Author Topic: Pool C - 2017  (Read 14231 times)

Offline tf37

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #345 on: December 02, 2017, 10:22:56 am »
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

Wally,

I respect your viewpoint and I am actually a big fan of the AQ system.  But your last point seems a bit off looking at last years results.  UMHB's last three opponents were all Pool C teams, granted UMU and UWO are not your typical Pool C teams.  But looking back those were much closer games than their first two rounds against AQ teams.

Plus, using your logic, someone could argue that we shouldn't include at least a third of the AQs as well, because they haven't changed the end game either.

Appreciate the perspective, although I think you've misread- or at least misinterpreted- my post.  I'm certainly not advocating for less automatic qualifiers and more 2nd/3rd place teams in the tournament.  I think adding more at-large teams at the expense of auto qualifiers is a bad idea.  I think there's useful debate to be had about how to better select the at-large teams even though I'm not sure they selection committees are routinely getting that wrong even with with limited criteria and data that they have to work with.

Wally, 

I was not saying that was your point of view, was just saying that your logic could be used to argue to remove more AQs.  And even though I feel certain teams that didn't make the playoffs would have done "better" then teams that were in, I personally can't think of a way to improve the criteria used to determine  the field.

And at the end of the day, whichever team wins their next three games deserves to be crowned the champ, regardless of if another team looks better on paper or had an easier road to the finals.

Offline pumkinattack

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Karma: +227/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #346 on: December 05, 2017, 04:21:46 pm »
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.

Auburn - GA is a well known rivalry game. It's the "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry". They have played with only 3 exceptions every year since 1898. Auburn and Alabama took decades off from each other and it took a legislative requirement to get them to play again. UGA-Gtech is definitely an in-state rivalry, but from Georgia's point of view it is nowhere near as significant as Auburn.

While I agree the Iron Bowl is probably bigger these days, Auburn and Georgia are an officially designated rivalry games by the SEC and Malzahn having gone 0-6 prior to this year against Georgia and Alabama was often cited as the reason he would be fired coming into the season. He's pretty safe now of course, but either way, Auburn-Georgia is a huge rivalry.

Maybe itís anecdotal, but I think this is anachronistic relic like talking about Army as a national contender as while I noted the commercial during the game Iíve lived in the city of Atlanta for nearly a decade now and rarely heard anyone care about Auburn more than any other random SEC game.  The talk has always been about UF and AL.  Must have met 500 or more rabid UGA alums including guys who are high on the donor list and I just literally donít see it around the state of GA.  Maybe over towards the Columbus/Lagrange area but not where the vast majority of the populous is (Atl, savannah, Macon).  Ironically someone on a north board liked to pout. Out W&J and wittenburgs history citing national title games.  This stuff has a shelf life, seems like book learning vs street knowledge to me.  Itís like me running around talking about Hobarts great lacrosse history.  Nobody under the boomer generation shares the same opinion of the program. 

Offline Bob.Gregg

  • All-Region
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Karma: +203/-125
    • View Profile
    • WJPA Radio Sports
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #347 on: December 06, 2017, 06:52:35 pm »
Not sure why W&J got brought into this but, for the record, SINCE W&J's last Stagg Bowl appearance, the Presidents are 12-16 in the D-III playoffs, including 3 of their last 5 wins on the road, including AT Milsaps and AT Wittenberg.  Certainly not "beating the chest" material, but not anything to "tuck tail and run" about either.

Don't get me wrong, W&J is NOT a national championship caliber team/program right now.  And they have just four playoff wins in the last decade, but that doesn't mean they don't belong or shouldn't recall/tout what they have done in their history, a history that includes two Stagg Bowls, four straight national semifinals, and two national quarterfinal appearances in the last 13 years.  That ain't chump change.  It also ain't UMU, UMHB or UWW, I get that.

All-time, in the D-3 playoffs, W&J is 24-25 over 34 years.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 11:34:58 pm by Bob.Gregg »
Been wrong before.  Will be wrong again.

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 27359
  • Karma: +1693/-376
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #348 on: December 06, 2017, 09:24:38 pm »
Not sure why W&J got brought into this but, for the record, SINCE W&J's last Stagg Bowl appearance, the Presidents are 12-16 (.429) in the D-III playoffs, including 3 of their last 5 wins on the road, including AT Milsaps and AT Wittenberg.  Certainly not "beating the chest" material, but not anything to "tuck tail and run" about either.

Don't get me wrong, W&J is NOT a national championship caliber team/program right now.  And they have just four playoff wins in the last decade, but that doesn't mean they don't belong or shouldn't recall/tout what they have done in their history, a history that includes two Stagg Bowls, four straight national semifinals, and two national quarterfinal appearances in the last 13 years.  That ain't chump change.  It also ain't UMU, UMHB or UWW, I get that.
The single elimination feature of D-3 post-season skews won-loss percentages.

Let's say from 2007 to 2016 that your team made the playoffs 8 times and missed it twice.  You would keep that program in mind when you were casting your own Top 25 ballot.

Let's say that the team won four of the eight 1st round games.  That alone gives a team a 4-8 record (.333), even if they lost every 2nd round game.

If your team won 2 of the four 2nd round games, you are  6-6 (.500) at that point.
 
If you won 1 of the two 3rd round games, you are  7-7 (.500). If you lose both, you are 6-8 (.429)

If you win the 4th round game, you can do no worse than 8-8 and a Stagg Bowl Loss.

That is why .333 as a winning percentage is break-even for me.  You are winning half of your first round games.

W&J's .429 is enviable.


Online art76

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +222/-57
  • # yum update
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #349 on: December 06, 2017, 09:44:45 pm »
Ralph,

You got me thinking about my alma mater Bethel University has done since 1999. They're 6 and 8 overall in the play-offs, or .429 as well. (If I did my math correctly.)
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. - C.S. Lewis

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 27359
  • Karma: +1693/-376
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #350 on: December 06, 2017, 10:32:02 pm »
Ralph,

You got me thinking about my alma mater Bethel University has done since 1999. They're 6 and 8 overall in the play-offs, or .429 as well. (If I did my math correctly.)
Thank you, Art.

We have had 19 season of the Pools. In the "contiguous" part of D3, #1 and #2 seeds play the #6, #7, and #8 seeds. From my part of the country, when I see a MIAC team making the playoffs, I know that they are least in the 3rd tier of four tiers.  They are going to be tough.  Going head to head against UST, SJU or even the Cobbers makes it tough to get out of conference. Eight playoff appearances in the last 19 years is very good.  Look at where .429 gets you relative to the rest of D3.


http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs

Offline pumkinattack

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Karma: +227/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #351 on: December 07, 2017, 01:24:14 am »
Not sure why W&J got brought into this but, for the record, SINCE W&J's last Stagg Bowl appearance, the Presidents are 12-16 (.429) in the D-III playoffs, including 3 of their last 5 wins on the road, including AT Milsaps and AT Wittenberg.  Certainly not "beating the chest" material, but not anything to "tuck tail and run" about either.

Don't get me wrong, W&J is NOT a national championship caliber team/program right now.  And they have just four playoff wins in the last decade, but that doesn't mean they don't belong or shouldn't recall/tout what they have done in their history, a history that includes two Stagg Bowls, four straight national semifinals, and two national quarterfinal appearances in the last 13 years.  That ain't chump change.  It also ain't UMU, UMHB or UWW, I get that.
The single elimination feature of D-3 post-season skews won-loss percentages.

Let's say from 2007 to 2016 that your team made the playoffs 8 times and missed it twice.  You would keep that program in mind when you were casting your own Top 25 ballot.

Let's say that the team won four of the eight 1st round games.  That alone gives a team a 4-8 record (.333), even if they lost every 2nd round game.

If your team won 2 of the four 2nd round games, you are  6-6 (.500) at that point.
 
If you won 1 of the two 3rd round games, you are  7-7 (.500). If you lose both, you are 6-8 (.429)

If you win the 4th round game, you can do no worse than 8-8 and a Stagg Bowl Loss.

That is why .333 as a winning percentage is break-even for me.  You are winning half of your first round games.

W&J's .429 is enviable.

I only brought those two up because someone else in another place defended their seeding/placement (and even unofficially rankings such as the D3.com) based on history.  So that was leading back to my point that history is for the books if it's more than a few years old (arguably if it's yesterday) and so it's like claiming Ga Tech was once a SEC school or Army is relevant in football (or Duke who went to an Orange Bowl in 1960). 

But given the defense about W&J, here's Hobart since 2007:  missed four times, twice beating their own pool A champ, 6-7 record losing to St Thomas, Mt Union (2x), Wesley (2x - one a garbage bad seed in 2011, probably Wesley's best team, and a tight one) for a little more color.  (Other two losses were to St John Fisher, a decent national program).  That stacks up pretty well to W&Js record and the LL is in the same neighborhood as the PAC (some years better some years worse, this was a very down year for the LL).  Do folks outside (or even within) the East treat Hobart with the same level of deference as W&J?  Sure doesn't seem like it from my vantage. 

This is no defense of Hobart other than comparing records as a counter to the W&J defense.  And we thrashed Wittenberg a couple of years ago in a second round game. 

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 27359
  • Karma: +1693/-376
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #352 on: December 07, 2017, 09:59:05 am »
Pumkin, I look at Hobart as one of the better teams in the country, especially when filling out my bracket in the D3Challenge.

Just winning the first round game half the time is exceptional.  When I am filling out my Challenge bracket, I look at how that year's team is doing relative to the conference's history and who's the opponent.

I will go with Hobart thru the first round and sometimes in the second round.  With W&J, I will go with W&J usually thru the first round and sometimes, the second round.

By the third round, you are running into the UMU, UMHB, WIAC du jour, MIAC du jour, Linfield or previously Wesley.

I am happy that the Empire 8 and the NJAC have reconfigured. The addition of the ACFC schools (FSU, Salisbury & Wesley) to the NJAC will strengthen that conference, and it looks Brockport and Cortland have bolstered the Empire 8. That lifts the LL as well.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 10:09:46 am by Ralph Turner »