, 235 divided by 7 = ~34.  We wouldn't have enough Pool A bids, let alone Pool C, if conferences begin to scatter out more.
I hear what you are saying, but the access ratio is not likely to change much.

We will continue to have the 10-team conferences and even the 11-team conferences such as the Midwest Conference when Cornell joins.

If you move the requirement for Pool A bid to 8 teams, the Access Ratio would go up a tiny bit.  The MIAA might add Finlandia to get to 8.  The SAA might add Huntingdon, unless Oglethorpe added football.  Chapman has already joined the SCIAC. Shenandoah has gone to the ODAC.  The USA South replaces Shenandoah with LaGrange.

The only other 7-team conference (and I defer to the East Region posters to update the shuffling) is the E8.  With the access ratio at 8+, that means that Pool B can hold 16 teams for one bid!

Wouldn't Finlandia be a better fit in the UMAC?

At least geographically that is certainly true - Finlandia is in Michigan, but the nearest MIAA school is over 400 miles away!  A more likely possibility: Calvin (MIAA in all other sports) has talked about (and rejected) starting football for many years, but those most opposed to it seem to have mostly retired/died off.  There seems to be a growing belief in the MIAA that they will finally start a team in the near future.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:13:48 PM
Well, even though they're a WIAC member in men's soccer, I can't see Finlandia joining the WIAC for anything else!

I do think for the sake of something or other Wesley and Huntingdon should find a spot in a football conference. I know in Minnesota, the high school athletic association 'forces' teams into conferences, which can cause ripple effects and unintended consequences. But if the "B" pool in football goes away because of a lack of members, then they can sweat out a "C" or find a conference that will take them.

Also, if more teams add football in the conferences that host the ECFC and NEFC schools in other sports, they could revert to their natural conference homes. Perhaps. Maybe. Who knows.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: softballrz on November 13, 2011, 04:45:55 PM
is it as simple as pool A auto bids require a min number of teams in the conference.  9?

Moving up to 9 creates its own set of problems, one of which is that you only get 1 out of conference game per year. Good luck arguing about whatever Pool C bids your trying to give away when you really have nothing to compare. I know the people that support traditional power conferences want to jump in and say "we deserve them", but year to year that's going to be ridiculously subjective with extremely limited cross-conference games.

I would also like to see the WIAC find another member! Good luck fellas finding someone who wants to join that meat grinder unless you can get UW-Superior to start football. So are we just going to throw the WIAC completely into Pool C because of the type of conference that they are? That conference sets up as 8 for a reason, and there isn't a simple solution to forcing conferences to add members solely for football.

A different great example is the ODAC, which is going from 7 to 8 football members, counting Catholic as an associate member. But for other sports, the conference already has 11 teams and is going to 12 next year when Shenandoah comes in. One of the reasons it took Shenandoah so long to join is there are just too many members for many of the ODAC sports. So you take these conferences, that are very specific to types of schools, and you start artificially constructing problems just because of football. That is completely against the concept of D3.

There are two very simple solutions. One is that the NCAA actually moves to create a D1 playoff, taking revenue from the power conferences (like in basketball) and sharing it out between all NCAA schools. This might allow for D3 playoffs to expand again. Odds on that? Low. The other is that we stop worrying about Pool C and admit that the D3 tournament isn't about having the best 32 teams in the country play, it's about having champions play and crowning a Champion's Champion. Amazingly, with the exception of 6 lucky second-chance teams and 1 Pool B, we're pretty close to that concept already.

As far as I'm concerned, we can add 6 more 7 team conferences and I won't cry, assuming there are at least 6 or 7 independents for that one Pool B. Pool C is nice to have for those teams that have 1 loss that could have gone differently, or a team that lost on the road to a team that they could have beaten if the schedule showed a home game. Other than that, 2 loss teams are just that, teams that have lost 20% of their games. Once might be unlucky. Twice means you just aren't good enough versus whatever teams you already play. No third chances necessary.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
Maybe a BCS style system would work better.  Give a certain weight to the D3football.com poll, the SOS, and recent playoff success.  Endicott's feelings will not be hurt.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 05:25:57 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
Maybe a BCS style system would work better.  Give a certain weight to the D3football.com poll, the SOS, and recent playoff success.  Endicott's feelings will not be hurt.

I'm really hoping this is tongue in cheek. The only thing the BCS is the answer to is: "What is the all-time worst way to crown a national champion?"
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:27:11 PM
Slight correction - a 9 team league means 8 conference games and two non-conference games. But the issue is that one team is the odd team out each week. Eight or ten team leagues are best because when you get to conference play you can have every team active that week.

Other sports are more logical for a divisional set up. If you have a 12-team league in hoops or soccer or baseball, you can make it into divisional play with a conference tourney. But you are right jknezek, unlike D-1A, D-3 conferences should be about the leagues as a whole and each sport in the league, not just football.

I think the worst thing about the shuffling in D-1 is the ripple effect on other sports. Syracuse not playing Georgetown in hoops? Texas A&M not playing Texas in baseball?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
Maybe a BCS style system would work better.  Give a certain weight to the D3football.com poll, the SOS, and recent playoff success.  Endicott's feelings will not be hurt.

Of course you realize the BCS power ratings are completely neutered because they don't allow for margin of victory, even though the margin of victory calculations have laws of diminishing returns.

And again, what happened in 2010 doesn't matter in 2011. It's not the same group of athletes.

But if you're joking, I bit!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 13, 2011, 05:42:50 PM
In know this is off topic, but the BCS calculation would be the perfect way to award the at-large bids to a D1 playoff.  The 6 BCS conference champs get an AQ and then 2 at-large bids handed out to make a field of 8.    That would be perfect.

All I know about the D3 playoffs is that I'm thrilled we get to settle it on the field instead of the mess we have shoved down our throats in D1.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
Maybe a BCS style system would work better.  Give a certain weight to the D3football.com poll, the SOS, and recent playoff success.  Endicott's feelings will not be hurt.

Of course you realize the BCS power ratings are completely neutered because they don't allow for margin of victory, even though the margin of victory calculations have laws of diminishing returns.

And again, what happened in 2010 doesn't matter in 2011. It's not the same group of athletes.

But if you're joking, I bit!
I wasn't advocating that the same inputs the BCS use be used in D3, just that D3 might use computers to come up with better pool c bids.  The d3football.com poll isn't used currently, but it has proved itself pretty accurate over the years.  We could maybe solve the endicott problem with more reasonable voters who should understand that 8-2 Wheaton or Bethel would crush Endicott, but the current voters hold too strongly to win pct.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:45:11 PM
Except...you need a bid for all of the conferences otherwise the foolishness of conference jumping wouldn't stop. So D1 needs a 16-team playoff.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:46:44 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
Maybe a BCS style system would work better.  Give a certain weight to the D3football.com poll, the SOS, and recent playoff success.  Endicott's feelings will not be hurt.

Of course you realize the BCS power ratings are completely neutered because they don't allow for margin of victory, even though the margin of victory calculations have laws of diminishing returns.

And again, what happened in 2010 doesn't matter in 2011. It's not the same group of athletes.

But if you're joking, I bit!
I wasn't advocating that the same inputs the BCS use be used in D3, just that D3 might use computers to come up with better pool c bids.  The d3football.com poll isn't used currently, but it has proved itself pretty accurate over the years.  We could maybe solve the endicott problem with more reasonable voters who should understand that 8-2 Wheaton or Bethel would crush Endicott, but the current voters hold too strongly to win pct.

But, then you quash the potential that an unheralded team could be an excellent team just by the company it keeps. I'm sure when Curry beat Ithaca - no one gave Curry a chance.

They already USE computers in calculating the SOS - which is almost mirroring the RPI.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:53:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:46:44 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:29:19 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 05:24:38 PM
Maybe a BCS style system would work better.  Give a certain weight to the D3football.com poll, the SOS, and recent playoff success.  Endicott's feelings will not be hurt.

Of course you realize the BCS power ratings are completely neutered because they don't allow for margin of victory, even though the margin of victory calculations have laws of diminishing returns.

And again, what happened in 2010 doesn't matter in 2011. It's not the same group of athletes.

But if you're joking, I bit!
I wasn't advocating that the same inputs the BCS use be used in D3, just that D3 might use computers to come up with better pool c bids.  The d3football.com poll isn't used currently, but it has proved itself pretty accurate over the years.  We could maybe solve the endicott problem with more reasonable voters who should understand that 8-2 Wheaton or Bethel would crush Endicott, but the current voters hold too strongly to win pct.

But, then you quash the potential that an unheralded team could be an excellent team just by the company it keeps. I'm sure when Curry beat Ithaca - no one gave Curry a chance.

They already USE computers in calculating the SOS - which is almost mirroring the RPI.
yes, they calculate SOS but it is not weighted by the voters as more important than win pct.  And an unheralded team needs to schedule up if they want to get in with a loss.  It's silly leaving top 25 teams at home in favor of Case or Endicott.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 05:57:42 PM
Top 25 is still subjective. Look at how many teams are ORV. There's no consensus Top 25. That's why Keith went to posting his Top 50.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 05:59:40 PM
I'm not sure, but I swear people are cutting and pasting posts from last year! And probably the year before, though I wasn't here to tell. Amazing how the exact same arguments flow each year. As Pat has pointed out, it doesn't matter.

1) Win your conference
2) Only lose 1 game
3) Pray for a miracle.

If you can't do one or two, doesn't it really make sense you are stuck with 3? I could see it if we were arguing about putting 6 out of 12 one loss teams in, but we aren't. Simple solution folks, don't lose 20% of your games and hope to get in a tournament that only accepts about 13% of eligible teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:01:59 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 05:59:40 PM
I'm not sure, but I swear people are cutting and pasting posts from last year! And probably the year before, though I wasn't here to tell. Amazing how the exact same arguments flow each year. As Pat has pointed out, it doesn't matter.

1) Win your conference
2) Only lose 1 game
3) Pray for a miracle.

If you can't do one or two, doesn't it really make sense you are stuck with 3? I could see it if we were arguing about putting 6 out of 12 one loss teams in, but we aren't. Simple solution folks, don't lose 20% of your games and hope to get in a tournament that only accepts about 13% of eligible teams.
1. Schedule poor opponents
2. Play in a poor conference
3. Ignore past playoff failures
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:05:23 PM
We've spent 10 pages debunking those thoughts. It's about opportunities, not elitism.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 13, 2011, 06:07:22 PM
Has anyone else gotten the NCAA thing yet?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:09:12 PM
Holy COw. SJF gets in. The committee pulled the trigger on an 8-2 team. Amazing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:11:01 PM
I think we need to erase about 30 pages of kvetching, mine included!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 06:11:16 PM
Amazing. Fisher is in, Endicott is out. Great choice by the NCAA Committee.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:11:51 PM
McM is also in as a Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:12:40 PM
Illinois College makes 3.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:14:00 PM
Centre makes 4.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:15:23 PM
I'm missing the teams out west.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
And no MUC in the East. Didn't see that coming either.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:16:03 PM
It's a pod thing, though. You look at this, St. Thomas is the #1 seed in where Del Val is.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 06:17:37 PM
Redlands is in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: gordonmann on November 13, 2011, 06:18:23 PM
There IS no East bracket. The teams are scattered across three brackets. And I like it!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:18:52 PM
From that show, I have very little idea of the overall picture. Have to wait for the brackets to come out. Nice presentation, but I could have done with a complete board at the end instead of each 4 team grouping.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
at UMHB
Redlands

at Trinity
McMurry

at Linfield
Cal LU

at Wesley
Hobart

I think that I got that right!

These brackets are national!!!!  Wow!!!


Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: WashedUp on November 13, 2011, 06:19:54 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:18:52 PM
From that show, I have very little idea of the overall picture. Have to wait for the brackets to come out. Nice presentation, but I could have done with a complete board at the end instead of each 4 team grouping.

There's a complete bracket up now.

http://d3football.com/playoffs/2011/bracket.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Schwami on November 13, 2011, 06:21:00 PM
So who are the #1 seeds / who hosts in later rounds?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:21:12 PM
So right now I guess:

1. SOS isn't that big of a factor. (No Endicott)
2. Regional record isn't that big of a factor. (No Case)
3. Gotta love it when a Hobart / Linfield game could happen in the second round! Never saw that in a gajillion years.
4. We'll have no freakin' clue what to predict next year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: gordonmann on November 13, 2011, 06:22:04 PM
Full bracket here (http://static.psbin.com/z/q/s4g8g0ido72tvw/bracket.pdf)

How about a Salisbury/Whitewater quarterfinal? Or Del Val/St. Thomas? Or Illinois Wesleyan/Johns Hopkins?

I like the variety.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 06:22:19 PM
I was watching that and going... "wait... what? ???" Did I see west coast and east coast teams put together? Did an 8-2 team who I hadn't seen anyone discussing get in? Are cats and dogs sleeping together?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: WashedUp on November 13, 2011, 06:22:27 PM
Quote from: Schwami on November 13, 2011, 06:21:00 PM
So who are the #1 seeds / who hosts in later rounds?

Looks like the #1 seeds are UST, UWW, MHB and Wabash, from the bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: gordonmann on November 13, 2011, 06:24:51 PM
Wow. So Mount Union is a No. 2 seed then.  I saw that and thought, "That can't be right."
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:25:31 PM
Illinois College, seriously? 

128th SOS, needed game-tying last second TD pass and OT to beat Millikin, who lost to Wheaton yesterday 49-29.   18th ranked Wheaton with 14th ranked SOS stays home.  The blueboys know they don't deserve it over Wheaton, especially since they're in the same state.  Change is needed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 06:26:44 PM
Pool C:  IWU, SJF, Redlands, McMurry, Illinois College, Centre
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 13, 2011, 06:27:29 PM
Surprised to see SCAC runner-up/Pool C Centre get to host a game, too. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:27:49 PM
Why is change needed? So Illinois College got in - Wheaton knew what it needed to do to leave it out of the hands of the NCAA.

Someone will always, ALWAYS complain that they're team 33 or 34. Always.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:28:28 PM
Quote from: WashedUp on November 13, 2011, 06:22:27 PM
Quote from: Schwami on November 13, 2011, 06:21:00 PM
So who are the #1 seeds / who hosts in later rounds?

Looks like the #1 seeds are UST, UWW, MHB and Wabash, from the bracket.

I don't think so. Wabash wouldn't have drawn North Central in round 2 if it was a 1 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on November 13, 2011, 06:24:51 PM
Wow. So Mount Union is a No. 2 seed then.  I saw that and thought, "That can't be right."

I would hesitate to attempt to name any seed numbers right now.  Mount Union would have to be a #1 based on the new rule.  I also hesitate to attempt to fold over the order of the brackets/pods we saw.  It would look like if you took the second and fourth pods released, THEY would geographically fold over correctly.  Until our show and until the NCAA releases a bracket, we can't say anything for sure.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 06:30:53 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 06:22:19 PM
I was watching that and going... "wait... what? ???" Did I see west coast and east coast teams put together? Did an 8-2 team who I hadn't seen anyone discussing get in? Are cats and dogs sleeping together?

We discussed St. John Fisher.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:32:15 PM
Had we KNOWN the NCAA was going to consider a two-loss team, SJF would have been there.

I'm interested to know how:

1. SJF jumped Endicott.
2. Case wasn't jumped by Wheaton.
3. What the teams on the board were when IC was picked. My guess: Endicott, Birmingham - Southern and Case.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 06:33:04 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on November 13, 2011, 06:18:23 PM
There IS no East bracket. The teams are scattered across three brackets. And I like it!

As do I. Only the first round took regional match-ups into strong consideration. After that, it is an open field.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:33:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:27:49 PM
Why is change needed? So Illinois College got in - Wheaton knew what it needed to do to leave it out of the hands of the NCAA.

Someone will always, ALWAYS complain that they're team 33 or 34. Always.
Illinois College knew what it needed to do to get in.  Avoid scheduling Wheaton with their only non-conference game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 06:34:09 PM
Direct specific questions for the Committee Chair for tonight's "In the HuddLLe" to the East Region Fan Poll Post Patterns -- Note the question by starting the post with ****

We go live at 7:30pm ET and expect the Director Solomen to join us in the second half of the 90-minute show.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 06:34:17 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:25:31 PM
Illinois College, seriously? 

128th SOS, needed game-tying last second TD pass and OT to beat Millikin, who lost to Wheaton yesterday 49-29.   18th ranked Wheaton with 14th ranked SOS stays home.  The blueboys know they don't deserve it over Wheaton, especially since they're in the same state.  Change is needed.
Personally I probably would have taken Wheaton ahead of SJF but I guess they do seem to be similar. As to Illinois College... I saw them as a coinflip getting in

Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 06:28:34 PM

I would hesitate to attempt to name any seed numbers right now.  Mount Union would have to be a #1 based on the new rule.  I also hesitate to attempt to fold over the order of the brackets/pods we saw.  It would look like if you took the second and fourth pods released, THEY would geographically fold over correctly.  Until our show and until the NCAA releases a bracket, we can't say anything for sure.
http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d3/2011 They have the bracket up but no seeds

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 06:30:53 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 06:22:19 PM
I was watching that and going... "wait... what? ???" Did I see west coast and east coast teams put together? Did an 8-2 team who I hadn't seen anyone discussing get in? Are cats and dogs sleeping together?

We discussed St. John Fisher.
I must not have been paying close enough attention then.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 06:34:09 PM
Direct specific questions for the Committee Chair for tonight's "In the HuddLLe" to the East Region Fan Poll Post Patterns -- Note the question by starting the post with ****

We go live at 7:30pm ET and expect the Director Solomen to join us in the second half of the 90-minute show.

The question I have is...if Wabash and Mount Union meet in round 3, where will the game be played? I wouldn't mind seeing Mount Union have to win a playoff game on the road in 2011.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:36:59 PM
AO -

Did IC 'avoid' Wheaton? Did they say, "no, we won't play them?" Do you have PROOF of that?

Do you realize Millikin and IC have played every year since 2006? And this was the back-half of a home-and-home? You think of that before jumping to conclusions? Do you think IC wanted to be that school to break a contract? Do you think IC thought that they were scheduling solely to get a "C" when playing Millikin?

Maybe Wheaton shouldn't have played Olivet?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 06:39:45 PM
This really seems to be a proximity bracket rather than a regional one, at least in the 1st round.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 06:43:13 PM
I'd also be curious to know who is seeded higher between Johns Hopkins and Del Valley, as that would be a very intriguing 2nd round game if JHU can get past Fisher.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:36:59 PM
AO -

Did IC 'avoid' Wheaton? Did they say, "no, we won't play them?" Do you have PROOF of that?

Do you realize Millikin and IC have played every year since 2006? And this was the back-half of a home-and-home? You think of that before jumping to conclusions? Do you think IC wanted to be that school to break a contract? Do you think IC thought that they were scheduling solely to get a "C" when playing Millikin?

Maybe Wheaton shouldn't have played Olivet?
Whether they did intentionally or not, the reward for scheduling teams you can beat is a playoff spot.  You also help your chances when you're in a poor conference who chooses to only schedule 1 non-conference game.  A better system would be able to better recognize the strength of a team regardless of the opponents they played, giving more credence to the d3 poll and recent playoff success.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:45:05 PM
AO -

More on IC. That's a team that was mediocre in their conference, and Millikin was a close-by rival team. It's an hour away on US 36. It's a very natural rival. Wheaton, not so much. Millikin played Illinois College in their FIRST EVER GAME! It was natural when they started playing them again.

Everyone thinks scheduling is SO easy and it's a nefarious plot to keep a "C" bid from an elite when a team comes out of the blue with one loss and makes the tourney, when that's very rarely the case. It's about making the best choices for your student athletes and your institution./
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2011, 06:45:56 PM
I noticed one 'ironic' touch - something tells me most fans in the SCIAC WISH they could complain about the expected geographical 'bean-counters screw-job' of Redlands and CalLu playing a first round rematch, rather than both flying out to UMHB and Linfield, respectively! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:36:59 PM
AO -

Did IC 'avoid' Wheaton? Did they say, "no, we won't play them?" Do you have PROOF of that?

Do you realize Millikin and IC have played every year since 2006? And this was the back-half of a home-and-home? You think of that before jumping to conclusions? Do you think IC wanted to be that school to break a contract? Do you think IC thought that they were scheduling solely to get a "C" when playing Millikin?

Maybe Wheaton shouldn't have played Olivet?
Whether they did intentionally or not, the reward for scheduling teams you can beat is a playoff spot.  You also help your chances when you're in a poor conference who chooses to only schedule 1 non-conference game.  A better system would be able to better recognize the strength of a team regardless of the opponents they played, giving more credence to the d3 poll and recent playoff success.

Recent playoff success shouldn't matter. It allows for no new blood and keeps power in the elite.

Again, the polls have so much noise and ORV, there is no consensus.

They don't choose to schedule one non-conference game. They CHOOSE to play a legitimate conference schedule with a round robin. They CHOOSE to have a conference that fits with all sports and all members, not just football.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Is it normal, can't remember year's past, for there not to be seeds listed at this point?  Who are the #1's, UWW, ST. Thomas, Linfield & Mount?

Mount is the only one not listed at the top of the brackets.....  If Wabash is #1, then is N. Central a #4?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:53:10 PM
It's a different format, but the NCAA never 'officially' seeds is what the mantra I remember from the past.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Schwami on November 13, 2011, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 06:34:17 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:25:31 PM
Illinois College, seriously? 

128th SOS, needed game-tying last second TD pass and OT to beat Millikin, who lost to Wheaton yesterday 49-29.   18th ranked Wheaton with 14th ranked SOS stays home.  The blueboys know they don't deserve it over Wheaton, especially since they're in the same state.  Change is needed.
Personally I probably would have taken Wheaton ahead of SJF but I guess they do seem to be similar. As to Illinois College... I saw them as a coinflip getting in


My hunch is that Wheaton was blocked by Case and never got to the table for consideration.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:56:05 PM
Quote from: Schwami on November 13, 2011, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 06:34:17 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 06:25:31 PM
Illinois College, seriously? 

128th SOS, needed game-tying last second TD pass and OT to beat Millikin, who lost to Wheaton yesterday 49-29.   18th ranked Wheaton with 14th ranked SOS stays home.  The blueboys know they don't deserve it over Wheaton, especially since they're in the same state.  Change is needed.
Personally I probably would have taken Wheaton ahead of SJF but I guess they do seem to be similar. As to Illinois College... I saw them as a coinflip getting in


My hunch is that Wheaton was blocked by Case and never got to the table for consideration.

Again, the inconsistency.

One region looks at everything as a whole and leaps SJF over Endicott.
Another region bumps one team but not a second over Case.
Still another says that second loss doesn't matter since it was to a D-1AA team.
Still another says that a 9-1 team with a resume worse than Endicott's keeps its spot.

Ah, well, makes it fun, doesn't it!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: gordonmann on November 13, 2011, 06:57:11 PM
We're not sure who the top seeds are. It's possible that the Mount Union and Del Val are the top seeds in the "lower" brackets (in terms of placement on the screen).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Is it normal, can't remember year's past, for there not to be seeds listed at this point?  Who are the #1's, UWW, ST. Thomas, Linfield & Mount?

It's normal not to have them on the initial announcement. I asked if they would provide them this year. There have been seeds available to us 11 of the previous 12 years.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:58:46 PM
Pretty sure we can officially kill all talk of "regions" at this point. I think the committee is making a statement here that they will build around the best teams. There truly is no more "North" "South" "East" or "West" come playoff time. I know this has been happening for years, but the way they drew up regional 4 team pods instead of 8 team groupings really drives that point home for me. No more complaining about one region not getting a regional 1. From this point forward you are really going to try and host your pod. After that, you need to be one of the 4 best in the country. I'm sure this will lead to a whole new series of debates in the future...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wesleydad on November 13, 2011, 07:01:04 PM
jk, i like it.  makes for some real interesting 2nd round match ups.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: AO on November 13, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 06:45:05 PM
AO -

More on IC. That's a team that was mediocre in their conference, and Millikin was a close-by rival team. It's an hour away on US 36. It's a very natural rival. Wheaton, not so much. Millikin played Illinois College in their FIRST EVER GAME! It was natural when they started playing them again.

Everyone thinks scheduling is SO easy and it's a nefarious plot to keep a "C" bid from an elite when a team comes out of the blue with one loss and makes the tourney, when that's very rarely the case. It's about making the best choices for your student athletes and your institution./
Like I said, a better system would be able to judge IC regardless of who they played.  You can play Millikin, but you also should compare that result with how Wheaton played Millikin.  Case and IC had no business being in front of Wheaton.  The best choice for your student athletes (or the decisions that give the best shot at a pool c) is currently to schedule the teams you can beat, rather than the teams that will make your team better.

My alma mater Northwestern is currently playing St. John's with their non-conference game.  If they had gone 9-1 and had played Hamline instead of St. John's they would have a better shot at the pool c bid.  The incentives are wrong.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:58:46 PM
Pretty sure we can officially kill all talk of "regions" at this point. I think the committee is making a statement here that they will build around the best teams. There truly is no more "North" "South" "East" or "West" come playoff time. I know this has been happening for years, but the way they drew up regional 4 team pods instead of 8 team groupings really drives that point home for me. No more complaining about one region not getting a regional 1. From this point forward you are really going to try and host your pod. After that, you need to be one of the 4 best in the country. I'm sure this will lead to a whole new series of debates in the future...

Debates such as...

Why not just "count" every D3 vs D3 game?  The more the bracket is national, the stranger it seems to me to exclude certain D3 vs D3 games.   
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 07:04:50 PM
Or again, they made schedules with no regard to "C". Playing a CCIW team makes IC better, be it Millikin, Carthage or Wheaton. I can't see it's any incentive.

There's a very limited amount of non-conference games. Not every team in the MWC can play Wheaton, North Central or IWU in non-conference. There are other games, other rivals, other considerations. This was the ONE year it worked out for a "C". And that's no big whoop-de. It happened. Deal with it and move on.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 07:05:55 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 13, 2011, 07:01:04 PM
jk, i like it.  makes for some real interesting 2nd round match ups.

I certainly don't have a problem with it. While everyone on here is going to argue about the 33 or 34th team, I find this new playoff arrangement a massively more interesting change. I'll wait until the real experts chime in, but this seems like a very radical departure from what we have seen in the past. Like I said, a real statement by the committee.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 07:06:26 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:58:46 PM
Pretty sure we can officially kill all talk of "regions" at this point. I think the committee is making a statement here that they will build around the best teams. There truly is no more "North" "South" "East" or "West" come playoff time. I know this has been happening for years, but the way they drew up regional 4 team pods instead of 8 team groupings really drives that point home for me. No more complaining about one region not getting a regional 1. From this point forward you are really going to try and host your pod. After that, you need to be one of the 4 best in the country. I'm sure this will lead to a whole new series of debates in the future...

Debates such as...

Why not just "count" every D3 vs D3 game?  The more the bracket is national, the stranger it seems to me to exclude certain D3 vs D3 games.

I would be in favor of this, because it's obvious football only gives lip service to regional records (well some committees only give lip service). But I don't think the NCAA will stop the regional emphasis in other sports, so football may just have a wink and a nod to do otherwise.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Like I said, a better system would be able to judge IC regardless of who they played.  You can play Millikin, but you also should compare that result with how Wheaton played Millikin. 

But that gets a little dicey, no? 

- Illinois Wesleyan beat Millikin by 3
- Illinois College beat Millikin by 4
- Wheaton beat Millikin by 20
- Illinois Wesleyan beat Wheaton by 5


Hard to make sense of all of that.  It's kind of hard to play that comparison game at times.

I'm not saying there is no value to it...but we all know that is not a perfect science.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on November 13, 2011, 07:16:23 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Like I said, a better system would be able to judge IC regardless of who they played.  You can play Millikin, but you also should compare that result with how Wheaton played Millikin. 

But that gets a little dicey, no? 

- Illinois Wesleyan beat Millikin by 3
- Illinois College beat Millikin by 4
- Wheaton beat Millikin by 20
- Illinois Wesleyan beat Wheaton by 5


Hard to make sense of all of that.  It's kind of hard to play that comparison game at times.

First I say... absolutely true.  It is extremely difficult to read too much into this mess.

The only thing I would say is the IC win over Millikin was very early in the year.  IWU's win over Wheaton was in week 4.  IWU's squeeker over Millikin was late in the year (Millikin had a 4th and 3 at IWU 21 with under 2 minutes remaining and chose to go for it instead of kicking a potential tying FG). Wheaton's easy win over Millikin was the last week.  Factor in IWU's close victory over Carthage, where Wheaton completely demolished Carthage a week or two earlier, one could infer Wheaton was playing better and finished the season off as a stronger team?

That said... doesn't matter.  Wheaton had 2 loses, IWU had only 1.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on November 13, 2011, 07:16:23 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Like I said, a better system would be able to judge IC regardless of who they played.  You can play Millikin, but you also should compare that result with how Wheaton played Millikin. 

But that gets a little dicey, no? 

- Illinois Wesleyan beat Millikin by 3
- Illinois College beat Millikin by 4
- Wheaton beat Millikin by 20
- Illinois Wesleyan beat Wheaton by 5


Hard to make sense of all of that.  It's kind of hard to play that comparison game at times.

First I say... absolutely true.  It is extremely difficult to read too much into this mess.

The only thing I would say is the IC win over Millikin was very early in the year.  IWU's win over Wheaton was in week 4.  IWU's squeeker over Millikin was late in the year (Millikin had a 4th and 3 at IWU 21 with under 2 minutes remaining and chose to go for it instead of kicking a potential tying FG). Wheaton's easy win over Millikin was the last week.  Factor in IWU's close victory over Carthage, where Wheaton completely demolished Carthage a week or two earlier, one could infer Wheaton was playing better and finished the season off as a stronger team?

That said... doesn't matter.  Wheaton had 2 loses, IWU had only 1.

Mugsy, I don't think the discussion is about Wheaton vs IWU.  There is a head-to-head result there.  I don't think there is much doubt Wheaton was playing better at the end of the year than IWU, but once IWU beat Wheaton, that pretty much settled the IWU/WC Pool C pecking order (unless Wheaton had knocked off NCC, of course).

This discussion (and my point about comparative scores getting dicey) is really just about Illinois College vs Wheaton.  I think it is pretty tough to evaluate IC and WC using just that common opponent (the Big Blue).

And of course the reality is that I doubt Illinois College and Wheaton were ever evaluated vs each other.  Seems like Case was probably the North team on the table at the end.  (And this is what is frustrating about the process - I think if at the table, Wheaton has a great chance to get in over Illinois College and/or SJF.)

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 07:29:12 PM
Well, it's moot because they're in different regions.

SJF jumped Endicott. IWU jumped Case but Wheaton did not. The choice was probably IC / Endicott / Case / Birmingham Southern for the final bid. Wheaton never got to the table, and if they did they probably would have been selected over IC, given the choice of SJF.

Of course that's just speculation.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 07:30:42 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:03:48 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 13, 2011, 06:58:46 PM
Pretty sure we can officially kill all talk of "regions" at this point. I think the committee is making a statement here that they will build around the best teams. There truly is no more "North" "South" "East" or "West" come playoff time. I know this has been happening for years, but the way they drew up regional 4 team pods instead of 8 team groupings really drives that point home for me. No more complaining about one region not getting a regional 1. From this point forward you are really going to try and host your pod. After that, you need to be one of the 4 best in the country. I'm sure this will lead to a whole new series of debates in the future...

Debates such as...

Why not just "count" every D3 vs D3 game?  The more the bracket is national, the stranger it seems to me to exclude certain D3 vs D3 games.

I think that in football they basically do, because there are so few games.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 07:31:11 PM
Case's exclusion screams this. But we knew this from previous years, too.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on November 13, 2011, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on November 13, 2011, 07:16:23 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 13, 2011, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 13, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Like I said, a better system would be able to judge IC regardless of who they played.  You can play Millikin, but you also should compare that result with how Wheaton played Millikin. 

But that gets a little dicey, no? 

- Illinois Wesleyan beat Millikin by 3
- Illinois College beat Millikin by 4
- Wheaton beat Millikin by 20
- Illinois Wesleyan beat Wheaton by 5


Hard to make sense of all of that.  It's kind of hard to play that comparison game at times.

First I say... absolutely true.  It is extremely difficult to read too much into this mess.

The only thing I would say is the IC win over Millikin was very early in the year.  IWU's win over Wheaton was in week 4.  IWU's squeeker over Millikin was late in the year (Millikin had a 4th and 3 at IWU 21 with under 2 minutes remaining and chose to go for it instead of kicking a potential tying FG). Wheaton's easy win over Millikin was the last week.  Factor in IWU's close victory over Carthage, where Wheaton completely demolished Carthage a week or two earlier, one could infer Wheaton was playing better and finished the season off as a stronger team?

That said... doesn't matter.  Wheaton had 2 loses, IWU had only 1.

Mugsy, I don't think the discussion is about Wheaton vs IWU.  There is a head-to-head result there.  I don't think there is much doubt Wheaton was playing better at the end of the year than IWU, but once IWU beat Wheaton, that pretty much settled the IWU/WC Pool C pecking order (unless Wheaton had knocked off NCC, of course).

This discussion (and my point about comparative scores getting dicey) is really just about Illinois College vs Wheaton.  I think it is pretty tough to evaluate IC and WC using just that common opponent (the Big Blue).

And of course the reality is that I doubt Illinois College and Wheaton were ever evaluated vs each other.  Seems like Case was probably the North team on the table at the end.  (And this is what is frustrating about the process - I think if at the table, Wheaton has a great chance to get in over Illinois College and/or SJF.)

Ah... gothca Q.  I see the subtle difference in context. When 3 kids under 7 are jumping all over me as I try to interpret the brackets, misinterpretation can occur.   :o 

As both you and I noted, the key issue for Wheaton was the loss to IWU earlier in the year.  That basically sealed the deal for Wheaton.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 08:51:07 PM
#1 Seeds as stated by Committee Chairman

1. UWW
2. Mount Union
3. MHB
4. Delaware Valley
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 08:55:35 PM
So the national committee doesn't tweak the regional rankings, yet they make it a national tournament with their pod system.

Hmmmm.... :o
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2011, 09:43:52 PM
Round #1  9 inter-region games

East Region hosting

CNU (S) at Kean

South Region hosting

Hobart (E) at Wesley
SJF (E) at JHU
Redlands (W) at UMHB

North Region hosting

Thomas More (S) at Franklin
Monmouth (W) at IWU
Dubuque (W) at North Central
Illinois College (W) at Wabash

West Region hosting

Albion (N) at UWW



Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wesleydad on November 13, 2011, 09:51:32 PM
i think this is great, the 2nd round games will be much tougher than usual and with so many different match ups from year past much more fun.  i look forward to hobart and then the potential match up with linfield and then maybe umhb or mcmurray.  will be fun.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 09:53:15 PM
Those North Region out of region games make a lot of sense for a regular non-conference game. Not a long drive and good competition.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 10:08:57 PM
Quote from: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 08:51:07 PM
#1 Seeds as stated by Committee Chairman

1. UWW
2. Mount Union
3. MHB
4. Delaware Valley

Here's the best guess I have as to seeds with Pool C in bold. The MHB bracket is still screwy but it's the best I could come up with at least until the two halves play in the quarterfinals

1 UW-Whitewater (10-0)                1 Mary Hardin-Baylor (10-0)
8 Albion (6-4)                        7 Redlands (8-1)
4 Franklin (9-1)                      3 Trinity, Texas (10-0)
5 Thomas More (9-1)                   5 McMurry (8-2)
3 Kean (9-1)                          2 Linfield (9-0)
6 Christopher Newport (8-2)           6 Cal Lutheran (8-1)
2 Salisbury (9-1)                     4 Wesley (9-1)
7 Western New England (10-1)          8 Hobart (7-1)

2 St. Thomas (10-0)                   2 Wabash (10-0)
7 St. Scholastica (10-0)              7 Illinois College (9-1)
3 Illinois Wesleyan (9-1)          3 North Central (9-1)
6 Monmouth (9-1)                      6 Dubuque (9-1)
4 Johns Hopkins (10-0)                4 Centre (8-1)
5 St. John Fisher (8-2)            5 Hampden-Sydney (8-2)
1 Delaware Valley (10-0)              1 Mount Union (10-0)
8 Norwich (7-3)                       8 Benedictine (7-3)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:11:18 PM
I could see CLU 5, Redlands 6, McMurry 7. But it all comes out in the wash. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 10:08:57 PM
Quote from: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 08:51:07 PM
#1 Seeds as stated by Committee Chairman

1. UWW
2. Mount Union
3. MHB
4. Delaware Valley

Here's the best guess I have as to seeds with Pool C in bold. The MHB bracket is still screwy but it's the best I could come up with at least until the two halves play in the quarterfinals

1 UW-Whitewater (10-0)                1 Mary Hardin-Baylor (10-0)
8 Albion (6-4)                        7 Redlands (8-1)
4 Franklin (9-1)                      3 Trinity, Texas (10-0)
5 Thomas More (9-1)                   5 McMurry (8-2)
3 Kean (9-1)                          2 Linfield (9-0)
6 Christopher Newport (8-2)           6 Cal Lutheran (8-1)
2 Salisbury (9-1)                     4 Wesley (9-1)
7 Western New England (10-1)          8 Hobart (7-1)

2 St. Thomas (10-0)                   2 Wabash (10-0)
7 St. Scholastica (10-0)              7 Illinois College (9-1)
3 Illinois Wesleyan (9-1)          3 North Central (9-1)
6 Monmouth (9-1)                      6 Dubuque (9-1)
4 Johns Hopkins (10-0)                4 Centre (8-1)
5 St. John Fisher (8-2)            5 Hampden-Sydney (8-2)
1 Delaware Valley (10-0)              1 Mount Union (10-0)
8 Norwich (7-3)                       8 Benedictine (7-3)


I don't think Hobart could be ranked lower than SJF based on the head-to-head victory by Hobart and better winning percentage.  Note the matchups (SJF vs. good undefeated; Hobart vs. good 1-loss).  I know you can't necessarily rank across mini-brackets like that, but I don't think it looks quite right at this point.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 13, 2011, 10:43:50 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 10:08:57 PM
Quote from: bashbrother on November 13, 2011, 08:51:07 PM
#1 Seeds as stated by Committee Chairman

1. UWW
2. Mount Union
3. MHB
4. Delaware Valley

Here's the best guess I have as to seeds with Pool C in bold. The MHB bracket is still screwy but it's the best I could come up with at least until the two halves play in the quarterfinals

1 UW-Whitewater (10-0)                1 Mary Hardin-Baylor (10-0)
8 Albion (6-4)                        7 Redlands (8-1)
4 Franklin (9-1)                      3 Trinity, Texas (10-0)
5 Thomas More (9-1)                   5 McMurry (8-2)
3 Kean (9-1)                          2 Linfield (9-0)
6 Christopher Newport (8-2)           6 Cal Lutheran (8-1)
2 Salisbury (9-1)                     4 Wesley (9-1)
7 Western New England (10-1)          8 Hobart (7-1)

2 St. Thomas (10-0)                   2 Wabash (10-0)
7 St. Scholastica (10-0)              7 Illinois College (9-1)
3 Illinois Wesleyan (9-1)          3 North Central (9-1)
6 Monmouth (9-1)                      6 Dubuque (9-1)
4 Johns Hopkins (10-0)                4 Centre (8-1)
5 St. John Fisher (8-2)            5 Hampden-Sydney (8-2)
1 Delaware Valley (10-0)              1 Mount Union (10-0)
8 Norwich (7-3)                       8 Benedictine (7-3)


I don't think Hobart could be ranked lower than SJF based on the head-to-head victory by Hobart and better winning percentage.  Note the matchups (SJF vs. good undefeated; Hobart vs. good 1-loss).  I know you can't necessarily rank across mini-brackets like that, but I don't think it looks quite right at this point.

Bart drew Wesley, I'm pretty sure they're seeded lower...

Tell Hobart to schedule some games...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
To be fair, they lost one game because of the flood. And most of the LL only schedule nine games, which is certainly not unusual and may be an institutional decision.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:48:49 PM
Wesley was #3 or 4 in the last regional rankings.  Thus, they aren't a 2-seed now.  Hopkins was a 2-seed in the same region.  And SJF lost to Hobart by 36.  And Hobart had a 7-1 record, not 8-2.  So, there's no evidence that backs that type of seeding.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
To be fair, they lost one game because of the flood. And most of the LL only schedule nine games, which is certainly not unusual and may be an institutional decision.

No, they lost a game because Widener backed out.  Ironically, Wesley was a team that offered to fill in the gap.  Hobart passed up the chance... only to see them now in the First Round...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
To be fair, they lost one game because of the flood. And most of the LL only schedule nine games, which is certainly not unusual and may be an institutional decision.

Hobart only had eight games scheduled. They played every game on their schedule.

To clarify, Widener backed out because their conference expanded.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wesleydad on November 13, 2011, 10:51:33 PM
believe the seeds in the umhb bracket are
umhb
wesley
linfield
trinity
mcmurray
cal luth
hobart
redlands
or at least that is what it looks like based on the front page info and position in the bracket with the outside in method.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
To be fair, they lost one game because of the flood. And most of the LL only schedule nine games, which is certainly not unusual and may be an institutional decision.

Hobart only had eight games scheduled. They played every game on their schedule.

To clarify, Widener backed out because their conference expanded.

My bad, I thought they lost a game because of weather.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
To be fair, they lost one game because of the flood. And most of the LL only schedule nine games, which is certainly not unusual and may be an institutional decision.

Hobart only had eight games scheduled. They played every game on their schedule.

To clarify, Widener backed out because their conference expanded.

To clarify further, Widener backed out of the two-year agreement in Year 1 of it.  The conference expansion technically doesn't affect them until 2012 with the mandated PAC/MAC and NJAC/MAC challenges.  They just didn't want a situation without reciprocity as an option and backed out, if my information is correct here.  They ended up played Thiel that week in accordance with the PAC/MAC challenge.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 13, 2011, 10:57:40 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:41:11 PM
I don't think Hobart could be ranked lower than SJF based on the head-to-head victory by Hobart and better winning percentage.  Note the matchups (SJF vs. good undefeated; Hobart vs. good 1-loss).  I know you can't necessarily rank across mini-brackets like that, but I don't think it looks quite right at this point.
I didn't even try to compare seeds in one bracket to seeds in another. I'll be honest, I probably didn't look quite as close as I should at the other three regions (SJF could be between 5 and 7 but they're certainly ahead of 8 seed Norwich) but to me it looked like Hobart was the lowest seeded team in their bracket. I feel good at least about the order of the 4 teams in each mini-bracket so that would take care of things through the first two rounds.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 11:19:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
To be fair, they lost one game because of the flood. And most of the LL only schedule nine games, which is certainly not unusual and may be an institutional decision.

Hobart only had eight games scheduled. They played every game on their schedule.

To clarify, Widener backed out because their conference expanded.

To clarify further, Widener backed out of the two-year agreement in Year 1 of it.  The conference expansion technically doesn't affect them until 2012 with the mandated PAC/MAC and NJAC/MAC challenges.  They just didn't want a situation without reciprocity as an option and backed out, if my information is correct here.  They ended up played Thiel that week in accordance with the PAC/MAC challenge.

Stevenson created football this season. The PAC and NJAC challenges don't overlap, one replaces the other.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 11:22:52 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 11:19:05 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 10:46:23 PM
To be fair, they lost one game because of the flood. And most of the LL only schedule nine games, which is certainly not unusual and may be an institutional decision.

Hobart only had eight games scheduled. They played every game on their schedule.

To clarify, Widener backed out because their conference expanded.

To clarify further, Widener backed out of the two-year agreement in Year 1 of it.  The conference expansion technically doesn't affect them until 2012 with the mandated PAC/MAC and NJAC/MAC challenges.  They just didn't want a situation without reciprocity as an option and backed out, if my information is correct here.  They ended up played Thiel that week in accordance with the PAC/MAC challenge.

Stevenson created football this season. The PAC and NJAC challenges don't overlap, one replaces the other.

That's been known for a couple years, though.  So why would it have suddenly affected the game earlier this year?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2011, 11:27:15 PM
Not to re-relive this irrelevant argument here but it apparently wasn't sudden or late.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 07:23:28 AM
It's because our AD is the most incompetent person alive (2000, not filing for a second round home game because they didn't think they'd make it, having to move a BB coach for messing around with a student, this clerical error that put us on probation last year, the DIII-DI fiasco and improperly firing two lacrosse coaches, etc).  It really stinks for the kids that Hanna's fired many people, but is somehow immune despite his inept behavior.  Widener was on the schedule until June or July and then they backed out.  There were some opportunities (at least a one off with Widener) and I haven't heard a real answer why that/those weren't accepted, but for a decade, kids have been suffering because we have someone who proved the Peter principal incorrect by making it above where he should have stopped with his pay grade. 

I'm just glad to see a new team in a different region against a top team and the chance to fly across the country in round two.  I may even drive to Dover from Atlanta after work on Friday.  It's crazy, but the cheapest flight on short notice to DC or Baltimore is over $500 that I was seeing and I have a fairly fuel efficient car.   But it is funny to see Fisher folks come out of the woodworks now.  I'll love their revisionist history if they can pull off a win in a matchup that almost everyone would think is an easier one against the CC champ.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 14, 2011, 07:52:34 AM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 07:23:28 AM
It's because our AD is the most incompetent person alive (2000, not filing for a second round home game because they didn't think they'd make it, having to move a BB coach for messing around with a student, this clerical error that put us on probation last year, the DIII-DI fiasco and improperly firing two lacrosse coaches, etc).  It really stinks for the kids that Hanna's fired many people, but is somehow immune despite his inept behavior.  Widener was on the schedule until June or July and then they backed out.  There were some opportunities (at least a one off with Widener) and I haven't heard a real answer why that/those weren't accepted, but for a decade, kids have been suffering because we have someone who proved the Peter principal incorrect by making it above where he should have stopped with his pay grade. 

I'm just glad to see a new team in a different region against a top team and the chance to fly across the country in round two.  I may even drive to Dover from Atlanta after work on Friday.  It's crazy, but the cheapest flight on short notice to DC or Baltimore is over $500 that I was seeing and I have a fairly fuel efficient car.   But it is funny to see Fisher folks come out of the woodworks now.  I'll love their revisionist history if they can pull off a win in a matchup that almost everyone would think is an easier one against the CC champ.

Have fun playing a team you ducked in the regular season...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
I will and am glad we earned our way in by winning our conference as well. 

By the way, what is it about St John Fisher posters that they disappear upset and come back under different names? 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 14, 2011, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
I will and am glad we earned our way in by winning our conference as well. 

By the way, what is it about St John Fisher posters that they disappear upset and come back under different names?

You won your conference and are still seeded lower than SJF.

How did that work out for you?

The funny part is that you don't have 21 days to prepare for Wesley, have fun losing by 40.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 09:41:29 AM
At any rate, both are in the playoffs and this trite yammerin' can stop with victories.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 14, 2011, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 09:41:29 AM
At any rate, both are in the playoffs and this trite yammerin' can stop with victories.  ;)

Why wait for victories? Why not now?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2011, 03:06:56 PM
The Big Ten (for obvious reasons) has dropped 'Paterno' from their championship trophy name; it will now just be the "Stagg Championship Trophy".

Can d3 sue for copyright infringement?! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2011, 03:32:55 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2011, 03:06:56 PM
The Big Ten (for obvious reasons) has dropped 'Paterno' from their championship trophy name; it will now just be the "Stagg Championship Trophy".

Can d3 sue for copyright infringement?! ;D
I was thinking what right does the Big Ten have to use Stagg.

Stagg's school had philosophical differences with the role of football in the academic institution, anyway!

Hayes-Schembechler-Fry-Corso might be more appropriate.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2011, 03:46:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2011, 03:32:55 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2011, 03:06:56 PM
The Big Ten (for obvious reasons) has dropped 'Paterno' from their championship trophy name; it will now just be the "Stagg Championship Trophy".

Can d3 sue for copyright infringement?! ;D
I was thinking what right does the Big Ten have to use Stagg.

Stagg's school had philosophical differences with the role of football in the academic institution, anyway!

Hayes-Schembechler-Fry-Corso might be more appropriate.  ;)

When Amos Alonzo Stagg coached U of Chicago, they were members of the Big Ten (then the Western Conference), so Stagg Championship Trophy DOES make sense.  Though personally I would have preferred The Bo-Woody Cup (last names totally unnecessary)! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
I will and am glad we earned our way in by winning our conference as well. 

By the way, what is it about St John Fisher posters that they disappear upset and come back under different names?

You won your conference and are still seeded lower than SJF.

How did that work out for you?

The funny part is that you don't have 21 days to prepare for Wesley, have fun losing by 40.

For the eighth time, there is no evidence that this is true.  Heading into the weekend, Hopkins was higher ranked in the South than Wesley.  There was not much that should have changed this fact from this past weekend.  St. John Fisher actually got bracketed against a tougher team, according to the regional subcommittee's rankings.  Thus, regardless of numerical seeds, Fisher got a tougher overall draw from everything we have seen.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 14, 2011, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
I will and am glad we earned our way in by winning our conference as well. 

By the way, what is it about St John Fisher posters that they disappear upset and come back under different names?

You won your conference and are still seeded lower than SJF.

How did that work out for you?

The funny part is that you don't have 21 days to prepare for Wesley, have fun losing by 40.

For the eighth time, there is no evidence that this is true.  Heading into the weekend, Hopkins was higher ranked in the South than Wesley.  There was not much that should have changed this fact from this past weekend.  St. John Fisher actually got bracketed against a tougher team, according to the regional subcommittee's rankings.  Thus, regardless of numerical seeds, Fisher got a tougher overall draw from everything we have seen.

Did you listen to the podcast this week?

They discussed the topic and Pat & Keith seem to think along the same way as my post.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2011, 06:24:12 PM
We do think the same way as you, Time. But our rankings disagree with the NCAA's, too. It's pretty good in terms of irony regardless.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 06:28:27 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
I will and am glad we earned our way in by winning our conference as well. 

By the way, what is it about St John Fisher posters that they disappear upset and come back under different names?

You won your conference and are still seeded lower than SJF.

How did that work out for you?

The funny part is that you don't have 21 days to prepare for Wesley, have fun losing by 40.

For the eighth time, there is no evidence that this is true.  Heading into the weekend, Hopkins was higher ranked in the South than Wesley.  There was not much that should have changed this fact from this past weekend.  St. John Fisher actually got bracketed against a tougher team, according to the regional subcommittee's rankings.  Thus, regardless of numerical seeds, Fisher got a tougher overall draw from everything we have seen.

Did you listen to the podcast this week?

They discussed the topic and Pat & Keith seem to think along the same way as my post.

Yes, and as I've been discussing with Pat, we just aren't sure.  We agree that the brackets may not represent orderings that might be conventional (i.e., where you usually place a #2 seed).  The other thing that doesn't jive is Linfield's presence in that bracket.  Wouldn't Linfield be the #2?  I think Hobart was a 5/6 (depending on Cal Lute's position -- which can't be ascertained since the travel scenario dictated this matchup, not the actual seeding).  I think JHU was a 2/3 and SJF was a 6/7.  So, at best, they were identical seeds -- but I'm leaning toward Hobart being one spot ahead of SJF in the seedings.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 14, 2011, 06:39:38 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 06:28:27 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
I will and am glad we earned our way in by winning our conference as well. 

By the way, what is it about St John Fisher posters that they disappear upset and come back under different names?

You won your conference and are still seeded lower than SJF.

How did that work out for you?

The funny part is that you don't have 21 days to prepare for Wesley, have fun losing by 40.

For the eighth time, there is no evidence that this is true.  Heading into the weekend, Hopkins was higher ranked in the South than Wesley.  There was not much that should have changed this fact from this past weekend.  St. John Fisher actually got bracketed against a tougher team, according to the regional subcommittee's rankings.  Thus, regardless of numerical seeds, Fisher got a tougher overall draw from everything we have seen.

Did you listen to the podcast this week?

They discussed the topic and Pat & Keith seem to think along the same way as my post.

Yes, and as I've been discussing with Pat, we just aren't sure.  We agree that the brackets may not represent orderings that might be conventional (i.e., where you usually place a #2 seed).  The other thing that doesn't jive is Linfield's presence in that bracket.  Wouldn't Linfield be the #2?  I think Hobart was a 5/6 (depending on Cal Lute's position -- which can't be ascertained since the travel scenario dictated this matchup, not the actual seeding).  I think JHU was a 2/3 and SJF was a 6/7.  So, at best, they were identical seeds -- but I'm leaning toward Hobart being one spot ahead of SJF in the seedings.

Or we can just call a spade, a spade and say Hobart was punished for ducking teams and not playing a full schedule...

But that wouldn't look too good for the LL now would it???
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 06:41:14 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 06:39:38 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 06:28:27 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: Timeforachange on November 14, 2011, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
I will and am glad we earned our way in by winning our conference as well. 

By the way, what is it about St John Fisher posters that they disappear upset and come back under different names?

You won your conference and are still seeded lower than SJF.

How did that work out for you?

The funny part is that you don't have 21 days to prepare for Wesley, have fun losing by 40.

For the eighth time, there is no evidence that this is true.  Heading into the weekend, Hopkins was higher ranked in the South than Wesley.  There was not much that should have changed this fact from this past weekend.  St. John Fisher actually got bracketed against a tougher team, according to the regional subcommittee's rankings.  Thus, regardless of numerical seeds, Fisher got a tougher overall draw from everything we have seen.

Did you listen to the podcast this week?

They discussed the topic and Pat & Keith seem to think along the same way as my post.

Yes, and as I've been discussing with Pat, we just aren't sure.  We agree that the brackets may not represent orderings that might be conventional (i.e., where you usually place a #2 seed).  The other thing that doesn't jive is Linfield's presence in that bracket.  Wouldn't Linfield be the #2?  I think Hobart was a 5/6 (depending on Cal Lute's position -- which can't be ascertained since the travel scenario dictated this matchup, not the actual seeding).  I think JHU was a 2/3 and SJF was a 6/7.  So, at best, they were identical seeds -- but I'm leaning toward Hobart being one spot ahead of SJF in the seedings.

Or we can just call a spade, a spade and say Hobart was punished for ducking teams and not playing a full schedule...

But that wouldn't look too good for the LL now would it???

The question of Hobart's schedule was addressed in the interview last night.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 06:58:08 PM
And unless you have concrete proof of 'ducking' then it's not fair, right or just to accuse a team of it. Scheduling is hard at best and difficult at worst. I'm really disappointed with intelligent fans accusing other teams of ducking teams without regard to travel costs, conference schedules, other schedules and rivalries.

To me it's antagonistic (or sour grapes) and doesn't move forward a relevant discussion of Pool C, of which there are several things to discuss.

To wit:

Illinois College's schedule may not have been the best. They did schedule a natural CCIW opponent, but their conference is weak. I don't think Wheaton would be a natural opponent for them in any year, and when they scheduled Millikin they probably thought they needed that game to prep for Monmouth which realistically would have been the only way to make the playoffs. And Millikin is just down Route 36 from them.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 14, 2011, 07:22:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 06:58:08 PM
And unless you have concrete proof of 'ducking' then it's not fair, right or just to accuse a team of it. Scheduling is hard at best and difficult at worst. I'm really disappointed with intelligent fans accusing other teams of ducking teams without regard to travel costs, conference schedules, other schedules and rivalries.

To me it's antagonistic (or sour grapes) and doesn't move forward a relevant discussion of Pool C, of which there are several things to discuss.

To wit:

Illinois College's schedule may not have been the best. They did schedule a natural CCIW opponent, but their conference is weak. I don't think Wheaton would be a natural opponent for them in any year, and when they scheduled Millikin they probably thought they needed that game to prep for Monmouth which realistically would have been the only way to make the playoffs. And Millikin is just down Route 36 from them.

So are you calling Pat a liar or a rumor monger?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 07:32:40 PM
No.

I am saying they may not have 'ducked' a team. It's their institutional prerogative to just schedule nine games. From what I read, it was Widener that bailed. And having eight games was always a challenge.

But in general, there have been quite a few pejoratives about the schedules of some teams, when it may or may not be in their total control.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 14, 2011, 07:41:00 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 07:32:40 PM
No.

I am saying they may not have 'ducked' a team. It's their institutional prerogative to just schedule nine games. From what I read, it was Widener that bailed. And having eight games was always a challenge.

But in general, there have been quite a few pejoratives about the schedules of some teams, when it may or may not be in their total control.

Smed, I admire your persistance in trying to have a reasoned discussion, but the way I see it this subject is Upstate's horse and he's going to ride it until it's dead. Then he's going to beat it for a while.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 14, 2011, 07:53:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 07:32:40 PM
No.

I am saying they may not have 'ducked' a team. It's their institutional prerogative to just schedule nine games. From what I read, it was Widener that bailed. And having eight games was always a challenge.

But in general, there have been quite a few pejoratives about the schedules of some teams, when it may or may not be in their total control.

Lets see here...

Pat says there's quite a bit of irony in the Bart/Wesley game because Bart had a chance to play Wesley & Bart declined and decided to stay w/ 8 games...

Doesn't get any more cut and dry than that...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2011, 09:07:53 PM
 I will say it again. Hobart did not want to play Wesley!!! I have no idea what Hobart has said about it and frankly I don't care. I  know my information on the subject to be true. One department head said yes and someone else said no!! Upstate and I have gone over this before . The E 8 teams have also avoided Wesley with open dates. As have many other programs. I wouldn't be surprised if Frostburg St. doesn't try top drop them 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 09:09:58 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2011, 09:07:53 PM
I will say it again. Hobart did not want to play Wesley!!! I have no idea what Hobart has said about it and frankly I don't care. I  know my information on the subject to be true. One department head said yes and someone else said no!! Upstate and I have gone over this before . The E 8 teams have also avoided Wesley with open dates. As have many other programs. I wouldn't be surprised if Frostburg St. doesn't try top drop them

We discussed it briefly with the Hobart AD and Head Coach on "In the HuddLLe" last night.  You guys are helping me realize how relevant our show really was this week!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2011, 09:15:28 PM
frank
do you have link to it
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2011, 09:17:14 PM
Smed -- Widener/Wesley wasn't the game at issue, it's the Hobart/Wesley non-game. I think most people understand, including coaches, that change in conference requirements take precedence. It's choosing to play nobody, rather than Wesley ... that says something.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Frank Rossi on November 14, 2011, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2011, 09:15:28 PM
frank
do you have link to it

http://InTheHuddLLe.com -- choose the 11/13/11 show.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 14, 2011, 09:23:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 14, 2011, 09:17:14 PM
Smed -- Widener/Wesley wasn't the game at issue, it's the Hobart/Wesley non-game. I think most people understand, including coaches, that change in conference requirements take precedence. It's choosing to play nobody, rather than Wesley ... that says something.

Ah, Ok.

That's one thing, I guess. But it all stemmed from others claiming "ducking" of games when they had a full schedule already.

Just thought it was part and parcel of the same discussion.

Carry on!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Upstate on November 14, 2011, 10:05:58 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2011, 09:07:53 PM
I will say it again. Hobart did not want to play Wesley!!! I have no idea what Hobart has said about it and frankly I don't care. I  know my information on the subject to be true. One department head said yes and someone else said no!! Upstate and I have gone over this before . The E 8 teams have also avoided Wesley with open dates. As have many other programs. I wouldn't be surprised if Frostburg St. doesn't try top drop them

The only time Fisher has had a chance to play Wesley was when they already had Salisbury AND Mount Union on the schedule so let's not act like they weren't afraid of them...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 14, 2011, 10:11:40 PM
  Upstate

   Wasn't bringing up old wars. Just using as an example of scheduling difficulties
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:29:04 PM
But, that's no reason to arbitrarily exclude conference champs, even if there's not much of a chance they can win the whole thing.

Not only that (from 15 pages ago btw, I clicked on new posts and this is what I got), but how do you determine which conferences can win the whole thing?

There was a time Ithaca was the dominant program nationally, then the needle moved to Rowan and Mount Union, then UW-W joined the fray.

The 1994 champ was from the MIAA. Ten years later (and since) that was one of D-IIIs weakest conferences.

There was a time the SCIAC was thought to be so weak it didn't have a team in the playoffs from 1994 until it earned an AQ. Then Oxy went on the road and beat a MIAC champ the year after St. John's won it all from the MIAC. Now we've seen the SCIAC compete with beat North Central, Linfield and other championship-caliber programs.

There have been years when the SCAC and ODAC have sent teams to the Stagg Bowl, and other years when their champs have been drubbed in the first round.

The old 16-team system relied solely on the impressions of the regional advisory committees and shut the door on teams from a fairly decent conferences. The best example is Emory & Henry going 10-0 in 1998 but being behind Catholic, Western Maryland, Lycoming and Trinity -- the South Region powers of that era -- and not getting in. Three years later the ODAC champ was in the Stagg Bowl.

The great thing about this system is that it allows teams to define the strength of conferences through their play, not through opinions. We all think we know which teams/conferences will win in the postseason and which won't -- but isn't it better to know?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 01:53:24 AM
Quote from: DanPadavona on November 13, 2011, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 13, 2011, 06:34:09 PM
Direct specific questions for the Committee Chair for tonight's "In the HuddLLe" to the East Region Fan Poll Post Patterns -- Note the question by starting the post with ****

We go live at 7:30pm ET and expect the Director Solomen to join us in the second half of the 90-minute show.

The question I have is...if Wabash and Mount Union meet in round 3, where will the game be played? I wouldn't mind seeing Mount Union have to win a playoff game on the road in 2011.

A couple years ago -- or was it last year -- they would have had to go to St. Thomas, but Bethel beat them.

UW-W has been on the road a few times, but UMU, like, never. Someone has to go to Alliance and beat them IMO.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HSC85 on November 15, 2011, 06:27:09 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2011, 12:29:04 PM
But, that's no reason to arbitrarily exclude conference champs, even if there's not much of a chance they can win the whole thing.

Not only that (from 15 pages ago btw, I clicked on new posts and this is what I got), but how do you determine which conferences can win the whole thing?

There was a time Ithaca was the dominant program nationally, then the needle moved to Rowan and Mount Union, then UW-W joined the fray.

The 1994 champ was from the MIAA. Ten years later (and since) that was one of D-IIIs weakest conferences.

There was a time the SCIAC was thought to be so weak it didn't have a team in the playoffs from 1994 until it earned an AQ. Then Oxy went on the road and beat a MIAC champ the year after St. John's won it all from the MIAC. Now we've seen the SCIAC compete with beat North Central, Linfield and other championship-caliber programs.

There have been years when the SCAC and ODAC have sent teams to the Stagg Bowl, and other years when their champs have been drubbed in the first round.

The old 16-team system relied solely on the impressions of the regional advisory committees and shut the door on teams from a fairly decent conferences. The best example is Emory & Henry going 10-0 in 1998 but being behind Catholic, Western Maryland, Lycoming and Trinity -- the South Region powers of that era -- and not getting in. Three years later the ODAC champ was in the Stagg Bowl.

The great thing about this system is that it allows teams to define the strength of conferences through their play, not through opinions. We all think we know which teams/conferences will win in the postseason and which won't -- but isn't it better to know?

Very well said.  This sums up D3 athletics and really points out why it is different from the BCS.  The Division I basketball tournament even stuggles with this.  VCU is a case in point.  Many people went ballistic when they were invited into the tournament and they go to the final four. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2011, 07:36:42 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 01:53:24 AM

A couple years ago -- or was it last year -- they would have had to go to St. Thomas, but Bethel beat them.

UW-W has been on the road a few times, but UMU, like, never. Someone has to go to Alliance and beat them IMO.

Who was the last team to do that?  Was it UMHB something like 7-8 years ago?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 15, 2011, 08:00:53 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 12:20:27 AM
Not only that (from 15 pages ago btw, I clicked on new posts and this is what I got), but how do you determine which conferences can win the whole thing?

There was a time Ithaca was the dominant program nationally, then the needle moved to Rowan and Mount Union, then UW-W joined the fray.

The 1994 champ was from the MIAA. Ten years later (and since) that was one of D-IIIs weakest conferences.

There was a time the SCIAC was thought to be so weak it didn't have a team in the playoffs from 1994 until it earned an AQ. Then Oxy went on the road and beat a MIAC champ the year after St. John's won it all from the MIAC. Now we've seen the SCIAC compete with beat North Central, Linfield and other championship-caliber programs.

There have been years when the SCAC and ODAC have sent teams to the Stagg Bowl, and other years when their champs have been drubbed in the first round.

The old 16-team system relied solely on the impressions of the regional advisory committees and shut the door on teams from a fairly decent conferences. The best example is Emory & Henry going 10-0 in 1998 but being behind Catholic, Western Maryland, Lycoming and Trinity -- the South Region powers of that era -- and not getting in. Three years later the ODAC champ was in the Stagg Bowl.

The great thing about this system is that it allows teams to define the strength of conferences through their play, not through opinions. We all think we know which teams/conferences will win in the postseason and which won't -- but isn't it better to know?

+1

This is why I've been angrily shaking my fist at some folks from the East Region that want to kick the NEFC and ECFC champs out of Pool A, or that are suggesting that conferences should have to win a certain number of games within a five-year window to keep their AQ.

Couldn't have said it any better, Keith.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: skunks_sidekick on November 15, 2011, 08:34:58 AM
There have been three times in the last six years that Mount would have had to play a semi-final (or maybe even a regional final) game away from Alliance, but none of those teams ended up "holding serve", and Mount played a lower seed at home.  I believe the teams were Wabash (Capital beat them), Del Val (Rowan beat them), and then St. Thomas (Bethel beat them) last year. 

On another note, and this is coming late in the discussion, my only problem with Fisher getting into the play-offs is not that they were a two loss team, but more how bad they lost those two games.  I know it doesn't work this way (and probably shouldn't), but once the committee got down to a two loss team, let's compare the two loss teams out there, and not only look at who they beat, but look at how they lost.  Of course, that just enforces my argument that B-W deserved to be in as much if not more than Fisher.  I realize that the regional rankings don't support that premise, but I am just sayin'. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 15, 2011, 09:03:30 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 15, 2011, 08:34:58 AM
On another note, and this is coming late in the discussion, my only problem with Fisher getting into the play-offs is not that they were a two loss team, but more how bad they lost those two games.  I know it doesn't work this way (and probably shouldn't), but once the committee got down to a two loss team, let's compare the two loss teams out there, and not only look at who they beat, but look at how they lost.  Of course, that just enforces my argument that B-W deserved to be in as much if not more than Fisher.  I realize that the regional rankings don't support that premise, but I am just sayin'.

I admit, this was a thought of mine as well.  It seemed to me that there were better two-loss teams available (Baldwin-Wallace, Montclair State, perhaps Cortland State).

I'm sure there was a reason for it; but I'm also "just sayin."

If UW-Oshkosh had managed to win out after the UWW game and finished 8-2 (with losses to UMU and UWW) and THEY had been left out in favor of SJF, then I would be a LOT angrier about this.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 15, 2011, 09:37:44 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 15, 2011, 09:03:30 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 15, 2011, 08:34:58 AM
On another note, and this is coming late in the discussion, my only problem with Fisher getting into the play-offs is not that they were a two loss team, but more how bad they lost those two games.  I know it doesn't work this way (and probably shouldn't), but once the committee got down to a two loss team, let's compare the two loss teams out there, and not only look at who they beat, but look at how they lost.  Of course, that just enforces my argument that B-W deserved to be in as much if not more than Fisher.  I realize that the regional rankings don't support that premise, but I am just sayin'.

I admit, this was a thought of mine as well.  It seemed to me that there were better two-loss teams available (Baldwin-Wallace, Montclair State, perhaps Cortland State).

I'm sure there was a reason for it; but I'm also "just sayin."

If UW-Oshkosh had managed to win out after the UWW game and finished 8-2 (with losses to UMU and UWW) and THEY had been left out in favor of SJF, then I would be a LOT angrier about this.

Remember how it works people. The regional committee has to nominate a team. It's not which 8-2 team is best, it's which 8-2 team was nominated and against what other teams. The committee probably did not compare SJF to B-W, as B-W probably never made the table. The East Region took a risk by nominating an 8-2 team over a 9-1 team at some point in the process. Given the history of 8-2 teams, that means either they had a very good idea the national committee was breaking tradition, or they took a huge risk of blocking a team with what could only be considered a historically better chance of making the field.

If the other regions didn't show the same gumption, or didn't feel that it was worth a try, that is their fault for not nominating the team. Stop trying to compare if SJF deserved to get in over B-W, it's not the issue unless they were on the table at the same time. I'm thinking it was more likely SJF up against CWRU, so its not the national committee's fault that it wasn't an option to include B-W. And, to be honest, if that is what happened, the East Region had a very good strategy given the common opponent result.

Now you could argue about Montclair or Cortland, since its the same region, but the regional rankings already showed what was going to happen there and they didn't have a common opponent advantage over another team on the board. Add SJF's SOS to the common opponent, and it was conceivable that SJF would go ahead of CWRU. Given the West and South already had 2 C bids, it is reasonable to believe the committee would look elsewhere for another team. Put it all together, and you have to respect the strategy used by the East Region Committee to get that 8-2 team into the field. Very, very astute.

Think of the regional committee's as a challenge to get the most of your region's teams into the field. The East Region played a very good game to get SJF in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:39:14 AM
Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.

Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:46:59 AM
Just for grins I looked up the Massey Ratings:

1-loss teams:

Illinois College - Power 71, Schedule 153
Case - Power 75, Schedule 177
Endicott - Power 66, Schedule 186

Peas in a pod. Good teams playing lesser schedules.

2-loss contenders:

SJF - Power 21, Schedule 39
Wheaton - Power 17, Schedule 38
BSC - Power 51, Schedule 93
B-W - Power 62, Schedule 115
Heidelberg (!) - Power 56, Schedule 111
St. Olaf - Power 54, Schedule 92

It definitely looks like Wheaton was the one deserving team left out. According to Massey the other two loss teams weren't that far away from the one-loss teams.

But again, Case blocking Wheaton is ultimately a better problem to have than a potential issue of a 10-0 team not getting to the table.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 15, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
on the STJF v Case, the podcast mentioned the common opponent (Rochester) whom STJf beat handily and represented CWRU only loss. Big factor there. Wheaton would have matched up well v STJF if they had made it to the table (1-2 v RRO vs 0-2).

I'd like to see the Pool C's get compared by the national committee (those on the RR) regardless of positioning. This simple change would modify the current structure. The current structure keeps 2 loss teams behind 1 loss teams that potentially aren't as good. The procedure may take time but would be a good modification.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 10:54:45 AM
Maybe, but someone is always going to complain that they're team 33.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 15, 2011, 11:04:53 AM
In the first 10 conferences listed on the D3 page, I count 9 2 loss teams. There are 26 eligible conferences plus the "B" teams, so you are talking about 25 teams in any given year. Too many to compare. Still better off leaving things up to the Regional Committees to put their best teams forward until they come off the board. I will say with the inclusion of SJF, the other regional committees may be more willing to put a strong 2 loss on the board than a weak 1. But if you look at this year, only the North had that problem. There wasn't a 2 loss south team better than Centre (the presumed 2nd candidate) and the same out West.

If you are looking for a reason why a North 2 loss team sat behind a weak 1 loss Case and never made the board... it's because the North Committee probably believed the national committee would follow history and pick 1 loss teams over 2 loss teams. A very good assumption that this year was proven wrong. Next year they might put a 2 loss team up. Although I'm wondering if it was the National Committee making a statement, or the common opponent and SOS of SJF that was so unbelievably in favor of SJF that they felt limited in their choices.

I could easily justify SJF as a one off based on specific circumstances and next year we will be back to seeing a 1 loss preference. If that's the case, as I've said repeatedly, kudos to the East Region Committee for spotting the discrepancy and playing an outstanding hand.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 15, 2011, 11:10:26 AM
I am not complaining just making an observation. Of course #33 will complain but that doesn't mean we should push to improve the process where it is clearly lacking. Wheaton didn't deserve to get in and I have been clear about that. I don't think STJF deserved to get in any more than Wheaton either and a better process may have eliminated an inefficiency that previously existed. The inconsistency of having STJF jump a 1 loss team while Wheaton did not is fixable.

I actually think the process of comparing StJF to Case was a great example of getting that right (the common opponent criteria). I think we have a better field than we have in the past because of the process this year. That doesn't mean it can't get better.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 15, 2011, 11:16:23 AM
We have seen the regional committees play the "stronger team" hand before. In 2008 Wheaton sat behind 2 loss Wooster in the RR and Wheaton was #32 into the field instead of Wooster. Obviously in the final, unseen, RR Wheaton jumped Wooster and that could only have happened if they thought Wheaton was a stronger team at the national table than Wooster. Wheaton proved them right by going to the quarterfinals that year. I like the system the way it is and I have no beef with my team not making it. I am making the observation that the regional committees are making decisions arbitrarily that affect the national field. If we can make that more efficient, we should try.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on November 15, 2011, 11:45:36 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 15, 2011, 11:04:53 AM
In the first 10 conferences listed on the D3 page, I count 9 2 loss teams. There are 26 eligible conferences plus the "B" teams, so you are talking about 25 teams in any given year. Too many to compare. Still better off leaving things up to the Regional Committees to put their best teams forward until they come off the board. I will say with the inclusion of SJF, the other regional committees may be more willing to put a strong 2 loss on the board than a weak 1. But if you look at this year, only the North had that problem. There wasn't a 2 loss south team better than Centre (the presumed 2nd candidate) and the same out West.

If you are looking for a reason why a North 2 loss team sat behind a weak 1 loss Case and never made the board... it's because the North Committee probably believed the national committee would follow history and pick 1 loss teams over 2 loss teams. A very good assumption that this year was proven wrong. Next year they might put a 2 loss team up. Although I'm wondering if it was the National Committee making a statement, or the common opponent and SOS of SJF that was so unbelievably in favor of SJF that they felt limited in their choices.

I could easily justify SJF as a one off based on specific circumstances and next year we will be back to seeing a 1 loss preference. If that's the case, as I've said repeatedly, kudos to the East Region Committee for spotting the discrepancy and playing an outstanding hand.

I have often wondered why football couldn't go to 2 teams per region on the table at a time for selection into the playoffs. That is only 8 teams and just about every other sport needs to compare 8 teams against each other. Same rules as now except each region always needs 2 schools on the table instead of one.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 15, 2011, 12:09:40 PM
That could be a good solution. I think you have to limit the teams at the table but 4 seems too narrow. Another option is to take all the regionally ranked Pool C teams. That wouldn't always be a big number. May not be more than 8.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2011, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2011, 07:36:42 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 01:53:24 AM

A couple years ago -- or was it last year -- they would have had to go to St. Thomas, but Bethel beat them.

UW-W has been on the road a few times, but UMU, like, never. Someone has to go to Alliance and beat them IMO.

Who was the last team to do that?  Was it UMHB something like 7-8 years ago?
Yeah, in a snowstorm and coming from behind to do it.

(And in Belton TX, even 3 snow flakes qualifies as a snow storm!   :) )
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2011, 01:26:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:46:59 AM
Just for grins I looked up the Massey Ratings:

1-loss teams:

Illinois College - Power 71, Schedule 153
Case - Power 75, Schedule 177
Endicott - Power 66, Schedule 186

Peas in a pod. Good teams playing lesser schedules.

2-loss contenders:

SJF - Power 21, Schedule 39
Wheaton - Power 17, Schedule 38
BSC - Power 51, Schedule 93
B-W - Power 62, Schedule 115
Heidelberg (!) - Power 56, Schedule 111
St. Olaf - Power 54, Schedule 92

It definitely looks like Wheaton was the one deserving team left out. According to Massey the other two loss teams weren't that far away from the one-loss teams.

But again, Case blocking Wheaton is ultimately a better problem to have than a potential issue of a 10-0 team not getting to the table.

Among Primary Criteria, Case was 9-0 in North Region games!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 15, 2011, 02:58:49 PM
But Case was 0-0 against decent North Region teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 03:21:54 PM
Decent is in the eye of the beholder, of course! Maybe 0-0 against the elite. Wash U. was decent (6-4). Chicago was OK (5-5). Allegheny was fair to middlin' (5-5).

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 03:21:54 PM
Decent is in the eye of the beholder, of course! Maybe 0-0 against the elite. Wash U. was decent (6-4). Chicago was OK (5-5). Allegheny was fair to middlin' (5-5).

That's a stretch I think.  A good point was made in the podcast from yesterday about some of these SOS's and what's actually going on when you peel back the layers.  Endicott has a decent SOS, but they only play NEFC teams and when you look at more than just the bare numbers, the Endicott schedule just "doesn't pass the smell test" as Pat put it.  Same deal with CWRU's schedule.  If the backbone of your playoff case is that you didn't lose to Wash U (6-4 carrying a loss to North Park), Chicago (5-5, 0-3 vs. UAA), or Allegheny (5-5 carrying losses to Oberlin and Bethany) then you're case is really pretty weak.  Had CWRU gone 10-0 or had won even just one game against a team that had 7 or 8 wins, then they probably get to play this weekend.  There just wasn't any margin for error on that schedule. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 05:19:57 PM
That was kind of a poke to the phrase 'decent' Wally, not a need for a technocratic discussion! To me 'decent' means exactly the best wins that Case had, which of course, isn't really a playoff case (as it were).
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 06:07:06 PM
Didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek there, smeds.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 15, 2011, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 03:21:54 PM
Decent is in the eye of the beholder, of course! Maybe 0-0 against the elite. Wash U. was decent (6-4). Chicago was OK (5-5). Allegheny was fair to middlin' (5-5).

That's a stretch I think.

I'm not saying that Case's schedule was tough, but they did beat Allegheny by more than Wabash.  And you'd have to include JCU in there, who was a decent team this year.

Also, Chicago was 5-2 outside of the UAA, handing Elmhurst their only loss outside of the Big 3 of the CCIW.

Again, I know the schedule wasn't strong by any means, but I don't think it was awful either.  If the selection committee was going to selectively apply criteria this year like they seemed to do with some teams, then they should have put Wheaton in above Case (which I would have had no problem with).  But Illinois College should not have been in over both Case and Wheaton.

Obviously I can't be too upset, though, because they really should not have lost to Rochester.  If they play that game 10 times, I think Case wins 8 or 9, but the fact is that they didn't, and it was not a good blemish to have on your record considering that Rochester was a very mediocre-to-not-good team this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 15, 2011, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
Had CWRU gone 10-0 or had won even just one game against a team that had 7 or 8 wins, then they probably get to play this weekend.  There just wasn't any margin for error on that schedule.

For the record: I agree with the bolded statement, and I agree with CWRU's exclusion from the playoffs.  In MY mind, the biggest thing that keeps them out is the loss to Rochester, regional distinctions and official criteria be damned.  As I'm about to argue...I think that their schedule was not completely "terrible" so much as it was "distinctly average."

Let's get one thing straight: I do agree, fundamentally, that using SOS numbers to point out that a team's schedule is "good" or even "OK" is a flawed system, especially in conferences like the NEFC with so much interconference play.  I view CWRU's schedule as VERY different from Endicott, because it's pretty well accepted that virtually the entire NEFC falls at or near the very bottom of Division III, and they only play vs. each other and the ECFC.  For that reason, NEFC teams can have decent SOS numbers while playing a really weak schedule.  So I'll completely avoid SOS numbers here.

I think CWRU played a bunch more "decent" teams than you think, because I agree with smedindy that "decent" is in the eye of the beholder.  CWRU's problem is really that they beat a number of "decent" teams (John Carroll, WashU, Chicago, Allegheny, CMU, Denison) but not strong enough to be GOOD.  Yes, you might squabble with my definition of "decent" but all of the teams listed finished .500 or better and with at least one respectable result that illustrates they belong safely somewhere in the wide middle of Division III.

WashU and CMU both nearly beat Wittenberg.
Allegheny led Wabash with 10 minutes to play.
Chicago beat Elmhurst, who finished 4th in the brutal CCIW.
John Carroll went 5-4 in the OAC (a break or two away from finishing 7-2).

All of that "smell test" material suggests to me that those CWRU opponents were "decent."  Even Wooster and Oberlin had a couple of respectable moments this season (don't you Wabash fans remember the horror as Oberlin pulled within a touchdown of your LG's? You remember that came one week after they played CWRU, right?).  The only opponent that CWRU beat that was truly HOPELESS was Hiram.

Put another way: line up the Wabash schedule against the CWRU schedule.  Look at me with a straight face and tell me that the 'Bash schedule is REALLY tougher than the CWRU schedule.  Heck, they're practically the same schedule!  The only possible argument is that Wabash played Wittenberg, but recall that Witt barely beat two of CWRU's conference foes.  At best, the Wabash schedule is a hair tougher because of the Witt game.

*Note: I am not arguing that CWRU is better than Wabash, because I don't believe that at all; however, I do believe that CWRU's schedule was about equivalent to Wabash's schedule.

Again: I'm not so much arguing that CWRU deserved to be IN as I am arguing against the perception that they played a really terrible schedule.  They actually played a schedule filled with average Division III teams, which really isn't THAT damning in itself.  IMHO, the reason that CWRU didn't deserve a playoff berth was the loss to Rochester, not because the schedule was really that weak.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 15, 2011, 07:06:44 PM
For fun, I went digging into the archives to see what happened wtih previous UAA teams.

Our 2006 CMU team could have easily been open to the same criticism.  We beat one team with a winning record (6-4 WashU) and a bunch of crappy PAC teams, which is certainly a weaker schedule than CWRU faced this year.  By the way, we won our opening-round playoff game.

CWRU actually played an even WORSE schedule in 2007 (played the usual NCAC suspects, two first-year programs, best win over 7-4 Carnegie Mellon), and did take some flack but ultimately got in and, again, won their opening-round playoff game.

Point being: had CWRU gone 10-0, they're in with no questions asked.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 15, 2011, 06:42:33 PM
Put another way: line up the Wabash schedule against the CWRU schedule.  Look at me with a straight face and tell me that the 'Bash schedule is REALLY tougher than the CWRU schedule.  Heck, they're practically the same schedule!  The only possible argument is that Wabash played Wittenberg, but recall that Witt barely beat two of CWRU's conference foes.  At best, the Wabash schedule is a hair tougher because of the Witt game.

Oh I certainly wouldn't argue that Wabash played a tougher schedule.  I had made a point elsewhere in the last couple of days (or maybe it was in here) that one reason why I didn't project CWRU in despite their 9-1, 9-0 record is that I'm familiar enough with the teams on their schedule to know what caliber of teams they played.  As you said, we all play the same teams.  The difference between Wabash and CWRU is that 1) Wabash didn't lose against their schedule and 2) Wabash has Pool A access and doesn't need to rely on an invitation (Pool B is a really, really tough deal).  Had Wabash lost to Witt (the only "good" team on their schedule this year), it absolutely could have been Wabash jamming up the North board and not getting in instead of CWRU. 

I hadn't shared this earlier, but I was bracing myself for Wabash to be seeded behind North Central because of how brutal the NCAC was this year (much the same way 10-0 Witt got sent to 9-1 ONU last year).  Last year Wabash finished 15 in SOS.  This year, 149.  That's an enormous difference and it happens because Chicago, Wooster, Allegheny, DePauw, and Witt all lost more games than they did last year (so did WashU, but their record doesn't get factored in).  Just like that, Wabash's SOS figure went from awesome to below average. 

The SOS is a funny thing.  It's all about the non-league results.  Look at the SOS list and find the CCIW teams.  They rocked their non-league schedule (even North Park went 3-0) and all of their teams are near the top of the list.  Now find the OAC teams...they're all in the middle because they only play one non-league game so there isn't a huge efffect. Now find the HCAC teams...they were awful in their non-league games and all of their teams are down near the bottom.  That's how the SOS rolls. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 15, 2011, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
The SOS is a funny thing.  It's all about the non-league results.  Look at the SOS list and find the CCIW teams.  They rocked their non-league schedule (even North Park went 3-0) and all of their teams are near the top of the list.  Now find the OAC teams...they're all in the middle because they only play one non-league game so there isn't a huge efffect. Now find the HCAC teams...they were awful in their non-league games and all of their teams are down near the bottom.  That's how the SOS rolls.

Oh, I know - I was arguing this with a naive East Region poster a few weeks back who argued that Endicott had a decent SOS.  At the time Endicott was #53, right behind #52 UW-Oshkosh (who played Mount Union in a nonconference game plus the WIAC meatgrinder). 

Like you said, conferences with minimal OOC play will have all of their teams gravitate toward the middle (almost regardless of whether they won their OOC games or not) - that's why NEFC and OAC teams will have similar SOS figures, even though the teams at the bottom of the OAC would clean up the NEFC.

My long-winded post earlier was meant as a slight defense of CWRU's schedule, trying to point out that it was actually a schedule full of "average" teams rather than a schedule full of really BAD teams, because someone tried to point out that CWRU didn't play a single "decent" team.  Actually, they did - several, in fact.  They just didn't play any really GOOD teams.

Perhaps I feel so strongly about that because some people argued that we didn't belong in the playoffs in 2006 (even with a 10-0 record) because our schedule was so "weak" - so I tend to defend the UAA teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 08:04:53 PM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 15, 2011, 08:34:58 AM
There have been three times in the last six years that Mount would have had to play a semi-final (or maybe even a regional final) game away from Alliance, but none of those teams ended up "holding serve", and Mount played a lower seed at home.  I believe the teams were Wabash (Capital beat them), Del Val (Rowan beat them), and then St. Thomas (Bethel beat them) last year. 

On another note, and this is coming late in the discussion, my only problem with Fisher getting into the play-offs is not that they were a two loss team, but more how bad they lost those two games.  I know it doesn't work this way (and probably shouldn't), but once the committee got down to a two loss team, let's compare the two loss teams out there, and not only look at who they beat, but look at how they lost.  Of course, that just enforces my argument that B-W deserved to be in as much if not more than Fisher.  I realize that the regional rankings don't support that premise, but I am just sayin'.

By that logic, Bethel probably goes, with losses to 10-0 and 8-2 teams by small margins, before anyone else, and Wheaton (high SoS b/c of the CCIW and one close loss to IWU and one bad loss to N. Central) next.

There's no doubt in my mind it's a stronger overall field with Bethel, Wheaton, B-W or St. Olaf in there. Maybe even W&L (losses to HSC, Centre) or Witt (losses to Huntingdon, Wabash) or B-SC (Centre, Trinity).

There's also the "it's not who you lost to but who you beat" argument. None of these teams have any great wins that I can think of. B-W over Heidelberg maybe? St. Olaf over Bethel.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 08:40:40 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 15, 2011, 09:37:44 AM
Remember how it works people. The regional committee has to nominate a team. It's not which 8-2 team is best, it's which 8-2 team was nominated and against what other teams. The committee probably did not compare SJF to B-W, as B-W probably never made the table. The East Region took a risk by nominating an 8-2 team over a 9-1 team at some point in the process. Given the history of 8-2 teams, that means either they had a very good idea the national committee was breaking tradition, or they took a huge risk of blocking a team with what could only be considered a historically better chance of making the field.

If the other regions didn't show the same gumption, or didn't feel that it was worth a try, that is their fault for not nominating the team. Stop trying to compare if SJF deserved to get in over B-W, it's not the issue unless they were on the table at the same time. I'm thinking it was more likely SJF up against CWRU, so its not the national committee's fault that it wasn't an option to include B-W. And, to be honest, if that is what happened, the East Region had a very good strategy given the common opponent result.

Now you could argue about Montclair or Cortland, since its the same region, but the regional rankings already showed what was going to happen there and they didn't have a common opponent advantage over another team on the board. Add SJF's SOS to the common opponent, and it was conceivable that SJF would go ahead of CWRU. Given the West and South already had 2 C bids, it is reasonable to believe the committee would look elsewhere for another team. Put it all together, and you have to respect the strategy used by the East Region Committee to get that 8-2 team into the field. Very, very astute.

Think of the regional committee's as a challenge to get the most of your region's teams into the field. The East Region played a very good game to get SJF in.

I don't think I would use the word "nominate." Their job is to evaluate the teams in their region and rank them. Who better to do it since they play and watch film of all the teams? They can analyze the numbers and make sense of it.

I also wouldn't imply that each committee's job is to be a booster organization for its home region. That in fact might be the wishes of some on the committees who have a stake in the matter, but that's pretty unprofessional and definitely not the stated goal of the committees. They are to simply rank the best in their region so that the national committee has an order to go by.

Their job is not to advocate for teams from their region to get in nor is it to cleverly place them in the order they think will best favor their home region. Giving kids from one school their dream experience while screwing kids from another school, regardless of location, isn't really the role a coach or administrator should be playing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 09:08:09 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 03:21:54 PM
Decent is in the eye of the beholder, of course! Maybe 0-0 against the elite. Wash U. was decent (6-4). Chicago was OK (5-5). Allegheny was fair to middlin' (5-5).

That's a stretch I think.  A good point was made in the podcast from yesterday about some of these SOS's and what's actually going on when you peel back the layers.  Endicott has a decent SOS, but they only play NEFC teams and when you look at more than just the bare numbers, the Endicott schedule just "doesn't pass the smell test" as Pat put it.  Same deal with CWRU's schedule.  If the backbone of your playoff case is that you didn't lose to Wash U (6-4 carrying a loss to North Park), Chicago (5-5, 0-3 vs. UAA), or Allegheny (5-5 carrying losses to Oberlin and Bethany) then you're case is really pretty weak.  Had CWRU gone 10-0 or had won even just one game against a team that had 7 or 8 wins, then they probably get to play this weekend.  There just wasn't any margin for error on that schedule.

A point I wanted to make about Endicott and the NEFC but didn't get to because there was no natural break in whatever Pat was trying to say is that Endicott used to play RPI -- they used to be one of the only teams who played a noncon game, and that Salve Regina lost 18-7 to Montclair State in Sept., by a field goal to Union and went 7-3 from Endicott's division.

So there is actually some fodder for comparing the NEFC to the rest of the East, just not much. I'm of the opinion that the top teams in that league are no longer so far removed from top teams of other leagues that playoff games are automatically laughers.

Also it makes sense that they play each other because there are 20 schools within a 2 hours drive, not because they're necessarily scurred.

All that said, you play better teams and beat them, then you get in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 09:18:35 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 15, 2011, 06:36:26 PM
Obviously I can't be too upset, though, because they really should not have lost to Rochester.  If they play that game 10 times, I think Case wins 8 or 9, but the fact is that they didn't, and it was not a good blemish to have on your record considering that Rochester was a very mediocre-to-not-good team this year.

As Pat pointed out, with SJF and CWRU on the board at the same time, the Rochester result -- the common opponent, primary criteria -- was the reason you had to take SJF.

I'm not sure how IC got in over CWRU or Endicott or whoever the last South Region team was, but those three are comparable. The real question is how IC was ranked ahead of St. Olaf and Bethel et. al.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ADL70 on November 15, 2011, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:39:14 AM
Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2011, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:39:14 AM
Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 10:35:01 PM
That was a huge brain-fart by Wash U. I can't see how they lost that game after how hard they played against Wabash. I did think North Park was going to get a CCIW win.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: skunks_sidekick on November 15, 2011, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2011, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:39:14 AM
Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade! ;D

I read this as he was ragging on the MWC, and NOT the CCIW.  (I could be wrong.)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2011, 10:57:31 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2011, 10:02:15 PM
9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

Keep bangin' on that regional record drum.  If it isn't clear by now that the regional record ship has sailed, then it just isn't going to be clear. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 11:13:12 PM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 15, 2011, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2011, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:39:14 AM
Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all

That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade! ;D

I read this as he was ragging on the MWC, and NOT the CCIW.  (I could be wrong.)

In re-reading, you may be right.  I took it as complaining about IWU jumping Case in the final RR (alas, we DID get monkey-stomped by NCC).

Of course, another way to keep IC out would have been if Wheaton had also jumped Case in those final rankings! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 11:49:59 PM
Quote from: USee on November 15, 2011, 12:09:40 PM
That could be a good solution. I think you have to limit the teams at the table but 4 seems too narrow. Another option is to take all the regionally ranked Pool C teams. That wouldn't always be a big number. May not be more than 8.

I like these ideas, but I don't think that would stop the complaining, just re-draw where the line to complain starts.

I think last year Willamette was the 11th RRO in the west and if they'd been 10th it would have given PLU the win it needed to get in as the 6th Pool C. Say in a situation like that, there's an 11th-ranked team that has a much better overall resume than the No. 9 East team or something. That's gonna be the same deal as not having teams on the table.

I like the 8 at once. Or maybe just let them evaluate up to 10 total. Or 12 for 6 spots. I mean at a certain point, if you're not in the top 3 or 4 non-playoff teams in your region you're likely not a playoff team, right? Although theoretically all six Pool Cs could come from one region and the way they do it now is open to that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 16, 2011, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 11:49:59 PM
Quote from: USee on November 15, 2011, 12:09:40 PM
That could be a good solution. I think you have to limit the teams at the table but 4 seems too narrow. Another option is to take all the regionally ranked Pool C teams. That wouldn't always be a big number. May not be more than 8.

I like these ideas, but I don't think that would stop the complaining, just re-draw where the line to complain starts.

I think last year Willamette was the 11th RRO in the west and if they'd been 10th it would have given PLU the win it needed to get in as the 6th Pool C. Say in a situation like that, there's an 11th-ranked team that has a much better overall resume than the No. 9 East team or something. That's gonna be the same deal as not having teams on the table.

I like the 8 at once. Or maybe just let them evaluate up to 10 total. Or 12 for 6 spots. I mean at a certain point, if you're not in the top 3 or 4 non-playoff teams in your region you're likely not a playoff team, right? Although theoretically all six Pool Cs could come from one region and the way they do it now is open to that.

Keith,

I agree with you (and others) that this would be re-drawing the complaining line. I think that ignores the broader issue, which is that the "complaining line" is currently too close to the "qualified but not considered" line. If you only evaluate 4 teams at a time when evaluating 6 or 8 might provide a better field, then you are being too narrow. Right now the process has the committee evaluating 4 teams at a time for 1 spot that they are currently trying to fill. If the committee would broaden their perspective from evaluating 4 teams for 1 spot to evaluating 12-14 teams for 6 spots, that is a process worth considering because teams 8-14 can never say they they weren't compared. That seems like a better outcome than having team #7 and #never being compared to team #6. Wheaton, St Olaf, Bethel, BW, etc their beef shouldn't be "we didn't get in" but it should be "we were never considered". That's the part of the process that can be fixed.

Never being considered is a problem that should not be associated with not being chosen.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 16, 2011, 10:08:41 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 10:12:23 PM
That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade! ;D

I feel compelled to address this remark, as it pertains to UAA honor, and the UAA's standing relative to other Division III conferences.

Yes, our #2 team (WashU) lost to the CCIW's last-place team, North Park. 

I respond by pointing out that our very own last-place team (Chicago) beat CCIW #4 Elmhurst (who went 4-3 in the CCIW with losses to the "Big Three" of the conference).

I think that the UAA stacks up quite well with the middle tier of most Division III conferences, even the CCIW and OAC.  Generally, they are not good enough to play with the teams at the TOP of those conferences, but the UAA four would probably slide into the middle tier of the CCIW and OAC and would be near the top (though not necessarily AT the top) of lesser conferences such as the MWC and NCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on November 16, 2011, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 16, 2011, 10:08:41 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 10:12:23 PM
That's really rich - a UAA guy making that slam on the CCIW the same season your #2 team lost to North Park, who hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade! ;D

I feel compelled to address this remark, as it pertains to UAA honor, and the UAA's standing relative to other Division III conferences.

Yes, our #2 team (WashU) lost to the CCIW's last-place team, North Park. 

I respond by pointing out that our very own last-place team (Chicago) beat CCIW #4 Elmhurst (who went 4-3 in the CCIW with losses to the "Big Three" of the conference).

I think that the UAA stacks up quite well with the middle tier of most Division III conferences, even the CCIW and OAC.  Generally, they are not good enough to play with the teams at the TOP of those conferences, but the UAA four would probably slide into the middle tier of the CCIW and OAC and would be near the top (though not necessarily AT the top) of lesser conferences such as the MWC and NCAC.

That may or may not be true, but the problem is... finishing in the middle-tier of conferences like the WIAC, OAC or CCIW would put you firmly outside of the playoff picture.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2011, 11:01:47 AM
Mugsy,

I don't dispute that. Probably a dozen or so conference champs would struggle in the CCIW. But again, the current system is better than the old one. Every conference champ has a 'chance' - even Benedictine.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mugsy on November 16, 2011, 11:32:46 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2011, 11:01:47 AM
Mugsy,

I don't dispute that. Probably a dozen or so conference champs would struggle in the CCIW. But again, the current system is better than the old one. Every conference champ has a 'chance' - even Benedictine.

Umm... I didn't say I have a problem with the current system that awards playoff slots to all conference champs.  Nor was I trying to toot the CCIW's horn - I did mention other perceived top conferences.  I believe you were reading for more out of my post than was actually there.

Many would argue and be quite valid in doing so, that saying top teams in a conference would finish in the middle of other conferences shows the relative disparity in strength of teams across conferences and therefore assures we don't have the true 32 best teams in the playoffs under the current system.  It does however mean that a broader set of teams truly have a chance to participate in the playoffs.

While part of me laments the fact that Wheaton is not in the playoffs this year, I understand and actually agree with the system awarding a playoff spot to teams like Benedictine, despite the fact they lost soundly to NPU who has lost 81 straight CCIW games.  To me it represents more of the true spirit of competitive athletics in D3.

Personally I would find the playoffs far less appealing if a larger percentage of the 32 teams came from the "power conferences" and 6-10 conferences didn't have any representation.  (Just as I find it less appealing that the same 2 teams vie for the title every year - though I recognize why that is...  ::))

I was merely trying to point out in my previous post that trying to gauge the relative strength of one conference to stronger conferences by pointing out that the champ would finish in the middle of the pack in the stronger conference doesn't really net in a favorable view.  Would you rather finish in the middle of the pack in a strong conference year after year or compete for a possible conference championship and playoff slot in a weaker conference?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
From the perspective of the ASC, I have very little faith in the SOS/OWP/OOWP as generated in football to reflect the quality of play in the ASC.

How many schools are in a 300 mile radius of Chicago?  All you have to do to have a good SOS is schedule 3 beatable teams in the top 1/3 of their (weaker) conferences.

With only 6 Pool C bids, I have trouble with 1/3rd of the Pool C bids going to one conference.  I don't think that our tools for measuring the quality of the teams can determine quality with that precision.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2011, 04:29:02 PM
Ralph,

That is a good point and I think in hoops discussion we often have issues with the NESCAC gaming the system by scheduling the good teams from weaker conferences and only playing a single round-robin.

But what would you propose as an alternative?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2011, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2011, 04:29:02 PM
Ralph,

That is a good point and I think in hoops discussion we often have issues with the NESCAC gaming the system by scheduling the good teams from weaker conferences and only playing a single round-robin.

But what would you propose as an alternative?
Smed, thanks and thanks to all for the comments so far.

The one dictum that I can state about 2 Pool C bids to one conference is that I just hate to give 2 Pool C bids (1/3rd of the allotment) to one conference.  Wheaton had 2 chances to earn one of 2 bids.  (Now for the CCIW or the NESCAC or the WIAC to get 2 Pool C bids out of 20, over a 25 game schedule, then that is a little different.)

Case did everything those players were asked, except beat Rochester, an "out-of-region" game.

I don't doubt that the CCIW is a strong conference.  They are the strongest among the local conferences in that part of the region, including the NATHC, MWC, UMAC, MIAA and HCAC.  Of course for football, the MIAC and WIAC are in-region, too.  That area is rich in schools by which you can construct a strong SOS/OWP/OOWP.

The East, and especially the Empire 8, come out smelling like a rose.  Their "ACFC/E8" champion gets the Pool A and the upstate New York crowd of the E8 has not missed a beat.  SJF played a competitive OOC schedule. Props to that.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 16, 2011, 05:39:05 PM
Ralph, I don't dispute your point (and I have my own reservations on how you can have the #14 SOS nationally having played Olivet) but Wheaton has shown what they can do with playoff opportunity by getting a Pool C in 2008 as the 32nd team in the field and making it to the quarterfinals. If Wheaton had been compared with Case and selected, I don't think there would be many objections. That said, I have no issue with the field and their exclusion given the fact they didn't get it done.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2011, 05:52:49 PM
USee, for some reason you keep understating Wheaton's 2008 accomplishments - they won their quarterfinal game and made the national semifinals before having to go to Alliance ('where CCIW dreams go to die' - except, I hope and predict, this year!)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 16, 2011, 06:35:55 PM
Ypsi, it's the old age thing again. you know what I mean
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2011, 07:39:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2011, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2011, 11:49:59 PM
Quote from: USee on November 15, 2011, 12:09:40 PM
That could be a good solution. I think you have to limit the teams at the table but 4 seems too narrow. Another option is to take all the regionally ranked Pool C teams. That wouldn't always be a big number. May not be more than 8.

I like these ideas, but I don't think that would stop the complaining, just re-draw where the line to complain starts.

I think last year Willamette was the 11th RRO in the west and if they'd been 10th it would have given PLU the win it needed to get in as the 6th Pool C. Say in a situation like that, there's an 11th-ranked team that has a much better overall resume than the No. 9 East team or something. That's gonna be the same deal as not having teams on the table.

I like the 8 at once. Or maybe just let them evaluate up to 10 total. Or 12 for 6 spots. I mean at a certain point, if you're not in the top 3 or 4 non-playoff teams in your region you're likely not a playoff team, right? Although theoretically all six Pool Cs could come from one region and the way they do it now is open to that.

Keith,

I agree with you (and others) that this would be re-drawing the complaining line. I think that ignores the broader issue, which is that the "complaining line" is currently too close to the "qualified but not considered" line. If you only evaluate 4 teams at a time when evaluating 6 or 8 might provide a better field, then you are being too narrow. Right now the process has the committee evaluating 4 teams at a time for 1 spot that they are currently trying to fill. If the committee would broaden their perspective from evaluating 4 teams for 1 spot to evaluating 12-14 teams for 6 spots, that is a process worth considering because teams 8-14 can never say they they weren't compared. That seems like a better outcome than having team #7 and #never being compared to team #6. Wheaton, St Olaf, Bethel, BW, etc their beef shouldn't be "we didn't get in" but it should be "we were never considered". That's the part of the process that can be fixed.

Never being considered is a problem that should not be associated with not being chosen.

I follow you here, but technically they are considered when the regional advisory committee ranks their teams in order.

I would be all for allowing 8 or 10 teams to be evaluated to allow for the complete evaluation of each team with a shot's credentials against everyone else's. But I also understand this logic: If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2011, 08:07:00 PM
Keith, I understand your point (and partially agree), but what a test case it would be if BOTH Case and Wheaton had been at the table when IC and SJF were selected.  (I'm assuming that Case was the only one up and Wheaton never made it to the table, but I guess we simply don't know for sure.  And, of course, we don't know which was 5th, which 6th.)  Whenever they reached the 2-team pick, I have to believe that Wheaton would have been in over SJF.  IF that option had been available.

Since all (or almost all?) other sports have 8 regions (thus 8 at the table at any one time), 2 per region (thus 8 at the table) seems a perfectly reasonable ('d3-friendly'!) football solution to me.

All THIS hand-wringing could have been avoided if Wheaton had somehow beaten NCC - NCC would still be in as the AQ, while IWU and Wheaton, both 9-1, would have been locks.  Of course, with the CCIW then taking up 33% of the Cs, there would then be OTHER hand-wringing! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2011, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2011, 08:07:00 PM
Keith, I understand your point (and partially agree), but what a test case it would be if BOTH Case and Wheaton had been at the table when IC and SJF were selected.  (I'm assuming that Case was the only one up and Wheaton never made it to the table, but I guess we simply don't know for sure.  And, of course, we don't know which was 5th, which 6th.)  Whenever they reached the 2-team pick, I have to believe that Wheaton would have been in over SJF.  IF that option had been available.

Since all (or almost all?) other sports have 8 regions (thus 8 at the table at any one time), 2 per region (thus 8 at the table) seems a perfectly reasonable ('d3-friendly'!) football solution to me.

All THIS hand-wringing could have been avoided if Wheaton had somehow beaten NCC - NCC would still be in as the AQ, while IWU and Wheaton, both 9-1, would have been locks.  Of course, with the CCIW then taking up 33% of the Cs, there would then be OTHER hand-wringing! ;D

Yeah, I mean clearly I understand how it works and all the possible permutations. Nobody needs to explain to me, often the play-a-strong-schedule crusader, all the reasons why 8-2 teams with strong schedules should get in. (Although Wheaton didn't go out and schedule anyone great like the did when they played Bethel and NC played ONU, so I have little sympathy).

The point is if you're truly the next team that deserves to get in the playoffs, how can you be stuck behind a team in your region? If the regional advisory committee doesn't have Wheaton ahead of Case, then what does it matter how Wheaton compares to SJF? The RAC has already determined Case deserved to go before Wheaton. The regional and national committees use the same criteria.

I'm fine with, as I'm stating now for the third time, evaluating eight at once instead of four. But in theory those teams have all been evaluated already and it was determined, apparently, that CWRU goes before Wheaton. So however the process works, if CWRU gets left out and Wheaton gets in, we have a whole 'nother problem. (Not subjectively of course, just consistency-in-team-selection-wise)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 16, 2011, 11:39:58 PM
Keith,

The only thing I would say to your point is we did get an inconsistency when the east region jumped their 2 loss team over a 1 loss team and the north region didn't. 8 teams allows one national committee to re-apply the criteria with consistency. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2011, 07:00:37 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2011, 08:36:07 PM
The point is if you're truly the next team that deserves to get in the playoffs, how can you be stuck behind a team in your region? If the regional advisory committee doesn't have Wheaton ahead of Case, then what does it matter how Wheaton compares to SJF? The RAC has already determined Case deserved to go before Wheaton. The regional and national committees use the same criteria.

+1

I argued this point with...somebody, perhaps jknezek, a few weeks back.  I can't say it any better than you did here, Keith.

"If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?"
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 17, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2011, 07:00:37 AM

I argued this point with...somebody, perhaps jknezek, a few weeks back.  I can't say it any better than you did here, Keith.

"If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?"

We had a slightly different argument. My point was that "top" team does not necessarily imply the next best team in your region from a football standpoint. For a regional committee, it should imply the most likely team to make the field. I've written several posts about why, this year, SJF as a 2 loss team was an incredibly astute choice for the East Region committee. There are 3 things that stick out about SJF, 1) SOS, 2) common opponent strength over another team on the boad (CWRU), and 3) there were probably two Cs chosen from the West and South already. I believe that SJF is not the trendstarter that people on this board hope with good 2 loss teams getting in over weak 1 loss teams. I just think it was a perfect storm for SJF to be a better candidate versus who was left on the board than Endicott.

Had the North committee not submitted Case, I believe the East committee would have been more inclined to submit Endicott. I also think it likely that without the common opponent, 9-1 Endicott would have very likely made the field over an 8-2 North team. I also believe had the East committee submitted Endicott versus Case, Case would have made the field. None of this has to do with the best team on the field, it all has to do with the best comparison and the strongest argument. All of this is, of course, speculation because we don't know who submitted who when...

My point is that the East Committee's choice for best, a 2 loss team with an excellent chance to get in, was daring and successful, but not necessarily trendsetting...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2011, 09:20:24 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 17, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2011, 07:00:37 AM

I argued this point with...somebody, perhaps jknezek, a few weeks back.  I can't say it any better than you did here, Keith.

"If you're not the top team on the board from your region, as evaluated by the regional advisory committee, why would you be the top team on the board when you consider more teams?"

We had a slightly different argument. My point was that "top" team does not necessarily imply the next best team in your region from a football standpoint. For a regional committee, it should imply the most likely team to make the field. I've written several posts about why, this year, SJF as a 2 loss team was an incredibly astute choice for the East Region committee. There are 3 things that stick out about SJF, 1) SOS, 2) common opponent strength over another team on the boad (CWRU), and 3) there were probably two Cs chosen from the West and South already. I believe that SJF is not the trendstarter that people on this board hope with good 2 loss teams getting in over weak 1 loss teams. I just think it was a perfect storm for SJF to be a better candidate versus who was left on the board than Endicott.

Had the North committee not submitted Case, I believe the East committee would have been more inclined to submit Endicott. I also think it likely that without the common opponent, 9-1 Endicott would have very likely made the field over an 8-2 North team. I also believe had the East committee submitted Endicott versus Case, Case would have made the field. None of this has to do with the best team on the field, it all has to do with the best comparison and the strongest argument. All of this is, of course, speculation because we don't know who submitted who when...
My point is that the East Committee's choice for best, a 2 loss team with an excellent chance to get in, was daring and successful, but not necessarily trendsetting...
The East committee does not know what the North Committee is doing.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 17, 2011, 10:05:29 AM
Interesting. I thought they were on a conference call with the regionals along with the national committee. Thank you for that info. Makes the East's nomination of SJF a bit more of a shot in the dark, but still a good bet that the North would submit Case at some point.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 17, 2011, 10:53:41 AM
I have no doubt Case was on the proverbial table.

My guess that slot #6's choices were Endicott, Case, Birmingham Southern and Illinois College.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2011, 11:37:40 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 17, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
My point was that "top" team does not necessarily imply the next best team in your region from a football standpoint. For a regional committee, it should imply the most likely team to make the field.

I agree with the first sentence.  I don't entirely agree with the second sentence.  K-Mack and Pat have previously stated that the Regional committees are not playing some devious game to try and steal as many playoff berths as possible for their particular region.

1. The regional committee evaluates the potential Pool C teams in their region.

2. They rank the teams according to set of predetermined criteria.

3. The regional committees put their top-ranked teams (as you've said, not necessarily the "best") up for consideration.

4. The national committee looks at the four teams on the board and selects the one that they would have ranked the "highest" using the SAME EXACT CRITERIA.

5. That team is then replaced with the next team up from the same region.  Repeat steps 4 and 5 until six teams have been selected.

There's no shady "Since CWRU is on the board from the North, we should put St. John Fisher up now because..." kind of logic.  The teams SHOULD come off the board in the same order regardless of who each region puts up at any given time.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 17, 2011, 12:29:08 PM
And that is what I don't really believe. People are competitive and the Regional Committees are going to want to represent their region. I don't think it is devious or stealing or whatever. I simply believe that the committees work to get their teams in, as they should.

There is very little pure altruism in any part of life. Ask Joe Pa, or any member of Congress, for a speech on it one of these days. And you can say "predetermined criteria" all you want, but the criteria allows for enough wiggle room for almost anything. Win-loss percentage against regional opponents and SOS can be cover for almost any decision (a 2 loss SOS higher than a 1 loss percentage) as primary criteria. Since the criteria can be conflicting you can hide behind it however you like and vary it year to year. So pointing at the criteria is rarely helpful in absolute terms.

I also don't believe that the regional committees would necessarily place the same weight on the same criteria as the national committee unless so instructed from the national committee. If they aren't given those instructions, then it isn't the "SAME EXACT CRITERIA", it's just the same criteria grouping interpreted differently. If they are given the instructions from the top, then the North committee either disregarded those instructions or failed miserably by putting a weak 1 loss team up when they had some strong 2 loss choices, knowing that the committee was looking at SOS over winning percentage. You can't have it both ways by pointing at the known results from this year and years past.

What it boils down to is I don't believe that the regional committees are going to be happy if their teams don't make the tournament and just shrug and say, "oh well. the tournament is better off without them." I know I hate feeling like I wasted my time, and not getting your teams in has to feel like you wasted quite a bit of time over the course of the season. Working to get your teams in isn't nefarious or gaming the system, its just part of life. And I don't find this:
"Since CWRU is on the board from the North, we should put St. John Fisher up now because..."  shady at all. I find it to be good anticipatory work on the part of the East Committee.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: Mugsy on November 16, 2011, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 16, 2011, 10:08:41 AM
I think that the UAA stacks up quite well with the middle tier of most Division III conferences, even the CCIW and OAC.  Generally, they are not good enough to play with the teams at the TOP of those conferences, but the UAA four would probably slide into the middle tier of the CCIW and OAC and would be near the top (though not necessarily AT the top) of lesser conferences such as the MWC and NCAC.

That may or may not be true, but the problem is... finishing in the middle-tier of conferences like the WIAC, OAC or CCIW would put you firmly outside of the playoff picture.

Yes, but it would also put one of the four teams in the playoffs nearly every year in most conferences other than those three.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 11:13:12 PM
Of course, another way to keep IC out would have been if Wheaton had also jumped Case in those final rankings! ;)

I have stated that I would have had no prolbem with Wheaton getting in over Case.

It's not the fact that Case didn't get in that I think is garbage, it's the fact that IC did get in.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 18, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
Garbage?

So having IC in the playoffs totally trashed the process and made this tournament illegitimate?

Pretty strong words there, especially towards a program that is celebrating their first appearance.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 18, 2011, 01:01:19 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2011, 11:13:12 PM
Of course, another way to keep IC out would have been if Wheaton had also jumped Case in those final rankings! ;)

I have stated that I would have had no prolbem with Wheaton getting in over Case.

It's not the fact that Case didn't get in that I think is garbage, it's the fact that IC did get in.

Make a case as for why CWRU deserved to go before IC.  Let me rebut your major arguments:

- Regional records alone are not enough to distinguish one team from another.  Secondary criteria are in play here.
- Getting whomped by a 9-1 league champion/playoff team is not as bad as losing to a 4-5 team, especially when you have zero quality wins to divert attention from such a bad loss.  At best for CWRU, it's a push. 

Of all the teams out there that don't get in because their schedules stink, CWRU is one of the very few that can actually control that..  IC plays a round robin in a 10 team league.  CWRU has three league games and 7 games that they can do whatever the heck they want with.  They chose to partner with the NCAC and play games close to home against a lot of bad teams.  That strategy didn't pay off this time around.  At the end of the day, all the Spartans had to do was not lose to a mediocre Rochester team.  That wasn't a big ask. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 18, 2011, 01:52:44 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2011, 01:01:19 PM
Make a case as for why CWRU deserved to go before IC.  Let me rebut your major arguments:

- Regional records alone are not enough to distinguish one team from another.  Secondary criteria are in play here.
- Getting whomped by a 9-1 league champion/playoff team is not as bad as losing to a 4-5 team, especially when you have zero quality wins to divert attention from such a bad loss.  At best for CWRU, it's a push. 

This, I completely agree with.  Even considering the relative weakness of the MWC, there's no real argument that CWRU did "more" to get in the field than IC.  The "regional" thing might hold up a little on paper, but it's ridiculous to keep plugging the 9-0 in-region record when (as wally has previously stated) a) CWRU and Rochy are BARELY over the distance limit for a "regional" game and b) CWRU shares a conference with Rochester IN EVERY SPORT except football.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2011, 01:01:19 PM
CWRU has three league games and 7 games that they can do whatever the heck they want with.  They chose to partner with the NCAC and play games close to home against a lot of bad teams.   That strategy didn't pay off this time around.

This, I don't entirely agree with, as detailed in a previous post.  CWRU didn't play a schedule full of "terrible" teams so much as they played a whole bunch of "mediocre" teams.  Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I think it's a worthwhile distinction.  CWRU did beat six teams that finished .500 or better; the problem is, five of those teams finished right AT .500, and the only team that finished with a "winning" record was 6-4 WashU.

I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not, IN ANY WAY, think that a schedule with nine wins against "mediocre" competition and one loss to a 4-5 team is a playoff-worthy resume.  I'm just trying to point out, again, that CWRU's schedule is not loaded with completely AWFUL teams.

Side tangent: I don't think that the UAA schools were trying to game their way into impressive records by partnering with the NCAC.  I think they just wanted the scheduling stability of a couple of guaranteed close-to-home OOC games against schools with a similar academic profile.  While the NCAC and UAA schools have a different TYPE of academic "elitism" (liberal arts vs. research) both are comprised of pretty decent schools, which probably made the NCAC partnership more appealing to the UAA than a partnership with other conferences may have been.


Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2011, 01:01:19 PM
At the end of the day, all the Spartans had to do was not lose to a mediocre Rochester team.  That wasn't a big ask.

This, again, I completely agree with.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 18, 2011, 01:55:48 PM
CWRU didn't choose - the UAA chose to partner with the NCAC.

But the alternative would have been perhaps a schedule of more creampuffs - or a schedule full of non D-3 teams.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2011, 02:57:09 PM
Here's a Case schedule from before the UAA-NCAC arrangement. No non-D3 teams:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Case_Western_Reserve/2005/index

In fact, no non-D3 teams since we've been tracking schedules.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 18, 2011, 03:40:15 PM
That's was a conjecture Pat. I think scheduling may be harder now with more teams landed in conferences and conferences have tried to even themselves out.

In fact, it begs the question what the UAA will do, now since beginning in 2013 the NCAC will have just one non-conference game and it's weeks 1 and 2.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2011, 02:57:09 PM
Here's a Case schedule from before the UAA-NCAC arrangement. No non-D3 teams:

http://www.d3football.com/teams/Case_Western_Reserve/2005/index

In fact, no non-D3 teams since we've been tracking schedules.

That the schedule is almost the same as after the agreement (7 games against UAA and NCAC teams instead of the 8 today)?  Why not enter an agreement to ensure those other teams don't decide to screw you over one year?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 04:01:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 04:09:10 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2011, 01:01:19 PM
At the end of the day, all the Spartans had to do was not lose to a mediocre Rochester team.  That wasn't a big ask.

Would it make you feel better if I left Case out of it completely and said I think Wheaton should have gotten in over IC?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2011, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 04:01:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.

Same overall record, similar SOS (IC's slightly higher), IC 0-1 against regionally ranked teams and Case 0-0. That's how.

0-0 is not better than 0-1. It's better to have played and lost than never to have played at all.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: wally_wabash on November 18, 2011, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 18, 2011, 01:52:44 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2011, 01:01:19 PM
CWRU has three league games and 7 games that they can do whatever the heck they want with.  They chose to partner with the NCAC and play games close to home against a lot of bad teams.   That strategy didn't pay off this time around.

This, I don't entirely agree with, as detailed in a previous post.  CWRU didn't play a schedule full of "terrible" teams so much as they played a whole bunch of "mediocre" teams.  Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I think it's a worthwhile distinction.  CWRU did beat six teams that finished .500 or better; the problem is, five of those teams finished right AT .500, and the only team that finished with a "winning" record was 6-4 WashU.

I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not, IN ANY WAY, think that a schedule with nine wins against "mediocre" competition and one loss to a 4-5 team is a playoff-worthy resume.  I'm just trying to point out, again, that CWRU's schedule is not loaded with completely AWFUL teams.

Side tangent: I don't think that the UAA schools were trying to game their way into impressive records by partnering with the NCAC.  I think they just wanted the scheduling stability of a couple of guaranteed close-to-home OOC games against schools with a similar academic profile.  While the NCAC and UAA schools have a different TYPE of academic "elitism" (liberal arts vs. research) both are comprised of pretty decent schools, which probably made the NCAC partnership more appealing to the UAA than a partnership with other conferences may have been.

I may be overstating it a bit, but I'm just trying to not sugar coat what's going on in the NCAC right now.  12 years ago when Wabash got into the league Witt was a monster, Allegheny was really really good, OWU was good, and Wooster was better than average.  The rest of the league is basically a wash with what they are now.  Fast forward to today and OWU has fallen off the cliff, Allegheny has taken serious steps backward, and Wooster hasn't been a serious contender since Tony Sutton left after 2004.  Wabash and Witt are good teams, the rest of the league is average at best right now, and we've got 2-3 teams that are bad.  These are just facts.  When it comes to the CWRU schedule, we can say that they have wins over several mediocre teams (Allegheny, Wooster, Chicago, WashU), but the reality is that you don't get any national juice from beating those teams right now.  There are an awful lot of teams out there that can go 10-0 against that schedule. 

And also to clarify, I'm not suggesting that CWRU and their UAA brethren entered into the agreement with the NCAC as a way to load up a schedule with games they can win and post gaudy records.  That's been a nice benefit over the last four years, but that was certainly not the objective.  The objective was to find a way to get ten game schedules, which gets tricky in October when the rest of the region is playing a league schedule.  They got the games, but they aren't strong games and there isn't much wiggle room come selection time if you slip up.  That's not anybody's fault, that's just the way it is. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 18, 2011, 08:21:27 PM
^ best post of this entire debate.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2011, 10:55:10 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2011, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 04:01:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.

Same overall record, similar SOS (IC's slightly higher), IC 0-1 against regionally ranked teams and Case 0-0. That's how.

0-0 is not better than 0-1.


"'Tis better to have played and lost
Than never to have played at all."
  Canto 27. In memoriam: an ode to the 2011 NCAA D-III Selection Committee

Alfred Lord Tennyson could not have said it better.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 19, 2011, 02:56:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2011, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 18, 2011, 04:01:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2011, 11:07:26 AM
Garbage?

Yeah, that was too strong of a word.

Let me reiterate my main point since it seems to have been lost in all this bickering.

I don't believe Case deserved to be in the playoffs this year.  However, I don't believe IC did either.  And IC may even be a better team than Case (I don't think so, but that's surely open for debate).  However, if we're talking about the best team getting in, then Wheaton should have been chosen over either team.  If we're talking about using criteria (for better or for worse) then Case should have gotten in.  I don't see how IC trumps both of them in either case.

Same overall record, similar SOS (IC's slightly higher), IC 0-1 against regionally ranked teams and Case 0-0. That's how.

0-0 is not better than 0-1. It's better to have played and lost than never to have played at all.

What about the regional record?  The first criterion in the list.  Yes, I agree that in this instance, the non-region game tells us something about Case, but you can't just pick and choose which criteria you want to ignore.  If you want to follow the criteria, you have to take into account that Case's regional record was 9-0.  If you want to throw the criteria out the window because you think you can make a better selection subjectively, then Wheaton is the obvious choice.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 19, 2011, 04:00:17 PM
RR is one of the primary criteria, not the sole criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
Pool C:  3 wins. 3 losses
at Wabash 38, Illinois College 20
SJF 23  at JHU 12.
at Centre 51 HSC 41
Monmouth 33, at IWU 27, 3OT
at UMHB 34,  Redlands 13
McMurry 25, at Trinity TX  16



Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2011, 07:10:09 PM
Round #1  9 inter-region games  (Record in round 1 in parenthesis)

East Region hosting    (2-1)

CNU (S) at Kean

South Region hosting      (2-3)

Hobart (E) at Wesley
SJF (E) at JHU
Redlands (W) at UMHB

North Region hosting          (3-2)

Thomas More (S) at Franklin
Monmouth (W) at IWU
Dubuque (W) at North Central
Illinois College (W) at Wabash

West Region hosting          (2-3)

Albion (N) at UWW
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ADL70 on November 19, 2011, 09:33:43 PM
Pat and Ralph,

I guess you didn't see reply #555

My bad, split infinitive.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2011, 11:07:26 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 15, 2011, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2011, 09:39:14 AM
Following the regional rankings rigidly is what got us into this mess. Now, it's just a small mess, but somehow SJF jumped Endicott and whilst IWU jumped case Wheaton did not (and B-W was behind Wheaton). You have two one-loss teams with thin resumes (though IC may have had a thinner resume than Case) ahead of two loss teams with arguably better resumes than the team that got in.Really, that's a better problem to have than a 10-0 team being left out.

9-0 in region v 9-1 with the loss a monkey stomp by the champion of your not so strong conference.

The lesson?

To paraphrase Tennyson:

"tis better to have played and lost big, than to never have played at all
+1!   :)

Great minds on the same channel.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on November 20, 2011, 08:48:21 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
Pool C:  3 wins. 3 losses
at Wabash 38, Illinois College 20
SJF 23  at JHU 12.
at Centre 51 HSC 41
Monmouth 33, at IWU 27, 3OT
at UMHB 34,  Redlands 13
McMurry 25, at Trinity TX  16

None of these results strike me as major surprises. IWU losing at home after being up 17 - 0 ended up unexpected but before the game I thought that one could go either way. The other results seemed like the Pool C team did what I thought they would given their opponent.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 20, 2011, 12:00:01 PM
IWU losing at home to an MWC team will not help the CCIW's case of being a top conference. That's a bad loss for the CCIW and IWU.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 12:11:36 PM
No, the CCIW still will be looked upon as a top-tier conference. They were playing an experienced playoff team with a fifth-year senior QB and a chip on their shoulder.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 20, 2011, 12:34:57 PM
Doesn't matter. IWU was 2 TD's better on paper and 5 TO's later they are watching the rest of the playoffs. The CCIW has lost 3 games in the last 16 years to conferences other than the OAC/WIAC (22-3). Yesterday was the 4th loss (22-4 now)>
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 12:36:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2011, 04:00:17 PM
RR is one of the primary criteria, not the sole criteria.

I know, but Pat's post seemed to ignore the fact that it is part of the criteria at all.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 12:38:38 PM
2 TDs on paper? Whose paper?

This was a 4/5 matchup. Massey power rankings were 23 for IWU and 42 for Monmouth. Not 2 TDs away. I think the consensus was that this would be a close one.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 20, 2011, 12:55:52 PM
My paper. If IWU turns it over half as much as they did (which was still far more than their season average) IWU wins by 14. they didn't, Monmouth got the turnovers and they are on to the next round. IWU had a rookie QB in his first playoff game.  4 picks and a fumble going in to score. The game shouldn't  have been close but it was.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 01:01:48 PM
Doesn't mean that the CCIW will be looked down upon. And give Monmouth credit, please. They won the game.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 01:11:29 PM
I look at the Monmouth score as certification that the Midwest Conference champion is a "threat" in the 4/5 game, and possibly in the 3/6 game, where the middle of the bracket is flat and homogenous.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 12:36:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2011, 04:00:17 PM
RR is one of the primary criteria, not the sole criteria.

I know, but Pat's post seemed to ignore the fact that it is part of the criteria at all.

When you get that far down in the football playoff decision-making process, the secondary criteria and overall record against Division III teams is more important than regional record.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: USee on November 20, 2011, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 01:01:48 PM
Doesn't mean that the CCIW will be looked down upon. And give Monmouth credit, please. They won the game.

Winning road games in the playoffs is a rare accomplishment. Monmouth deserves credit. My point is simply the CCIW may not be as good as I thought they were. It's not a statement game and certainly won't reorder the collective thinking about the CCIW. It's just a data point but an important one for me. 
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
When you get that far down in the football playoff decision-making process, the secondary criteria and overall record against Division III teams is more important than regional record.

So the primary criteria becomes less important than the secondary criteria?  That makes no sense.  It says right in the selection process that the secondary criteria should only be used if the primary criteria doesn't provide a clear conclusion.

By the way, IC sure didn't give Wabash a very good game.  Oberlin, Wooster, and Allegheny all tested Wabash better than they did.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2011, 01:34:08 PM
When you get that far down in the football playoff decision-making process, the secondary criteria and overall record against Division III teams is more important than regional record.

So the primary criteria becomes less important than the secondary criteria?  That makes no sense.  It says right in the selection process that the secondary criteria should only be used if the primary criteria doesn't provide a clear conclusion.

By the way, IC sure didn't give Wabash a very good game.  Oberlin, Wooster, and Allegheny all tested Wabash better than they did.
No, when primary critieria (plural) are determined to be "a wash", then you move to secondary criteria as a tie-breaker.

The CCIW Pool C bid, a team that beat Wheaton in the regular season, did not show very favorably yesterday.  They lost at home to the winner of Illinois College's conference.

As for me, the UAA is a weird bird.  They manage to get plenty of Pool B and C bids in baseball by very judicious scheduling.

For me, Case versus Rochester is basically a "in-region" game. It was an "in-region contest" in soccer and volleyball this fall.

I was surprised by that Illinois College got the Pool C bid.

I hope that the UAA and the SCAC will affiliate to get a Pool A bid.  The SCAC might have 4 teams  (Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College and Centenary LA) by the time that an agreement might be reached.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2011, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
I hope that the UAA and the SCAC will affiliate to get a Pool A bid.  The SCAC might have 4 teams  (Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College and Centenary LA) by the time that an agreement might be reached.

From your lips to the ears of the leaders of the UAA.   +1
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2011, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
I hope that the UAA and the SCAC will affiliate to get a Pool A bid.  The SCAC might have 4 teams  (Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College and Centenary LA) by the time that an agreement might be reached.

From your lips to the ears of the leaders of the UAA.   +1
Thanks for the karma.

In the world of "D-III football-playing peer institutions", the UAA aligned with the NCAC to fill schedules in the most recent seasons.

The SCAC is part of the UAA side of the "D-III/D-IV" debates from the last decade. Where else will the UAA teams find easy games in October and November?
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2011, 03:16:16 PM
Re: IWU/Monmouth.

The game went just as I feared it might.  Super QBs can make games weird (see: Chad Rupp vs. NCC, 2008 round two).  I still think IWU is overall the better team, but a 5th year All American QB is apt to come thru in crunch time (we contained him pretty well most of the game), while a sophomore first-year starter (who played VERY well all season) picked the worst possible time to look like the young QB he is.  Teams like UWW, UMU, NCC, etc., may be able to survive 5 TOs; we won't (and didn't).

IWU and Monmouth face each other in bball in a couple of days - I suspect revenge, big time! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2011, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
I hope that the UAA and the SCAC will affiliate to get a Pool A bid.  The SCAC might have 4 teams  (Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College and Centenary LA) by the time that an agreement might be reached.

From your lips to the ears of the leaders of the UAA.   +1
Thanks for the karma.

In the world of "D-III football-playing peer institutions", the UAA aligned with the NCAC to fill schedules in the most recent seasons.

The SCAC is part of the UAA side of the "D-III/D-IV" debates from the last decade. Where else will the UAA teams find easy games in October and November?

"Easy" as in easy to schedule amongst institutions with similar academic rigor?

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 03:49:36 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2011, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
I hope that the UAA and the SCAC will affiliate to get a Pool A bid.  The SCAC might have 4 teams  (Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College and Centenary LA) by the time that an agreement might be reached.

From your lips to the ears of the leaders of the UAA.   +1
Thanks for the karma.

In the world of "D-III football-playing peer institutions", the UAA aligned with the NCAC to fill schedules in the most recent seasons.

The SCAC is part of the UAA side of the "D-III/D-IV" debates from the last decade. Where else will the UAA teams find easy games in October and November?

"Easy" as in easy to schedule amongst institutions with similar academic rigor?
Thanks, smed!

In your opinion, what schools are of "similar academic rigor" that would be under consideration by the UAA for a single sport affiliation after the NCAC moves to its new schedule?   :)

The fact that they considered the NCAC of similar academic rigor opens to the door. (Or lowers the bar?)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 04:16:30 PM
I think the SCAC fits right in where the NCAC left off.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 06:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
The CCIW Pool C bid, a team that beat Wheaton in the regular season, did not show very favorably yesterday.  They lost at home to the winner of Illinois College's conference.

So?  Monmouth, IWU, Wheaton were all competitive.  IC wasn't competitive with Monmouth.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: ADL70 on November 20, 2011, 07:08:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2011, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
I hope that the UAA and the SCAC will affiliate to get a Pool A bid.  The SCAC might have 4 teams  (Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College and Centenary LA) by the time that an agreement might be reached.

From your lips to the ears of the leaders of the UAA.   +1
Thanks for the karma.

In the world of "D-III football-playing peer institutions", the UAA aligned with the NCAC to fill schedules in the most recent seasons.

The SCAC is part of the UAA side of the "D-III/D-IV" debates from the last decade. Where else will the UAA teams find easy games in October and November?

"Easy" as in easy to schedule amongst institutions with similar academic rigor?

A UAA-SCAC match-up for football only makes a lot of sense, but geography is a draw back.

With Austin and one or two brand-new programs, the competition would be relatively easy as well.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 07:15:32 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on November 20, 2011, 07:08:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 20, 2011, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
I hope that the UAA and the SCAC will affiliate to get a Pool A bid.  The SCAC might have 4 teams  (Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College and Centenary LA) by the time that an agreement might be reached.

From your lips to the ears of the leaders of the UAA.   +1
Thanks for the karma.

In the world of "D-III football-playing peer institutions", the UAA aligned with the NCAC to fill schedules in the most recent seasons.

The SCAC is part of the UAA side of the "D-III/D-IV" debates from the last decade. Where else will the UAA teams find easy games in October and November?

"Easy" as in easy to schedule amongst institutions with similar academic rigor?

A UAA-SCAC match-up for football only makes a lot of sense, but geography is a draw back.

With Austin and one or two brand-new programs, the competition would be relatively easy as well.
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 06:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
The CCIW Pool C bid, a team that beat Wheaton in the regular season, did not show very favorably yesterday.  They lost at home to the winner of Illinois College's conference.

So?  Monmouth, IWU, Wheaton were all competitive.  IC wasn't competitive with Monmouth.
Travel will be easy plane flights...

Austin College is 1 hour north of DFW airport.

Trinity is in San Antonio.

Southwestern is 30 minutes north of Austin and 2 hours north of San Antonio.

If Centenary adds football, then they are three hours from DFW, but has connections with American Continental and Delta.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 06:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
The CCIW Pool C bid, a team that beat Wheaton in the regular season, did not show very favorably yesterday.  They lost at home to the winner of Illinois College's conference.

So?  Monmouth, IWU, Wheaton were all competitive.  IC wasn't competitive with Monmouth.
Thanks for the comment.   :)
With what is on the table at that time, I can understand the comment.

I look at the body of work that Case did against the UAA and the NCAC schools and compare with the teams that were not even under consideration because they were in a "logjam" of great schools in the South Region.

I would put Huntingdon (which beat Wittenberg by 18 and Hampden-Sydney by 7 and lost to Trinity by 17), Birmingham Southern (Lost to Centre and Trinity), Hardin-Simmons (beat IowaIAC co-runnerup Coe and Willamette) and even Louisiana College head-to-head against anyone in the NCAC or the UAA.

UW-Oshkosh wishes that it had not stumped its toe against UW-Lacrosse.

I think that the criteria that deep into the playoffs leave you vulnerable.  If Case beats Rochester, then they are in, with little doubt.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 08:13:46 PM
Quote from: jam40jeff on November 20, 2011, 06:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
The CCIW Pool C bid, a team that beat Wheaton in the regular season, did not show very favorably yesterday.  They lost at home to the winner of Illinois College's conference.

So?  Monmouth, IWU, Wheaton were all competitive.  IC wasn't competitive with Monmouth.

That's mind-set. I compare it to when Wabash joined the NCAC. Witt was the top dog and Wabash was a little intimidated by them UNTIL we beat them. Then, forget it. They could be beaten.

If IC beats Monmouth this year, that will take the intimidation factor away.

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 20, 2011, 08:15:00 PM
The UAA is used to travel in every other sport. i don't think adding football would be so rough. Besides, just sell another research project to the government to pay for it!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on November 21, 2011, 10:41:50 AM
Quote from: USee on November 20, 2011, 12:00:01 PM
IWU losing at home to an MWC team will not help the CCIW's case of being a top conference. That's a bad loss for the CCIW and IWU.

The loss at home didn't look good. But I'm waiting to see how Monmouth fairs at UST before I knock IWU/CCIW too much.

If Monmouth's plays UST close or wins, then you're just talking about a very good team. If UST wins convincingly, then I think you've got to knock IWU a little more.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 21, 2011, 11:20:28 AM
Not really. UST is a team I think can beat one of the other Purples, and so they may be expected to lay some lumber on Monmouth.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 21, 2011, 08:42:03 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2011, 11:37:40 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 17, 2011, 09:12:22 AM
My point was that "top" team does not necessarily imply the next best team in your region from a football standpoint. For a regional committee, it should imply the most likely team to make the field.

I agree with the first sentence.  I don't entirely agree with the second sentence.  K-Mack and Pat have previously stated that the Regional committees are not playing some devious game to try and steal as many playoff berths as possible for their particular region.

1. The regional committee evaluates the potential Pool C teams in their region.

2. They rank the teams according to set of predetermined criteria.

3. The regional committees put their top-ranked teams (as you've said, not necessarily the "best") up for consideration.

4. The national committee looks at the four teams on the board and selects the one that they would have ranked the "highest" using the SAME EXACT CRITERIA.

5. That team is then replaced with the next team up from the same region.  Repeat steps 4 and 5 until six teams have been selected.

There's no shady "Since CWRU is on the board from the North, we should put St. John Fisher up now because..." kind of logic.  The teams SHOULD come off the board in the same order regardless of who each region puts up at any given time.

This.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 21, 2011, 08:50:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2011, 03:16:16 PM
Re: IWU/Monmouth.

The game went just as I feared it might.  Super QBs can make games weird (see: Chad Rupp vs. NCC, 2008 round two).  I still think IWU is overall the better team, but a 5th year All American QB is apt to come thru in crunch time (we contained him pretty well most of the game), while a sophomore first-year starter (who played VERY well all season) picked the worst possible time to look like the young QB he is.  Teams like UWW, UMU, NCC, etc., may be able to survive 5 TOs; we won't (and didn't).

IWU and Monmouth face each other in bball in a couple of days - I suspect revenge, big time! ;D

Love the analysis and insight. And D3hoops.com promo!
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on November 22, 2011, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2011, 11:20:28 AM
Not really. UST is a team I think can beat one of the other Purples, and so they may be expected to lay some lumber on Monmouth.

I think we've got to see this on the field first. UST has never gone toe to toe with Mount or UWW. They are very good, don't get me wrong. But Bethel beat them in the playoffs last year and got beat soundly by Mount the next game. This year Bethel was in the game against UST and came up short on a couple redzone possessions.

Judging by what I've seen in person of Mount and UWW, I want to see UST prove on the field that they're in this class. I hope they do, but I'm not crowning them with that until I see it. And even if I do, I've had the sense both the traditional Purple Powers have seemed more vulnerable this year. They're still unbeaten and the teams to beat, but I'm not sure they're quite as dominant as they've been in the past. I'd like to think this gap is closing because the rest of D3 has raised its game, but I'm not convinced it isn't also a 'down' year for the big boys as well.

But that's the beauty of the playoffs. We'll get relative answers to several of these questions in the weeks ahead. Maybe UST really is as good as they tempt us to believe. Maybe the gap is closing with the pack and UWW/UMU. Maybe the Purple Powers are still just as good as ever. Can't wait to watch and see...

Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: SUADC on November 22, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 22, 2011, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2011, 11:20:28 AM
Not really. UST is a team I think can beat one of the other Purples, and so they may be expected to lay some lumber on Monmouth.

I think we've got to see this on the field first. UST has never gone toe to toe with Mount or UWW. They are very good, don't get me wrong. But Bethel beat them in the playoffs last year and got beat soundly by Mount the next game. This year Bethel was in the game against UST and came up short on a couple redzone possessions.

Judging by what I've seen in person of Mount and UWW, I want to see UST prove on the field that they're in this class. I hope they do, but I'm not crowning them with that until I see it. And even if I do, I've had the sense both the traditional Purple Powers have seemed more vulnerable this year. They're still unbeaten and the teams to beat, but I'm not sure they're quite as dominant as they've been in the past. I'd like to think this gap is closing because the rest of D3 has raised its game, but I'm not convinced it isn't also a 'down' year for the big boys as well.

But that's the beauty of the playoffs. We'll get relative answers to several of these questions in the weeks ahead. Maybe UST really is as good as they tempt us to believe. Maybe the gap is closing with the pack and UWW/UMU. Maybe the Purple Powers are still just as good as ever. Can't wait to watch and see...

I believe St. Thomas is one of those few teams that can play well against the purple powers. However, I aggree 100% with you, until you play them and prove it on the field, you can't make any claims. Similar to Wesley going back to 2005, they have had the oppourtunity to play both purple powers over the last few years and I believe that they were just as athletic, but the purple powers coaching staff and players were on a differet level when it came to finishing. Nevertheless, having a playoff is what makes Division 3 Football so much better than Division 1 FBS, you still have the chance to prove yourself on the field and you never know, St. Thomas might just be that next team to make that jump, hoping to see a different matchup for the Stagg bowl this year.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: jknezek on November 22, 2011, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: SUADC on November 22, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
Nevertheless, having a playoff is what makes Division 3 Football so much better than Division 1 FCS, you still have the chance to prove yourself on the field and you never know, St. Thomas might just be that next team to make that jump, hoping to see a different matchup for the Stagg bowl this year.

Division I FCS does have a playoff. I think you meant FBS which has the monstrosity known as the Bowl Championship Series.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: SUADC on November 22, 2011, 10:57:53 AM
Quote from: jknezek on November 22, 2011, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: SUADC on November 22, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
Nevertheless, having a playoff is what makes Division 3 Football so much better than Division 1 FCS, you still have the chance to prove yourself on the field and you never know, St. Thomas might just be that next team to make that jump, hoping to see a different matchup for the Stagg bowl this year.

Division I FCS does have a playoff. I think you meant FBS which has the monstrosity known as the Bowl Championship Series.

Thanks, modified it.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Yes, playoffs are excellent.

Some guy wrote an article in Kickoff '11 that ID'd five teams most likely to leapfrog the purple powers, perhaps this season.

All five are still alive.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on November 23, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Yes, playoffs are excellent.

Some guy wrote an article in Kickoff '11 that ID'd five teams most likely to leapfrog the purple powers, perhaps this season.

All five are still alive.

Man, whoever that guy was should get a hefty raise  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: hazzben on November 23, 2011, 03:40:45 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Yes, playoffs are excellent.

Some guy wrote an article in Kickoff '11 that ID'd five teams most likely to leapfrog the purple powers, perhaps this season.

All five are still alive.

While I'm thinking about it. Could you predict Bethel will make the jump next year. That'd be even better, given your prescient powers  :D
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: HScoach on November 23, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 23, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Yes, playoffs are excellent.

Some guy wrote an article in Kickoff '11 that ID'd five teams most likely to leapfrog the purple powers, perhaps this season.

All five are still alive.

Man, whoever that guy was should get a hefty raise  ;)

I was thinking that guy should be fired if any of them didn't make it out of the first round.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 06:13:36 PM
You guys are funny.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 23, 2011, 06:53:29 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 23, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 23, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Yes, playoffs are excellent.

Some guy wrote an article in Kickoff '11 that ID'd five teams most likely to leapfrog the purple powers, perhaps this season.

All five are still alive.

Man, whoever that guy was should get a hefty raise  ;)

I was thinking that guy should be fired if any of them didn't make it out of the first round.   ;)

I'd give the poor dude a pass if Linfield hadn't made it - Cal Lu was one tough first round opponent!

Speaking of Linfield, now that the Committee is not afraid to have cross-country games, I wonder if it is not time to modify the noon local time starting rule.  For teams travelling east, it is probably not a big deal for those whose bodies are on CST, but Linfield will be playing at (body-time) 9 freakin' o'clock in the morning (and their coach says the wake-up call will be at 4:30 PST)!  Those of us who remember college (and/or are parents of college students) know that for many if not most teenagers, getting up at noon is NOT considered 'sleeping in'!  Perhaps games could start at noon local time or noon visitors' time, whichever is later?  (With modifications if a home field has no lights, I suppose.)

[One respected (and neutral, for this matchup) poster has already hinted that he suspects Linfield may be the stronger team, but is loathe to pick them not knowing the effects of both a cross-country flight AND playing in practically the middle of the night (body time).]
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 23, 2011, 08:26:26 PM
 + 1 K
I agree Mr.Ypsi...
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 10:11:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 23, 2011, 06:53:29 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 23, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 23, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Yes, playoffs are excellent.

Some guy wrote an article in Kickoff '11 that ID'd five teams most likely to leapfrog the purple powers, perhaps this season.

All five are still alive.

Man, whoever that guy was should get a hefty raise  ;)

I was thinking that guy should be fired if any of them didn't make it out of the first round.   ;)

I'd give the poor dude a pass if Linfield hadn't made it - Cal Lu was one tough first round opponent!

Speaking of Linfield, now that the Committee is not afraid to have cross-country games, I wonder if it is not time to modify the noon local time starting rule.  For teams travelling east, it is probably not a big deal for those whose bodies are on CST, but Linfield will be playing at (body-time) 9 freakin' o'clock in the morning (and their coach says the wake-up call will be at 4:30 PST)!  Those of us who remember college (and/or are parents of college students) know that for many if not most teenagers, getting up at noon is NOT considered 'sleeping in'!  Perhaps games could start at noon local time or noon visitors' time, whichever is later?  (With modifications if a home field has no lights, I suppose.)

[One respected (and neutral, for this matchup) poster has already hinted that he suspects Linfield may be the stronger team, but is loathe to pick them not knowing the effects of both a cross-country flight AND playing in practically the middle of the night (body time).]

Smith is very vocal about this in the article.

You touched on one of the two reasons IMO for the rule: Lights. Not every D-III has 'em, and the noon starts take away any need for them or bending of rules because of them. Also it's just one less thing everyone has to worry about. Game at noon.

But, when they open the box they've opened this year -- and they are probably realizing things one step at a time -- they should at least allow for an appeal if both teams want to change kick time. Or better yet, if they're not going to announce the sites until Sunday, they could adjust start times on their own.

Whoever "they" is in this case.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: smedindy on November 23, 2011, 11:15:42 PM
I think these athletes will be fine. It is one game. They are young. But a 1:00 game time would be better but that's about as late as they could go.

If they started at two, and went into a couple of overtimes - you definitely would have a darkness problem.
Title: Re: Pool C -- 2011
Post by: MasterJedi on November 24, 2011, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 23, 2011, 06:53:29 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 23, 2011, 03:43:49 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 23, 2011, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Yes, playoffs are excellent.

Some guy wrote an article in Kickoff '11 that ID'd five teams most likely to leapfrog the purple powers, perhaps this season.

All five are still alive.

Man, whoever that guy was should get a hefty raise  ;)

I was thinking that guy should be fired if any of them didn't make it out of the first round.   ;)

I'd give the poor dude a pass if Linfield hadn't made it - Cal Lu was one tough first round opponent!

Speaking of Linfield, now that the Committee is not afraid to have cross-country games, I wonder if it is not time to modify the noon local time starting rule.  For teams travelling east, it is probably not a big deal for those whose bodies are on CST, but Linfield will be playing at (body-time) 9 freakin' o'clock in the morning (and their coach says the wake-up call will be at 4:30 PST)!  Those of us who remember college (and/or are parents of college students) know that for many if not most teenagers, getting up at noon is NOT considered 'sleeping in'!  Perhaps games could start at noon local time or noon visitors' time, whichever is later?  (With modifications if a home field has no lights, I suppose.)

[One respected (and neutral, for this matchup) poster has already hinted that he suspects Linfield may be the stronger team, but is loathe to pick them not knowing the effects of both a cross-country flight AND playing in practically the middle of the night (body time).]

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bilerico.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fbaby-crying.jpg&hash=fa97e30dc30c5c5ed6028651a1429b3ae5e3f1fc)

Welcome to the real world kiddies!