D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 05:57:29 PM

Title: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 05:57:29 PM
Post them here.

Away we go.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ITH radio on November 11, 2012, 06:04:47 PM
Hobart in the STU bracket?  Didn't see that one coming...
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:07:25 PM
If I'm understanding things right, MHB and MtUnion would face in a semifinal game (assuming both get that far)....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: AO on November 11, 2012, 06:13:41 PM
Bridgewater is a puzzler.  .520 SOS vs Concordia-Moorhead's .571
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
I'd love to hear how Bridgewater snuck in there.

I'm guessing the final four on the board were Bridgewater, OWU, Concordia Moorhead and Waynesburg
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 06:14:18 PM
which regions are above the other?  Is the semi in Alliance OH or Belton TX?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 11, 2012, 06:14:49 PM
Congrats to LC, first appearance in the playoffs!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 06:15:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
I'd love to hear how Bridgewater snuck in there.

I'm guessing the final four on the board were Bridgewater, Wheaton, Concordia Moorhead and Lycoming.

We'll ask.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:15:39 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2012, 06:13:41 PM
Bridgewater is a puzzler.  .520 SOS vs Concordia-Moorhead's .571
agreed.....1 loss vs. 2 losses?  perhaps....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
Back to cheap NCAA with two first-round in-conference matchups.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
I swapped out Lycoming for Waynesburg but still...

The puzzler is taking PLU and then leaving Concordia - Moorhead, unless PLU was the last one taken.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ITH radio on November 11, 2012, 06:17:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 06:15:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
I'd love to hear how Bridgewater snuck in there.

I'm guessing the final four on the board were Bridgewater, Wheaton, Concordia Moorhead and Lycoming.

We'll ask.

So will we.  Frank has been saying it was a possibility for a couple of weeks.  Interesting they opted to do certain flights and set up rematches (LC, etc) that could have been avoided.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: CalLuforLife on November 11, 2012, 06:17:36 PM
This Cal Lu fan is pumped! First home playoff game since I was 8!!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:18:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
I swapped out Lycoming for Waynesburg but still...

The puzzler is taking PLU and then leaving Concordia - Moorhead, unless PLU was the last one taken.
Actually--I would think PLU went before Bethel which left CM on the table....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: AO on November 11, 2012, 06:20:48 PM
Does the Committee know how horrible the NEFC is (24th ranked by D3football)?  9-1 in the NEFC is equal to 5-5 in the MIAC, and still Bridgewater's SOS couldn't compete with Concordia.  A regionally ranked win over Endicott means far less than wins by Concordia over unranked Augsburg or St. Olaf.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:19 PM
North Central gets shipped out to Cal Lutheran for the first round.The left side of the bracket looks to be a bit more rugged than the right side.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:38 PM
I sure wish MHB and Mt were on opposite sides of bracket.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 06:22:50 PM
 If there is one constant in life beyond death & taxes, it's not being able to figure out the NCAA.  Weird bracketing of teams.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 06:23:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:38 PM
I sure wish MHB and Mt were on opposite sides of bracket.

Me too.  I'm still trying to figure out which one of the two is hosting the semi?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:25:11 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 06:23:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:38 PM
I sure wish MHB and Mt were on opposite sides of bracket.

Me too.  I'm still trying to figure out which one of the two is hosting the semi?
It might be a TBA thing--I think the semi's have to be appopriate for possible ESPN broadcasts this year so facilities may have more strict requirements.....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:25:38 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:19 PM
North Central gets shipped out to Cal Lutheran for the first round.The left side of the bracket looks to be a bit more rugged than the right side.
Yes, but the top 2 teams in the country are both on the right side.....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:26:24 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:25:38 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:19 PM
North Central gets shipped out to Cal Lutheran for the first round.The left side of the bracket looks to be a bit more rugged than the right side.
Yes, but the top 2 teams in the country are both on the right side.....

Apparently the AA braintrust thinks Linfield is the second-best team.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:27:16 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:25:38 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:19 PM
North Central gets shipped out to Cal Lutheran for the first round.The left side of the bracket looks to be a bit more rugged than the right side.
Yes, but the top 2 teams in the country are both on the right side.....

Well, they're not the Top 2 according to the NCAA.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:27:42 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:26:24 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:25:38 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:19 PM
North Central gets shipped out to Cal Lutheran for the first round.The left side of the bracket looks to be a bit more rugged than the right side.
Yes, but the top 2 teams in the country are both on the right side.....

Apparently the AA braintrust thinks Linfield is the second-best team.

Or maybe that's either St. Thomas or UW-Oshkosh....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: hazzben on November 11, 2012, 06:27:55 PM
Big winners are Linfield/UWO/UST. The best unbeatens not named Mount and UMHB and they don't have to worry about facing them until the Stagg...
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 06:28:46 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 06:23:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:38 PM
I sure wish MHB and Mt were on opposite sides of bracket.

Me too.  I'm still trying to figure out which one of the two is hosting the semi?

Top-down approach.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:18:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
I swapped out Lycoming for Waynesburg but still...

The puzzler is taking PLU and then leaving Concordia - Moorhead, unless PLU was the last one taken.
Actually--I would think PLU went before Bethel which left CM on the table....

Yeah, that's probably right, maybe. At any rate, two loss teams got in before one loss teams and I bet it was how the regions did their RRs.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:26:24 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 06:25:38 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:22:19 PM
North Central gets shipped out to Cal Lutheran for the first round.The left side of the bracket looks to be a bit more rugged than the right side.
Yes, but the top 2 teams in the country are both on the right side.....

Apparently the AA braintrust thinks Linfield is the second-best team.

It's more likely that 2-3 is UMU/MHB and Linfield is 1 with St. Thomas 4?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 06:31:15 PM
Quote from: AO on November 11, 2012, 06:20:48 PM
Does the Committee know how horrible the NEFC is (24th ranked by D3football)?  9-1 in the NEFC is equal to 5-5 in the MIAC, and still Bridgewater's SOS couldn't compete with Concordia.  A regionally ranked win over Endicott means far less than wins by Concordia over unranked Augsburg or St. Olaf.

Not according to the NCAA, obviously. RR wins are RR wins to them. Period. Paragraph.

I think it all comes down to how the various committees did their final RRs.

Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 06:43:26 PM
Interesting draw for newby Heidelberg.  They're as likely to play in the regional final as they are to lose Round 1.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 06:50:00 PM
A possible Heidelberg/Hobart matchup is certainly interesting.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 06:57:11 PM
I meant to post this here and not Pool C, but: While I may be mad about the double NEFC selection it's still better than the BCS!  :P
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 07:01:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

As far as I know, Illinois hasn't lost its NCAA hosting rights. But I wouldn't mind the game being moved to River Falls. It's a lot closer to me than River Forest. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:04:55 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 07:01:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

As far as I know, Illinois hasn't lost its NCAA hosting rights. But I wouldn't mind the game being moved to River Falls. It's a lot closer to me than River Forest. ;)

Dang!  I keep doing that (and my brother lived in River Forest (3 blocks from CURF) for years! :-*
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o

Past performance means diddly to the NCAA except when divining undefeated teams apart from each other. Bethel's RR was a lot lower than Concordia.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o

Past performance means diddly to the NCAA except when divining undefeated teams apart from each other. Bethel's RR was a lot lower than Concordia.

AndOne was talking about NCC, not Bethel or Concordia-M.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Langhorst_Ghost on November 11, 2012, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

Tough draw indeed.  Meanwhile, Adrian loses to a CCIW team (Carthage), wins a conference that got slapped around by the CCIW's best and somehow still manages to draw a home game, while 9-1 Elmhurst travels 215 miles west. 

The NCAA folks work in mysterious ways.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o

Past performance means diddly to the NCAA except when divining undefeated teams apart from each other. Bethel's RR was a lot lower than Concordia.

AndOne was talking about NCC, not Bethel or Concordia-M.

Still, the principle holds. Past performance matters not one whit, nor should it.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bluenote on November 11, 2012, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield! 

Am I hearing some respect for a SCIAC Team? I thought NCC was pretty tough?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: TJBWWPL on November 11, 2012, 07:20:08 PM
I am not sure why we use polls they do not mean anything. We have what is rated the best conference in the nation the WIAC, and a team that is rated #13 in the nation and they are passed up. Honestly I respect other conferences and programs but I feel a team like UW Platteville is better than 3/4 of the teams in the playoffs. But every year you see teams with high seeds that are not justified. I also know some conferences are extremely weak and still manage to pull out multiple invites to the playoffs. When will common sense and knowledge of strong conferences and teams be allowed to grace D3. A few years back the committe chose to send the #1 team in the nation on the road for 2 games by giving them a lower seed. They showed that the people making the decisions for playoffs lack knowledge and common sense. I hope some day they get it right.. Best of luck to all playoff teams.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 07:22:14 PM
It's true the NCAA doesn't agree with our poll, but our poll performs better in the postseason than their seedings do.

However, this should not be a surprise. We have had three projected brackets and two regional rankings that have had UWP on the outside looking in. There's been plenty of warning.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 07:24:37 PM
Quote from: TJBWWPL on November 11, 2012, 07:20:08 PM
I am not sure why we use polls they do not mean anything. We have what is rated the best conference in the nation the WIAC, and a team that is rated #13 in the nation and they are passed up. Honestly I respect other conferences and programs but I feel a team like UW Platteville is better than 3/4 of the teams in the playoffs. But every year you see teams with high seeds that are not justified. I also know some conferences are extremely weak and still manage to pull out multiple invites to the playoffs. When will common sense and knowledge of strong conferences and teams be allowed to grace D3. A few years back the committe chose to send the #1 team in the nation on the road for 2 games by giving them a lower seed. They showed that the people making the decisions for playoffs lack knowledge and common sense. I hope some day they get it right.. Best of luck to all playoff teams.

I aggree that UW-Plattville is better than some teams, but not 2/3. It was once believed that no East team could beat a so called West team out West. However, like Pat indicated, the rankings do hold true come playoff time.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: kochrym on November 11, 2012, 07:24:55 PM
Everyone is wondering who was the last team selected? The assumption is Bridgewater State, which in my opinion was a truly baffling choice. Actually it was Rowan, even more baffling. The individual who announced the bracket said Rowan was the last Pool C team selected. Or maybe he meant that Rowan happened to be the last Pool C that he announced as making the bracket. His statement confused me. Anyway the bracket is interesting. The only bad decision was placing Mt. Union and Mary Hardin Baylor in the same half of the bracket. That should be a possible final not a possible semi final.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 07:25:49 PM
Quote from: kochrym on November 11, 2012, 07:24:55 PM
Everyone is wondering who was the last team selected? The assumption is Bridgewater State, which in my opinion was a truly baffling choice. Actually it was Rowan, even more baffling. The individual who announced the bracket said Rowan was the last Pool C team selected. Or maybe he meant that Rowan happened to be the last Pool C that he announced as making the bracket. His statement confused me. Anyway the bracket is interesting. The only bad decision was placing Mt. Union and Mary Hardin Baylor in the same half of the bracket. That should be a possible final not a possible semi final.

Rowan was the last one to be named. (Meaning Ohio Wesleyan and the rest had no hope thereafter.)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 11, 2012, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield! 

Am I hearing some respect for a SCIAC Team? I thought NCC was pretty tough?

I always have respect for the top teams in the SCIAC.  Overall, the league is pretty suspect, but the top is generally quite good (see NCC @ Redlands, 2011).
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on November 11, 2012, 07:28:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o

Past performance means diddly to the NCAA except when divining undefeated teams apart from each other. Bethel's RR was a lot lower than Concordia.

AndOne was talking about NCC, not Bethel or Concordia-M.

Still, the principle holds. Past performance matters not one whit, nor should it.

Nor should it?  What if a team went a couple rounds into the playoffs in 2011 and returned the majority of its starters?  You don't think experience is an important part of what makes a team good?  I'm not referring to any particular team, but for those that refuse to put any weight on past performance, you are disagreeing with the opinion of most every coach I've ever heard talk about the subject. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:29:55 PM
Last year is not this year when selecting teams for the post-season.

Otherwise you self-perpetuate and no one new gets to break in. Just because a team returns a lot doesn't mean another team has gotten better and surpassed them.

Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bluenote on November 11, 2012, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: kochrym on November 11, 2012, 07:24:55 PM
The only bad decision was placing Mt. Union and Mary Hardin Baylor in the same half of the bracket. That should be a possible final not a possible semi final.

I have no problem with that decision..... ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 07:37:30 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 11, 2012, 07:28:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:17:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o

Past performance means diddly to the NCAA except when divining undefeated teams apart from each other. Bethel's RR was a lot lower than Concordia.

AndOne was talking about NCC, not Bethel or Concordia-M.

Still, the principle holds. Past performance matters not one whit, nor should it.

Nor should it?  What if a team went a couple rounds into the playoffs in 2011 and returned the majority of its starters?  You don't think experience is an important part of what makes a team good?  I'm not referring to any particular team, but for those that refuse to put any weight on past performance, you are disagreeing with the opinion of most every coach I've ever heard talk about the subject.

No.  Every year needs to be it's own closed system.  Does past experience matter?  Yes, it does.  It should help teams that have been in the playoffs and have the extra games and have the extra practice time that should manifest itself over the course of 10 games.  That's the advantage that playoff teams from previous years have.  They don't need any extra advantages on Selection Sunday.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: retagent on November 11, 2012, 07:38:30 PM
I'm not seeing much love for the "West" Region on here. To assume that  UMHB and UMU are the 2 best teams in the country assumes an awful lot. I wouldn't think there is a hair's difference between the Top 4, or 5. Meaning, you can lump UST, Linfield, and probably UWO in with the 2 previously mentioned here. There may also be a couple more I'm not familiar with who might be considered.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: SUADC on November 11, 2012, 07:42:26 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 11, 2012, 07:38:30 PM
I'm not seeing much love for the "West" Region on here. To assume that  UMHB and UMU are the 2 best teams in the country assumes an awful lot. I wouldn't think there is a hair's difference between the Top 4, or 5. Meaning, you can lump UST, Linfield, and probably UWO in with the 2 previously mentioned here. There may also be a couple more I'm not familiar with who might be considered.

We will see in these next couple weeks...it does make for some interesting conversations.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: kygriz on November 11, 2012, 07:44:31 PM
Don't know very much about Adrian other than the fact that I recall the schools playing one another in the past. Nice win yesterday retaining the Victory Bell for now 8 years in a row.....offense is always there for the GRIZ........this year the defense has been consistently impressive, shutting out 4 opponents in a row.....looking forward to Saturday!!!!
Title: MIAC
Post by: ndoc on November 11, 2012, 07:47:26 PM
I still think the selection committee got this wrong...Bethel over Concordia?

I know the tie breaker is head to head between the two, but I don't think this looks at the whole picture.  Concordia lost by a point to Bethel on a magical comeback and played St. Thomas well, while Bethel lost to an un-ranked team and got absolutely trounced by St. Thomas. 

You could argue the committee was trying to be "fair" and not slipping in a 3rd team from a conference when that team is 8-2 over some team like Bridgewater, I'd say three from the MIAC before Bridgewater.  However, if that doesn't happen and its bethel vs Concordia, you can't take the team that has a 37-0 loss. 

Pat - you've seen both teams play in person, in your opinion - which team looks more solid througout?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:56:11 PM
The West committee had to have Bethel over Concordia and that result, as weird as that result was, it carries weight.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2012, 07:57:27 PM
^ I agree.  Fluke or not, the ledger says it was a Bethel win.  Therefore Bethel had to go before CM.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: desertcat1 on November 11, 2012, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 11, 2012, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield! 

Am I hearing some respect for a SCIAC Team? I thought NCC was pretty tough?

I always have respect for the top teams in the SCIAC.  Overall, the league is pretty suspect, but the top is generally quite good (see NCC @ Redlands, 2011).


So Cal lutes are for real. so be ready .. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:01:36 PM
Well, St. Thomas made both of them look silly and I didn't see Concordia play a second time. Bethel looked good yesterday but St. John's wasn't much of a challenge defensively. In all, though, I like Bethel's offensive versatility more.

Concordia's coach is on the committee -- if Concordia couldn't get ranked ahead of Bethel in that instance it was never ever going to happen.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: desertcat1 on November 11, 2012, 08:02:48 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 11, 2012, 07:38:30 PM
I'm not seeing much love for the "West" Region on here. To assume that  UMHB and UMU are the 2 best teams in the country assumes an awful lot. I wouldn't think there is a hair's difference between the Top 4, or 5. Meaning, you can lump UST, Linfield, and probably UWO in with the 2 previously mentioned here. There may also be a couple more I'm not familiar with who might be considered.


I'll go with the first 5 ..flip and coin the draw is the difference imho. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: NCF on November 11, 2012, 08:13:54 PM
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 11, 2012, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 11, 2012, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield! 

Am I hearing some respect for a SCIAC Team? I thought NCC was pretty tough?

I always have respect for the top teams in the SCIAC.  Overall, the league is pretty suspect, but the top is generally quite good (see NCC @ Redlands, 2011).


So Cal lutes are for real. so be ready .. ;)
So is NC so back at ya :). the big issue with this is travel for parents. if my son wasn't a senior, i would stay home. giving such short notice for flights with the holiday right around the corner is just "plane" stupid. only the ncaa. that said, i think it's exciting for the Cards to be playing in the west, just not so far away so early.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Unfortunately, we ask for so many things that it's impossible to do everything.

We want to play 10 games and have a bye week, so we have an 11-week regular season.
We want to not have kids on campus too many weeks before classes start, so our first game is Labor Day weekend.
We want a 32-team playoff, so that requires five playoff weeks.
We want kids home for Christmas, so that dictates when the season ends.

There's no way to do all that, have a national tournament, and also have more than seven days' notice for flights.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: NCF on November 11, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Unfortunately, we ask for so many things that it's impossible to do everything.

We want to play 10 games and have a bye week, so we have an 11-week regular season.
We want to not have kids on campus too many weeks before classes start, so our first game is Labor Day weekend.
We want a 32-team playoff, so that requires five playoff weeks.
We want kids home for Christmas, so that dictates when the season ends.

There's no way to do all that, have a national tournament, and also have more than seven days' notice for flights.
I could do without the bye week, who complains about the other stuff? The ncaa is full of people who surely don't know what the *$&* they are doing when it comes to certain things. and if nc wins, they fly to linfield? another big expense? during thanksgiving week-end? not very smart at all-but not surprising either. this is a strain on the parents, the players should be enjoying every minute of this. Go Cards!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:51:24 PM
You think people wouldn't complain if we didn't have a five-round playoff and went back to four?
You think schools want to pay to have kids on campus even longer than they already are in early August?
You think coaches don't love that bye week to get kids healed up?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: newcardfan on November 11, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Unfortunately, we ask for so many things that it's impossible to do everything.

We want to play 10 games and have a bye week, so we have an 11-week regular season.
We want to not have kids on campus too many weeks before classes start, so our first game is Labor Day weekend.
We want a 32-team playoff, so that requires five playoff weeks.
We want kids home for Christmas, so that dictates when the season ends.

There's no way to do all that, have a national tournament, and also have more than seven days' notice for flights.
I could do without the bye week, who complains about the other stuff? The ncaa is full of people who surely don't know what the *$&* they are doing when it comes to certain things. and if nc wins, they fly to linfield? another big expense? during thanksgiving week-end? not very smart at all-but not surprising either. this is a strain on the parents, the players should be enjoying every minute of this. Go Cards!

The selection committee (and/or) the NCAA 'bean-counters' are responsible for the bracket; all the rest of the considerations are the responsibility of the d3 member institutions (presidents or their delegated representatives), not the 'NCAA'.

The expense is your fault - you should have negotiated family airfare into your son's athletic scholarship! ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:00:57 PM
11 weeks to play 10 games is a lot better than whatever D-1 does.
Having a 32-team playoff is a lot better than whatever D-1 does.
Having auto-bids for each conference is a heck of a lot better than whatever D-1 does. And it's so much better than the 'bad old days' which I remember well. You don't think people would complain about a 24 or 16 team field instead?


Mixing it up so that there are great matchups in round 2 is a lot better than it used to be. Yes there are flights - it's better to have intriguing games than the way it used to be where some teams would be in meat-grinders each week whilst others would 'coast' (in a sense) until the final 8.

I think we need to step back, stop sour-graping, and understand the playoff structure we have is the best going right now for colllege football.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 09:09:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:00:57 PM
11 weeks to play 10 games is a lot better than whatever D-1 does.
Having a 32-team playoff is a lot better than whatever D-1 does.
Having auto-bids for each conference is a heck of a lot better than whatever D-1 does. And it's so much better than the 'bad old days' which I remember well. You don't think people would complain about a 24 or 16 team field instead?


Mixing it up so that there are great matchups in round 2 is a lot better than it used to be. Yes there are flights - it's better to have intriguing games than the way it used to be where some teams would be in meat-grinders each week whilst others would 'coast' (in a sense) until the final 8.

I think we need to step back, stop sour-graping, and understand the playoff structure we have is the best going right now for colllege football.

Great Post.
As a PLU Alum, I'm ready to party like it's 1999.  Let's go Road Warriors!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wone3 on November 11, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
Do we have a justification of the Mt. Union/UMHB pairing in the bracket from the committee? I would be curious to hear it. I'm not saying certain other conferences which are represented on the other side aren't good; but the way it seemed those 2 teams were playing would be the best showcase for the final game IMHO.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: NCF on November 11, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: newcardfan on November 11, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Unfortunately, we ask for so many things that it's impossible to do everything.

We want to play 10 games and have a bye week, so we have an 11-week regular season.
We want to not have kids on campus too many weeks before classes start, so our first game is Labor Day weekend.
We want a 32-team playoff, so that requires five playoff weeks.
We want kids home for Christmas, so that dictates when the season ends.

There's no way to do all that, have a national tournament, and also have more than seven days' notice for flights.
I could do without the bye week, who complains about the other stuff? The ncaa is full of people who surely don't know what the *$&* they are doing when it comes to certain things. and if nc wins, they fly to linfield? another big expense? during thanksgiving week-end? not very smart at all-but not surprising either. this is a strain on the parents, the players should be enjoying every minute of this. Go Cards!

The selection committee (and/or) the NCAA 'bean-counters' are responsible for the bracket; all the rest of the considerations are the responsibility of the d3 member institutions (presidents or their delegated representatives), not the 'NCAA'.

The expense is your fault - you should have negotiated family airfare into your son's athletic scholarship! ;D
hahahaha-too late now! if a #1 gets knocked off before the regional final, who takes their home game?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 09:17:38 PM
Quote from: newcardfan on November 11, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: newcardfan on November 11, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Unfortunately, we ask for so many things that it's impossible to do everything.

We want to play 10 games and have a bye week, so we have an 11-week regular season.
We want to not have kids on campus too many weeks before classes start, so our first game is Labor Day weekend.
We want a 32-team playoff, so that requires five playoff weeks.
We want kids home for Christmas, so that dictates when the season ends.

There's no way to do all that, have a national tournament, and also have more than seven days' notice for flights.
I could do without the bye week, who complains about the other stuff? The ncaa is full of people who surely don't know what the *$&* they are doing when it comes to certain things. and if nc wins, they fly to linfield? another big expense? during thanksgiving week-end? not very smart at all-but not surprising either. this is a strain on the parents, the players should be enjoying every minute of this. Go Cards!

The selection committee (and/or) the NCAA 'bean-counters' are responsible for the bracket; all the rest of the considerations are the responsibility of the d3 member institutions (presidents or their delegated representatives), not the 'NCAA'.

The expense is your fault - you should have negotiated family airfare into your son's athletic scholarship! ;D
hahahaha-too late now! if a #1 gets knocked off before the regional final, who takes their home game?

The higher remaining seed.  If PLU stuns Linfield, I would assume NCC (if they win) would host PLU, but the NCAA doesn't announce seeds (and being on 'airfare island', who knows what PLU's seed is - or NCC's for that matter).
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Quote from: wone3 on November 11, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
Do we have a justification of the Mt. Union/UMHB pairing in the bracket from the committee? I would be curious to hear it. I'm not saying certain other conferences which are represented on the other side aren't good; but the way it seemed those 2 teams were playing would be the best showcase for the final game IMHO.

Linfield has a much higher SOS than UMHB, so that may be the big reason that the committee had Linfield as the second best team.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 09:29:08 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o

Past performance means diddly to the NCAA except when divining undefeated teams apart from each other. Bethel's RR was a lot lower than Concordia.

Smedinty----

If you think past performance/reputation means diddy to the NCAA, you aren't very familiar with how they look at things when it comes playoff time on the basketball side.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 09:29:08 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: AndOne on November 11, 2012, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

CUC (which of course SHOULD be CURF ;)) is a great story and I've been cheering them on all season.  But quite honestly I have them a 3-4 TD underdog to either NCC or Bethel (even if the game IS in River Falls!).

Apparently being an AQ from a conference that got 2 teams in the playoffs, and could have gotten 3 in, and being a historically strong team in winning or sharing the conference title 7 years in a row in a very tough conference, means nothing, or little at best.  :o


Past performance means diddly to the NCAA except when divining undefeated teams apart from each other. Bethel's RR was a lot lower than Concordia.

Smedinty----

If you think past performance/reputation means diddy to the NCAA, you aren't very familiar with how they look at things when it comes playoff time on the basketball side.


Oh, I'm more than familiar with it, sir. More than familiar. The thing about basketball is that there are many more data points (and many more teams). Hosting is always a sticky wicket in that but they tend to choose the teams based on THIS season and not the past. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:31:48 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:27:08 PM
Quote from: wone3 on November 11, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
Do we have a justification of the Mt. Union/UMHB pairing in the bracket from the committee? I would be curious to hear it. I'm not saying certain other conferences which are represented on the other side aren't good; but the way it seemed those 2 teams were playing would be the best showcase for the final game IMHO.

Linfield has a much higher SOS than UMHB, so that may be the big reason that the committee had Linfield as the second best team.
I was thinking they may have used some of the Regional Ranking criteria to seed teams--and I think Linfield may actually be considered the #1 seed based on the way the bracket is constructed (Mt U would be 2, MHB 3 and ST. Thomas 3)....  Linfield had the higest SOS of those teams and wins against (probably) 4 regionally ranked teams (1 from another Region--HSU)....not saying this how they decided it but if you looked at Linfield with those criteria it very well may have been.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: LaCollegeFan on November 11, 2012, 09:32:23 PM
Just saw this on south regional board.. the top 4 seeds- 1. Linfield, 2. MU, 3. UMHB, and 4. St. Thomas.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:34:45 PM
That makes sense - the criteria really pegs Linfield as the #1 seed.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 09:34:52 PM
Yep -- noted here with NCAA quote:

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2012/bracket-released
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:44:35 PM
Of course the regional ranking criteria would probably put Mt. Union at 4th of the #1 seedes (weakest SOS and I think only 2-0 against regionally ranked opponents vs. MHB's 3-0 and St. Thomas' 2-0 but higher SOS)....but they do have a bit of a history..... ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wesleydad on November 11, 2012, 09:46:03 PM
no issue with linfield 1, issue with mount at 2 over umhb.  sos and other criteria put umhb ahead of mount.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:46:45 PM
That's definitely in the criteria, too. The only reference to past results are for comparing closely rated undefeated teams.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:46:45 PM
That's definitely in the criteria, too. The only reference to past results are for comparing closely rated undefeated teams.
Right, do they specify how far into the past those results can be considered?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Knightstalker on November 11, 2012, 09:58:27 PM
Quote from: Langhorst_Ghost on November 11, 2012, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

Tough draw indeed.  Meanwhile, Adrian loses to a CCIW team (Carthage), wins a conference that got slapped around by the CCIW's best and somehow still manages to draw a home game, while 9-1 Elmhurst travels 215 miles west. 

The NCAA folks work in mysterious ways.

Not mysterious, they pass the bong before each round of selections.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ndoc on November 11, 2012, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: wone3 on November 11, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
Do we have a justification of the Mt. Union/UMHB pairing in the bracket from the committee? I would be curious to hear it. I'm not saying certain other conferences which are represented on the other side aren't good; but the way it seemed those 2 teams were playing would be the best showcase for the final game IMHO.

Just because d3football has MTU/UMHB #1 -#2, that does not mean at all they are the best two teams and would be the best final game.  Heck, UMHB gives up a TON of points to be ranked #2.  I'm suprised every week by that single #1 vote they get.  I see very little separating the top 6 teams.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 11, 2012, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: LaCollegeFan on November 11, 2012, 09:32:23 PM
Just saw this on south regional board.. the top 4 seeds- 1. Linfield, 2. MU, 3. UMHB, and 4. St. Thomas.

I guessed this about 3 hours ago here  :P
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 10:17:40 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 11, 2012, 09:58:27 PM
Quote from: Langhorst_Ghost on November 11, 2012, 07:15:44 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

Tough draw indeed.  Meanwhile, Adrian loses to a CCIW team (Carthage), wins a conference that got slapped around by the CCIW's best and somehow still manages to draw a home game, while 9-1 Elmhurst travels 215 miles west. 

The NCAA folks work in mysterious ways.

Not mysterious, they pass the bong before each round of selections.

+k ;D

BTW, Happy Veterans' Day to you!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: wone3 on November 11, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
Do we have a justification of the Mt. Union/UMHB pairing in the bracket from the committee? I would be curious to hear it. I'm not saying certain other conferences which are represented on the other side aren't good; but the way it seemed those 2 teams were playing would be the best showcase for the final game IMHO.

Whether UMU or UMHB are 2 or 3 matters not...they'd wind up on the same half of the bracket either way.  The only spot where this matters is if they wind up playing in a semifinal.  But there are three games between now and then and we should probably go ahead play those out.  Cart in front of the horse and what not. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 10:41:20 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 11, 2012, 09:56:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 11, 2012, 09:46:45 PM
That's definitely in the criteria, too. The only reference to past results are for comparing closely rated undefeated teams.
Right, do they specify how far into the past those results can be considered?

One season.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 10:45:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
Back to cheap NCAA with two first-round in-conference matchups.

I have much less of a problem with it this year than in years when Hardin-Simmons would be 9-1 with a one-TD loss to UMHB, or 10-0 UMHB vs. 10-0 Trinity ... or even CLU getting sent to Linfield the past few years.

Here's why ... PLU and LC are two-loss teams that don't even get to the board in years when there are stronger crops of 9-1 teams. As two of the last four teams in, they should be going to play No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in Round 1 on the road. So it made sense geographically, without a doubt, but it's not like they're getting jobbed in the process.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: USee on November 11, 2012, 10:46:15 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on November 11, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2012, 06:32:13 PM
Tough draw for the CCIW.  Just hours after Pat & Company projected NCC to have won the bracketing lottery (playing CUC, surely one of the worst #2s in d3 history)), they go TO Cal Lu, and if they survive go TO Linfield!  Meanwhile, Elmhurst not only doesn't host, they travel TO a 10-0 Coe!

OUCH! :P

Not really....CUC has the offense where it can drop 40 points on a team on a daily basis. Their D leaves much to be desired but has made several game changing plays during the season. CUC however still has a tough out in Bethel to deal with in the first round.

I would bet a lot of money that CUC doesn't score 40 on Bethel.  I'll be surprised if they score more than twice.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 10:47:13 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 11, 2012, 06:04:47 PM
Hobart in the STU bracket?  Didn't see that one coming...

UST. But yes ... kinda cool though. I can see six teams, maybe seven, winning a game in that bracket, even though St. Thomas is the favorite. Hobart could carry the flag for the East ... if they last that long.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 10:45:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
Back to cheap NCAA with two first-round in-conference matchups.

I have much less of a problem with it this year than in years when Hardin-Simmons would be 9-1 with a one-TD loss to UMHB, or 10-0 UMHB vs. 10-0 Trinity ... or even CLU getting sent to Linfield the past few years.
Here's why ... PLU and LC are two-loss teams that don't even get to the board in years when there are stronger crops of 9-1 teams. As two of the last four teams in, they should be going to play No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in Round 1 on the road. So it made sense geographically, without a doubt, but it's not like they're getting jobbed in the process.
Good reasoning but shouldn't then Bethel have played St. Thomas in the first round?  Or were they in the field ahead of PLU?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 11:27:38 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 10:45:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
Back to cheap NCAA with two first-round in-conference matchups.

I have much less of a problem with it this year than in years when Hardin-Simmons would be 9-1 with a one-TD loss to UMHB, or 10-0 UMHB vs. 10-0 Trinity ... or even CLU getting sent to Linfield the past few years.
Here's why ... PLU and LC are two-loss teams that don't even get to the board in years when there are stronger crops of 9-1 teams. As two of the last four teams in, they should be going to play No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in Round 1 on the road. So it made sense geographically, without a doubt, but it's not like they're getting jobbed in the process.
Good reasoning but shouldn't then Bethel have played St. Thomas in the first round?  Or were they in the field ahead of PLU?

They don't match up teams from the same conference in the first round unless they have to for travel purposes. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2012, 11:27:38 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 11, 2012, 10:45:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
Back to cheap NCAA with two first-round in-conference matchups.

I have much less of a problem with it this year than in years when Hardin-Simmons would be 9-1 with a one-TD loss to UMHB, or 10-0 UMHB vs. 10-0 Trinity ... or even CLU getting sent to Linfield the past few years.
Here's why ... PLU and LC are two-loss teams that don't even get to the board in years when there are stronger crops of 9-1 teams. As two of the last four teams in, they should be going to play No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in Round 1 on the road. So it made sense geographically, without a doubt, but it's not like they're getting jobbed in the process.
Good reasoning but shouldn't then Bethel have played St. Thomas in the first round?  Or were they in the field ahead of PLU?
They don't match up teams from the same conference in the first round unless they have to for travel purposes.
Thanks WW, I gathered that.  But they could just as well have flown PLU to CLU and NC to Linfield and honored both criteria.  That would be two flights with a real possibility of PLU to Linfield in the second round, granted maybe a third flight.  This way they are still guaranteeing two flights anyways.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:43:42 PM
Incidentally, last year Redlands and CLU both made the field and they did not match them in the first round.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: thrunt01 on November 11, 2012, 11:44:19 PM
I'm just confused why UST is playing SNC in the first round while UWO is playing CSS. Can anyone explain the reasoning there?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2012, 11:56:07 PM
Last year the NCAA took Benedictine and sent it to Mount Union, then took Albion and sent it to UW-Whitewater, even though the reverse would have been shorter.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:43:42 PM
Incidentally, last year Redlands and CLU both made the field and they did not match them in the first round.
Yeah--but they had to fly someone North and to Texas as well (I don't thing there was a driveable team for MHB).
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bluenote on November 12, 2012, 12:08:13 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 09:09:49 PM
Great Post.
As a PLU Alum, I'm ready to party like it's 1999.  Let's go Road Warriors!

LOL! you're showing your age HaHaHa!!!! :)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Deveto on November 12, 2012, 12:18:37 AM
I'm looking forward to the Adrian v. Franklin game seeing that this will be Adrian 1st ever home playoff game and coming in with a big win over Huntingdon last week I think it shall be a good one. That Adrian defense has been very tough this year.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:43:42 PM
Incidentally, last year Redlands and CLU both made the field and they did not match them in the first round.
Yeah--but they had to fly someone North and to Texas as well (I don't thing there was a driveable team for MHB).
maybe I didn't think it all the way thru............oh well I'll work on it. :P
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 01:50:22 AM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 12, 2012, 12:08:13 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 09:09:49 PM
Great Post.
As a PLU Alum, I'm ready to party like it's 1999.  Let's go Road Warriors!
LOL! you're showing your age HaHaHa!!!! :)
Oh believe me, knowing that song makes me look younger than I am.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 09:16:40 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:43:42 PM
Incidentally, last year Redlands and CLU both made the field and they did not match them in the first round.
Yeah--but they had to fly someone North and to Texas as well (I don't thing there was a driveable team for MHB).
maybe I didn't think it all the way thru............oh well I'll work on it. :P
Ha--neither did I--they could have driven someone to MHB and kept Redlands at CLU and flown someone to Linfield last year.....but last year they did use an extra flight.  But if you listen to Pats interview with the committe chair--it's pretty clear that they didn't like PLU to Linfield and LC to MHB but costs are a bigger factor this year.....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ncc_fan on November 12, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 09:16:40 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:43:42 PM
Incidentally, last year Redlands and CLU both made the field and they did not match them in the first round.
Yeah--but they had to fly someone North and to Texas as well (I don't thing there was a driveable team for MHB).
maybe I didn't think it all the way thru............oh well I'll work on it. :P
Ha--neither did I--they could have driven someone to MHB and kept Redlands at CLU and flown someone to Linfield last year.....but last year they did use an extra flight.  But if you listen to Pats interview with the committe chair--it's pretty clear that they didn't like PLU to Linfield and LC to MHB but costs are a bigger factor this year.....

The chair also implied that cost played a role in determining which 8-2 team is flying to CLU.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: SUADC on November 12, 2012, 11:04:49 AM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 12, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 09:16:40 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 12, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 11, 2012, 11:43:42 PM
Incidentally, last year Redlands and CLU both made the field and they did not match them in the first round.
Yeah--but they had to fly someone North and to Texas as well (I don't thing there was a driveable team for MHB).
maybe I didn't think it all the way thru............oh well I'll work on it. :P
Ha--neither did I--they could have driven someone to MHB and kept Redlands at CLU and flown someone to Linfield last year.....but last year they did use an extra flight.  But if you listen to Pats interview with the committe chair--it's pretty clear that they didn't like PLU to Linfield and LC to MHB but costs are a bigger factor this year.....

The chair also implied that cost played a role in determining which 8-2 team is flying to CLU.

I believe that former players and parents should put in a couple bucks for next year so that we don't have to worry about cost. We can make it happen.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:45:36 PM
OK. I just listened to the interview with the committee Chair, Bankston, that Pat posted on the front page. It is very interesting. The most interesting thing I heard was that the process for voting for Pool C was different this year (and I think he said last year). In past years the debate on the call was very vocal and interactive and concluded with a verbal vote for the 4 teams at the table. This year the committee members voted secretly via computer so that no one knew who was voting for whom and their was no verbal interaction on the merits, or lack of, among the committee members. Pat, did I hear that right?

If this is indeed correct, this would seem to me to a major step backward in the process. Committee members are all different in their understanding of the criteria (If you use poster's here as a proxy for that intelligence I would say that is absolutely true) and a debate among the experienced and less-experienced members of the committee would seem quite valuable in shaping the balance of the field.

I hope I am wrong with what I heard.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ITH radio on November 12, 2012, 01:53:01 PM
we got a perhaps more detailed response regarding the brackets and how they attempted to seed the top 8 (1 and 2's) almost like a top 25 poll approach which was news to us as well.  the interview is up in the archive (inthehuddlle.com) if you want to check it out.  Bankston comes on about 60 mins into the show if you want to FF thru the LL specific talk.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:45:36 PM
OK. I just listened to the interview with the committee Chair, Bankston, that Pat posted on the front page. It is very interesting. The most interesting thing I heard was that the process for voting for Pool C was different this year (and I think he said last year). In past years the debate on the call was very vocal and interactive and concluded with a verbal vote for the 4 teams at the table. This year the committee members voted secretly via computer so that no one knew who was voting for whom and their was no verbal interaction on the merits, or lack of, among the committee members. Pat, did I hear that right?

Not quite - what I heard was that there was still a vocal discussion, but then a secret ballot, whereas in the past, there was discussion, and then a consensus was reached.

Brad specifically said that it remains an outspoken group and he doesn't think anyone kept their opinions to themselves. And yeah, the 1's and 2's thing is not new either -- just nobody on the football committee has been willing to talk about it in the past. But basketball fans have heard that about the basketball bracketing process.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: USee on November 12, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
That makes me feel a little better. The secret ballot thing I am still not sure about.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: USee on November 12, 2012, 01:45:36 PM
OK. I just listened to the interview with the committee Chair, Bankston, that Pat posted on the front page. It is very interesting. The most interesting thing I heard was that the process for voting for Pool C was different this year (and I think he said last year). In past years the debate on the call was very vocal and interactive and concluded with a verbal vote for the 4 teams at the table. This year the committee members voted secretly via computer so that no one knew who was voting for whom and their was no verbal interaction on the merits, or lack of, among the committee members. Pat, did I hear that right?

Not quite - what I heard was that there was still a vocal discussion, but then a secret ballot, whereas in the past, there was discussion, and then a consensus was reached.

Brad specifically said that it remains an outspoken group and he doesn't think anyone kept their opinions to themselves. And yeah, the 1's and 2's thing is not new either -- just nobody on the football committee has been willing to talk about it in the past. But basketball fans have heard that about the basketball bracketing process.

That's the part that that bugs me a little bit.  In a D1 basketball situation where they are picking some 30 teams, I get the ballotting process.  It would take forever to get consensus on that many picks.  But here where we're dealing with seven picks it sure would feel better if we knew that there was 8/8 or 7/8 agreement there.  As it sits now, one team could have support of just three committee members and be selected.  I think we could probably do better...at least get a majority if not a consensus. 

And then how much does it affect the process when 1/8th of the committee has to recuse himself? 

I was blown away by Bankston's candor during your interview.  A lot of really frank, transparent talk there about the process.  What's good, what's not good, etc.  The question and answer about the inconsistencies between the rankings put out by the four RACs were spot on.  I think they've really got to try and get the regional committees on something close to the same page in the future. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 12, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
I was blown away by Bankston's candor during your interview. A lot of really frank, transparent talk there about the process.  What's good, what's not good, etc.  The question and answer about the inconsistencies between the rankings put out by the four RACs were spot on.  I think they've really got to try and get the regional committees on something close to the same page in the future.

So was I. I've known Brad since 1995, though, and he has never struck me as someone who would bob and weave to duck questions. I thought this was really useful for fans and I hope they listen.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: jmw73 on November 12, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 05:45:51 PM
It would be Wesley, barring something unusual happening this weekend.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 07:47:03 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 12, 2012, 09:16:40 AM
But if you listen to Pats interview with the committe chair--it's pretty clear that they didn't like PLU to Linfield and LC to MHB but costs are a bigger factor this year..
Quote

Heard the rest of the interview today, and it was very insightful, and Brad was pretty clear about that.

I stand corrected, re: the first round matchups, I suppose.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 12, 2012, 08:00:57 PM
Quote from: ndoc on November 11, 2012, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: wone3 on November 11, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
Do we have a justification of the Mt. Union/UMHB pairing in the bracket from the committee? I would be curious to hear it. I'm not saying certain other conferences which are represented on the other side aren't good; but the way it seemed those 2 teams were playing would be the best showcase for the final game IMHO.

Just because d3football has MTU/UMHB #1 -#2, that does not mean at all they are the best two teams and would be the best final game.  Heck, UMHB gives up a TON of points to be ranked #2.  I'm suprised every week by that single #1 vote they get.  I see very little separating the top 6 teams.

Larry Kehres.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: jmw73 on November 12, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2012, 09:33:00 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: jmw73 on November 12, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.

Indeed. Once you get pat the first round...everyone kinda has the "short end of the stick" if one applies the above logic. A marginal team might luck their way into a winnable first-round game (I speak from personal experience, and my friend Keith was there to witness firsthand), but Cinderella slippers tend not to last long in the D-3 playoffs. You can only go maybe two rounds before Mount, Lingield, UMHB, Wesley or someone of that ilk appears on the other sideline.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:48:47 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2012, 09:33:00 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: jmw73 on November 12, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.

Indeed. Once you get pat the first round...everyone kinda has the "short end of the stick" if one applies the above logic. A marginal team might luck their way into a winnable first-round game (I speak from personal experience, and my friend Keith was there to witness firsthand), but Cinderella slippers tend not to last long in the D-3 playoffs. You can only go maybe two rounds before Mount, Lingield, UMHB, Wesley or someone of that ilk appears on the other sideline.

I'd forgotten what happened that next week. Looked it up ... sorry.

at Wesley 37, Carnegie Mellon 0

The first round or two showcases some cool matchups that we'd rarely get to see between very good teams within their regions, be it Carnegie-Mellon vs. Millsaps or Hobart/W&L this year. Then Rds. 3-4 (and occasionally 2, like when Linfield played at Wesley last year) is when we see truly elite teams pick the other ones off, and then there's Salem.

The original poster's point was good, in one sense: The road to Salem can be tough. IMO, that's exactly how it should be.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2012, 10:05:39 PM
You just HAD to post the score, didn't you?  :P Trust me, I remembered it well...

I was beaten to the tune of 15 tackles and a few sacks that day by future NFL camp invitee Bryan Robinson. On the bright side, I think I might have tripped him once or twice by accident.

Back to the topic at hand: I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement and you're right that it may have been the Cortland fan's real point.  EVERY team's potential road looks that hard from the round of 16 on. Nobody fakes their way all the way to the national semifinals.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: redlands94 on November 13, 2012, 01:31:42 AM
University of Redlands Class of 2002 here just want to wish Cal Lu good luck in the playoffs.  Home playoff game to boot that is awesome!! Do the SCIAC proud I know you will!!  We are Rivals but in the playoffs its all about the SCIAC!!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 01:53:39 AM
Quote from: redlands94 on November 13, 2012, 01:31:42 AM
University of Redlands Class of 2002 here just want to wish Cal Lu good luck in the playoffs.  Home playoff game to boot that is awesome!! Do the SCIAC proud I know you will!!  We are Rivals but in the playoffs its all about the SCIAC!!

+1 K

sorry about the score, ExTartan.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 13, 2012, 07:21:06 AM
On a serious note, Keith, it raises a good point that we should all keep in mind: we can wring our hands all we want about whether it's fair that Team X got a home game, or that Team Y and Team Z have to play in the round of 16...but the truth is that NOBODY can hide for long in the playoffs. There is a national elite class that probably includes 6-8 teams in any given year, plus a second echelon of 6-8 more teams that MIGHT be able to step up in class and beat one of the elites on the right day...and if you're not one of them, your day of reckoning is coming, and soon!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 13, 2012, 11:09:10 AM
... but give thanks for playing, no matter the result, because there are 200 other teams who would trade places with you in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2012, 11:17:22 AM
A note for this group -- the annual bracket challenge is open:
http://www.d3photography.com/bracket_challenge/
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: jmw73 on November 13, 2012, 11:43:18 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: jmw73 on November 12, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.

But what about my question at the end? No one answered it. If Cortland and Wesley both win, who would hose who on the Saturday after Thanksgiving?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 13, 2012, 11:53:02 AM
Quote from: jmw73 on November 13, 2012, 11:43:18 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 12, 2012, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: jmw73 on November 12, 2012, 05:09:05 PM
I guess my alma mater, Cortland State, got the short end of the stick! Should they survive Framingham State, they get Wesley, Mary Hardin-Baylor, then Mount Union all in a row just to make to Virginia!

BTW, if Cortland and Wesley advance, who's home?

You'd rather go through UW-Oshkosh and Linfield and St. Thomas?

Not trying to belittle your statements, but your first-round game is about as favorable as you can ask for, and the playoffs are about great teams beating other great teams. Nobody wins a Stagg Bowl by beating only cupcakes.

But what about my question at the end? No one answered it. If Cortland and Wesley both win, who would hose who on the Saturday after Thanksgiving?

Read more carefully:

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2012, 05:45:51 PM
It would be Wesley, barring something unusual happening this weekend.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2012, 09:09:54 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 13, 2012, 07:21:06 AM
On a serious note, Keith, it raises a good point that we should all keep in mind: we can wring our hands all we want about whether it's fair that Team X got a home game, or that Team Y and Team Z have to play in the round of 16...but the truth is that NOBODY can hide for long in the playoffs. There is a national elite class that probably includes 6-8 teams in any given year, plus a second echelon of 6-8 more teams that MIGHT be able to step up in class and beat one of the elites on the right day...and if you're not one of them, your day of reckoning is coming, and soon!

Gordon Mann once, perhaps somewhere on these boards, wrote it up eloquently in terms of tiers ... that occasionally, as you note, a team jumps tiers, but only slowly over time does a team permanently move more than one tier, and even then almost never. Maybe the MIAC champ changes, and whoever wins it is elite, but very few teams can break through from what it takes to win in late November to what it takes to win in December.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bluenote on November 14, 2012, 12:36:52 AM
+K K-Mack....was nice to meet you at the CatDome in 2005.    :)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 14, 2012, 07:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 14, 2012, 12:36:52 AM
+K K-Mack....was nice to meet you at the CatDome in 2005.    :)

I've seen a couple names on these boards today that I haven't in years (mostly because I stay too busy to log on much anymore), and yours is one. Sakman1111 is another.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bluenote on November 15, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Ya K-Mack....I talked to you at the Linfield Concordia-Moorhead Cobbers game! at the CatDome....Pat was there too.   :)    we squeaked it out! LOL!

....actually the Cobbers had a gosh darn good team that year. They had an All- League QB and Running Back plus 2 very good receivers! We were actually lucky to win that game!!!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 15, 2012, 12:12:11 AM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Ya K-Mack....I talked to you at the Linfield Concordia-Moorhead Cobbers game! at the CatDome....Pat was there too.   :)    we squeaked it out! LOL!

....actually the Cobbers had a gosh darn good team that year. They had an All- League QB and Running Back plus 2 very good receivers! We were actually lucky to win that game!!!

We were there for Hardin-Simmons in September 2007. :)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 15, 2012, 12:21:56 AM
Capsules up:

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2012/bracket-umhb
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 10:49:28 AM
Love the capsules.  I love them better when Wabash gets profiled.   :)

I know the super juicy games come next weekend, but there are some really good games this weekend.  The few that have more of my interest than others are..

North Central @ CLU - This may be a pretty unpopular opinion, but I kind of think North Central has way more benefit of the doubt capital than they've really earned.  I know they aren't thrilled about being the team that got singled out to fly in round 1, but I think they should really embrace the opportunity.  This right here is the road that North Central can go through to finally validate all of the "next big thing" talk that has circled that team for the last few years. 

Witt @ Heidelberg - Here's the best non-Mount Union game for Heidelberg this year.  Probably the best team Witt has seen as well.  A little bit of NCAC/OAC pride going on here as well.  My sense is that Heidelberg is the better side, but when Wittenberg gets that offense clicking they can beat some good teams. 

W&J @ Hopkins - If you don't have another horse amongst the 32 teams, hard not to be pulling for the Presidents to make a run. 

Also would have loved to see Louisiana College separated from UMHB, but I think we knew better. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2012, 11:14:10 AM
I'd love to see how PLU matches with Linfield in the rematch. I have Linfield going all the way (yes, picking a perceived upset) but rematches can be topsy-turvy.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2012, 11:14:10 AM
I'd love to see how PLU matches with Linfield in the rematch. I have Linfield going all the way (yes, picking a perceived upset) but rematches can be topsy-turvy.

I think I wound up with a pretty boring bracket overall.  Here's what I did...

Round of 16 - Linfield over CLU, Oshkosh over Bethel, H'berg over Hobart, St. Thomas over Elmhurst, UMHB over Franklin, Wesley over SUNY-Cortland, Salisbury over Widener, Mount Union over W&J

Semifinals - Linfield over Heidelberg (there's my quasi-sleeper), Mount Union over UMHB

Mount Union over Linfield in the final.  That's a bracket sure to be in the middle of the pack of the bracket challenge.   :)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 15, 2012, 12:12:11 AM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Ya K-Mack....I talked to you at the Linfield Concordia-Moorhead Cobbers game! at the CatDome....Pat was there too.   :)    we squeaked it out! LOL!

....actually the Cobbers had a gosh darn good team that year. They had an All- League QB and Running Back plus 2 very good receivers! We were actually lucky to win that game!!!

We were there for Hardin-Simmons in September 2007. :)

OK....ya, that was the game! Thanks for the update to my memory bank! LOL!  :)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 11:49:38 AM
Not sure what to make of Hobart. They have a middle-of-the-road SOS, while being in a relatively weak conference. I have them beating W&L...but beyond that I don't know.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 11:57:49 AM
I was reading Heidelberg's capsule and found their How far can they go interesting:

"With the schedule they've had this year, the regional finals are definitely within reach."

Their SOS is 168. Only three or four teams in the playoffs have worse SOS. One of which is Wittenberg (220), who they play in the first round.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: SUADC on November 15, 2012, 12:05:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 11:57:49 AM
I was reading Heidelberg's capsule and found their How far can they go interesting:

"With the schedule they've had this year, the regional finals are definitely within reach."

Their SOS is 168. Only three or four teams in the playoffs have worse SOS. One of which is Wittenberg (220), who they play in the first round.

I said the same thing. However, I think they were considering the upper tier teams on their schedule. They have had some competitive games against the top teams in the conference and won, except to you know who and was in that game for a bit.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 15, 2012, 12:05:47 PM
Quote from: SUADC on November 15, 2012, 12:05:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 11:57:49 AM
I was reading Heidelberg's capsule and found their How far can they go interesting:

"With the schedule they've had this year, the regional finals are definitely within reach."

Their SOS is 168. Only three or four teams in the playoffs have worse SOS. One of which is Wittenberg (220), who they play in the first round.

I said the same thing. However, I think they were considering the upper tier teams on their schedule. They have had some competitive games against the top teams in the conference and won, except to you know who and that game for a bit.

Bingo.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: smedindy on November 15, 2012, 12:35:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 11:57:49 AM
I was reading Heidelberg's capsule and found their How far can they go interesting:

"With the schedule they've had this year, the regional finals are definitely within reach."

Their SOS is 168. Only three or four teams in the playoffs have worse SOS. One of which is Wittenberg (220), who they play in the first round.

Heidelberg is one team where the SOS doesn't tell the full story. Not that it ever does, since it's focused on regions. Still, though, they're hurt because their non-conference game was Alma (no doubt scheduled when the 'Berg was stuck in neutral), and the OAC was unusually mediocre in non-conference games, and some of the OAC's non-conference opponents were disappointing (CWRU, NC Wesleyan, MSJ).

In Massey they're 16th when you remove the NESCAC.

Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 01:40:12 PM
Would have liked to have seen Rowan take on Kean ealier this month. I have a feeling if that game wasn't cancelled, there's a chance Rowan wouldn't be in the playoffs. Rowan caught a little break there.

That would have been a good game.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bman on November 15, 2012, 02:12:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 01:40:12 PM
Would have liked to have seen Rowan take on Kean ealier this month. I have a feeling if that game wasn't cancelled, there's a chance Rowan wouldn't be in the playoffs. Rowan caught a little break there.

That would have been a good game.
Definitely would have been a good game, but I feel Rowan wins that game....not sure what the SOS impact was, but kean losing to Cortland, then Montclair (who had a really bad year) in the 2 games prior, doesn't indicate they were going to fare well...
Maybe they could have played in pontoon boats though, thus negating the Rowan ground attack! ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ITH radio on November 15, 2012, 04:23:31 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 11:49:38 AM
Not sure what to make of Hobart. They have a middle-of-the-road SOS, while being in a relatively weak conference. I have them beating W&L...but beyond that I don't know.

Any thoughts?

Here's a few.  Their NCAA Stats (http://web1.ncaa.org/football/exec/rankingSummary?year=2012&org=282) show a team that's very strong defensively, with a solid OL (low # of sacks allowed and strong rushing game) and 2-3 strong RBs (one with 17 rush TDs).  The capsule is correct in that they aren't as strong with take aways as in prior years and I'd say their biggest weakness is in the defensive secondary. 

Still, they have continuously found ways to win; especially in games when they seemed to take entire quarters off.  If and when this team finally plays a complete game for 60 minutes, they will be tough to beat. 

SO DE Tyre Coleman is a true AA candidate and should probably be playing at an upper division school.  Same could be said for JR OLB/DB Devin Worthington. 

Their starting QB (Strang) will probably sit for the W&L game, but otherwise the team is in pretty good health and their backup actually elicited a lot of praise from Coach Drass (Wesley) after last season's playoff game (Drass reportedly said he thought Olney was better than Strang, so go figure).
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: umhb2001 on November 15, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2012, 11:14:10 AM
I'd love to see how PLU matches with Linfield in the rematch. I have Linfield going all the way (yes, picking a perceived upset) but rematches can be topsy-turvy.

I think I wound up with a pretty boring bracket overall.  Here's what I did...

Round of 16 - Linfield over CLU, Oshkosh over Bethel, H'berg over Hobart, St. Thomas over Elmhurst, UMHB over Franklin, Wesley over SUNY-Cortland, Salisbury over Widener, Mount Union over W&J

Semifinals - Linfield over Heidelberg (there's my quasi-sleeper), Mount Union over UMHB

Mount Union over Linfield in the final.  That's a bracket sure to be in the middle of the pack of the bracket challenge.   :)

MU is a good pick and an easy pick. I really feel this is the best UMHB team that I have seen, and I've been with the program since its inception. Obviously, the games are played on the field and anything can happen, but there are three things I see as giving this UMHB team a head abover the others that have been in the playoffs:

1. The Road Win at Wesley: This game proved to them, at an early stage in the season before growth and corrections, that they can win anywhere. Getting over that hump, then, was huge for them, and if we meet again in Belton, I look for our team to win by a wider margin.

2. The Constant Road Games this Season: The Cru only had 4 home games this year as they look to open their new stadium with a bang. The constant grind at this level of having to ride on a plane or in a bus to get to where you are playing, out of your element, sleeping on foreign beds, these things help a team, and the consistency of doing it lends itself well to finding a routine for that situation.

3. The comeback against HSU: UMHB hadn't faced much adversity this year, and seeing LB's resiliency to lead the team back after that really showed me that he is poised and ready. This is something we haven't had in a while, and I think this is one of those uncategorical elements that really make a team besides the X's and O's.

Obviously, games have to be played, but these are the things I see as helping UMHB this year.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on November 15, 2012, 06:19:38 PM
Quote from: umhb2001 on November 15, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2012, 11:14:10 AM
I'd love to see how PLU matches with Linfield in the rematch. I have Linfield going all the way (yes, picking a perceived upset) but rematches can be topsy-turvy.

I think I wound up with a pretty boring bracket overall.  Here's what I did...

Round of 16 - Linfield over CLU, Oshkosh over Bethel, H'berg over Hobart, St. Thomas over Elmhurst, UMHB over Franklin, Wesley over SUNY-Cortland, Salisbury over Widener, Mount Union over W&J

Semifinals - Linfield over Heidelberg (there's my quasi-sleeper), Mount Union over UMHB

Mount Union over Linfield in the final.  That's a bracket sure to be in the middle of the pack of the bracket challenge.   :)

MU is a good pick and an easy pick. I really feel this is the best UMHB team that I have seen, and I've been with the program since its inception. Obviously, the games are played on the field and anything can happen, but there are three things I see as giving this UMHB team a head abover the others that have been in the playoffs:

1. The Road Win at Wesley: This game proved to them, at an early stage in the season before growth and corrections, that they can win anywhere. Getting over that hump, then, was huge for them, and if we meet again in Belton, I look for our team to win by a wider margin.

2. The Constant Road Games this Season: The Cru only had 4 home games this year as they look to open their new stadium with a bang. The constant grind at this level of having to ride on a plane or in a bus to get to where you are playing, out of your element, sleeping on foreign beds, these things help a team, and the consistency of doing it lends itself well to finding a routine for that situation.

3. The comeback against HSU: UMHB hadn't faced much adversity this year, and seeing LB's resiliency to lead the team back after that really showed me that he is poised and ready. This is something we haven't had in a while, and I think this is one of those uncategorical elements that really make a team besides the X's and O's.

Obviously, games have to be played, but these are the things I see as helping UMHB this year.

Good report umhb.  Even without UWW in this thing I find it to be an extremely interesting playoff picture.  I really believe there are three or four teams that could win it and I wish all of them could play for it.  As much as part of me doesn't want Mt simply because of their continued dominance, I think the personnel moves Coach K made at the beginning of the season are proof again of his coaching gift and I'd be happy for them.  I also think UMHB has done what it takes to get their chance, especially with the balanced offense now.  Linfield is another program that I root for as they have carried on such a great tradition.  I don't know that UWO and St. Thomas are ready, but they certainly have a chance and of course I'll pull for UWO.  Best of luck to all and I hope the games prove to be as exciting as their potential.     
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
I certainly don't think Mount Union is a slam dunk to win this thing.  I would love to see Salisbury play Mount Union just to see if that offense can sustain anything against the Raider defense.  Even more I would love to see UMHB vs Mount Union in the semis.  I think those are the top two teams in the tournament and that could be the game of the tournament right there.  Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin, but I think UMHB will be ok with three home games before the semis. 

Mount Union is the easy pick for sure, but they weren't an easy pick for me.  I went with the Raiders because they'll be at home there in the semis, and they've made me a believer with that defense.  45 points allowed in 10 games is INSANE.  They'll get a big test from the Crusaders if that matchup happens for sure though.  I've picked Mount Union to win, but let's just say that i wouldn't be floored if UMHB knocked them off. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 01:40:12 PM
Would have liked to have seen Rowan take on Kean ealier this month. I have a feeling if that game wasn't cancelled, there's a chance Rowan wouldn't be in the playoffs. Rowan caught a little break there.
That would have been a good game.
Would a Kean win over Rowan been enough "secondary criteria" to boost UMHB over UMU for the #2 seed?
Just curious...
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2012, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: umhb2001 on November 15, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2012, 11:14:10 AM
I'd love to see how PLU matches with Linfield in the rematch. I have Linfield going all the way (yes, picking a perceived upset) but rematches can be topsy-turvy.

I think I wound up with a pretty boring bracket overall.  Here's what I did...

Round of 16 - Linfield over CLU, Oshkosh over Bethel, H'berg over Hobart, St. Thomas over Elmhurst, UMHB over Franklin, Wesley over SUNY-Cortland, Salisbury over Widener, Mount Union over W&J

Semifinals - Linfield over Heidelberg (there's my quasi-sleeper), Mount Union over UMHB

Mount Union over Linfield in the final.  That's a bracket sure to be in the middle of the pack of the bracket challenge.   :)

MU is a good pick and an easy pick. I really feel this is the best UMHB team that I have seen, and I've been with the program since its inception. Obviously, the games are played on the field and anything can happen, but there are three things I see as giving this UMHB team a head abover the others that have been in the playoffs:

1. The Road Win at Wesley: This game proved to them, at an early stage in the season before growth and corrections, that they can win anywhere. Getting over that hump, then, was huge for them, and if we meet again in Belton, I look for our team to win by a wider margin.

2. The Constant Road Games this Season: The Cru only had 4 home games this year as they look to open their new stadium with a bang. The constant grind at this level of having to ride on a plane or in a bus to get to where you are playing, out of your element, sleeping on foreign beds, these things help a team, and the consistency of doing it lends itself well to finding a routine for that situation.

3. The comeback against HSU: UMHB hadn't faced much adversity this year, and seeing LB's resiliency to lead the team back after that really showed me that he is poised and ready. This is something we haven't had in a while, and I think this is one of those uncategorical elements that really make a team besides the X's and O's.

Obviously, games have to be played, but these are the things I see as helping UMHB this year.
For non-ASC fans,

LB = UMHB senior QB LiDarrell Bailey
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2012, 08:41:10 PM
To see LiDarrell Bailey develop, over his four years, as a multi-faceted QB has been a "football fan's" dream.

I will make the case for LB to be first team All-American if he leads them to a Stagg Bowl win.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 09:14:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 01:40:12 PM
Would have liked to have seen Rowan take on Kean ealier this month. I have a feeling if that game wasn't cancelled, there's a chance Rowan wouldn't be in the playoffs. Rowan caught a little break there.
That would have been a good game.
Would a Kean win over Rowan been enough "secondary criteria" to boost UMHB over UMU for the #2 seed?
Just curious...

Depends on if that hypothetical win would have pushed Kean into the East's regional rankings before the week 11 games (and their subsequent loss to Montclair State).  Even then, I'm kind of doubting it.  I think the committee was probably going to exercise the "previous year's championship" clause to make Mount Union no less than #2 in this tournament. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 11:27:06 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P

To the victors go the spoils...it's hard to say that Mount Union hasn't earned favored nation status. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2012, 11:29:28 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P

It is not UMU's fault that geography is nearly all in the d3 NCAA world, and that the western half is MUCH stronger than the eastern half, and they are in the eastern half. 

Last year and this year I think the committee has done a marvelous job of balancing things out.  I'd agree that UMU seems to have a relatively safe path to the semis (exceeded, perhaps, by St. Thomas), but having to beat consensus #2 UMHB to reach the Stagg itself will be a MAJOR test.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 12:08:31 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2012, 11:29:28 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P

It is not UMU's fault that geography is nearly all in the d3 NCAA world, and that the western half is MUCH stronger than the eastern half, and they are in the eastern half. 

Last year and this year I think the committee has done a marvelous job of balancing things out.  I'd agree that UMU seems to have a relatively safe path to the semis (exceeded, perhaps, by St. Thomas), but having to beat consensus #2 UMHB to reach the Stagg itself will be a MAJOR test.

I too like the job the committee did in balancing the regions. 
I hesitate to give MHB too much of a chance vs Mt simply because I don't know that they have the overall defense.  I do think the one thing UWW has shown over the years is the importance of a very strong defense, especially vs. the run.  Stopping the run has been one of the biggest keys to beating Mt.  Does MHB have that type of defense? 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 16, 2012, 07:21:13 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 12:08:31 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2012, 11:29:28 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P

It is not UMU's fault that geography is nearly all in the d3 NCAA world, and that the western half is MUCH stronger than the eastern half, and they are in the eastern half. 

Last year and this year I think the committee has done a marvelous job of balancing things out.  I'd agree that UMU seems to have a relatively safe path to the semis (exceeded, perhaps, by St. Thomas), but having to beat consensus #2 UMHB to reach the Stagg itself will be a MAJOR test.

I too like the job the committee did in balancing the regions. 
I hesitate to give MHB too much of a chance vs Mt simply because I don't know that they have the overall defense.  I do think the one thing UWW has shown over the years is the importance of a very strong defense, especially vs. the run.  Stopping the run has been one of the biggest keys to beating Mt.  Does MHB have that type of defense?

I haven't dug real deep into MHB yet, but what I've found so far is that a lot of their points surrendered are late in their games after they have a big lead.  Unlike Mount where the 2nd and 3rd strings have given up less points than the starters (starters = 31 / reserves 14), the MHB 2nd unit seems to be much worse than their starters, which I think would be very typical around D3. 

One of the things that has set Mount apart is their depth.  Their 2nd string could go at least 7-3 if not better with a couple breaks.

And Emma is right, the best way to beat Mount is at the line of scrimmage.  If you can stop the run and get constant pressure on the QB without blitzing you're in good shape.  If you have to get creative & take chances to get pressure, Mount has too many athletes at the skill positions and is too diverse in their scheme to not burn you.    If the game is a stalemate at the line of scrimmage, then I like Mount's chances of our skill people being better than yours.   

What Whitewater has done in the late 2000's is to dominate the line of scrimmage and make the game a slug fest.  When Mount has won, it's been because of their skill people overcoming the deficit at the LOS. 

The inherent weaknesses of this Mount team, much like the recent past, is that the defense is very undersized and will struggle against a big, strong O-line.  It's built perfectly to defend the spread offenses that are typical in the OAC.  It's not built to defend a power running game.   And offensively they are built around a GREAT receiving corps that goes 6 or more deep.  Mount has an effect running game overall, but is missing that stub RB that can get the tough yards.  They're running game is more spread, finesse type schemes than what they were previously.  And none of their RB's are anywhere near as talented as Kmic, they're your typical D3 running backs.   A cold nasty rainy day (Salem in '07) or extreme winds (Salem '02) would have a terrible affect on this offense.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2012, 09:00:50 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 09:14:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 01:40:12 PM
Would have liked to have seen Rowan take on Kean ealier this month. I have a feeling if that game wasn't cancelled, there's a chance Rowan wouldn't be in the playoffs. Rowan caught a little break there.
That would have been a good game.
Would a Kean win over Rowan been enough "secondary criteria" to boost UMHB over UMU for the #2 seed?
Just curious...

Depends on if that hypothetical win would have pushed Kean into the East's regional rankings before the week 11 games (and their subsequent loss to Montclair State).  Even then, I'm kind of doubting it.  I think the committee was probably going to exercise the "previous year's championship" clause to make Mount Union no less than #2 in this tournament.

Yea, Mount would have stayed No. 1 no matter the outcome of that Rowan/Kean game.

Is this clause new, after what happened in 2010?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: umhb2001 on November 16, 2012, 09:10:40 AM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2012, 07:21:13 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 12:08:31 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2012, 11:29:28 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P

Against the top three runners in the ASC, UMHB has held them in check. You can go back and look at our games against SRS, LC, whomever, and you can see that we keep the run in check. WE regularly  rotate our 1st and 2nd string guys off the line and Javicz Jones is amazing at the linebacker position. Possible D3 defensive player of the year there. Our weakness may be in the secondary as we tend to give up some passing yardage, but most of that is because teams forgo the run and pass only.

It is not UMU's fault that geography is nearly all in the d3 NCAA world, and that the western half is MUCH stronger than the eastern half, and they are in the eastern half. 

Last year and this year I think the committee has done a marvelous job of balancing things out.  I'd agree that UMU seems to have a relatively safe path to the semis (exceeded, perhaps, by St. Thomas), but having to beat consensus #2 UMHB to reach the Stagg itself will be a MAJOR test.

I too like the job the committee did in balancing the regions. 
I hesitate to give MHB too much of a chance vs Mt simply because I don't know that they have the overall defense.  I do think the one thing UWW has shown over the years is the importance of a very strong defense, especially vs. the run.  Stopping the run has been one of the biggest keys to beating Mt.  Does MHB have that type of defense?

I haven't dug real deep into MHB yet, but what I've found so far is that a lot of their points surrendered are late in their games after they have a big lead.  Unlike Mount where the 2nd and 3rd strings have given up less points than the starters (starters = 31 / reserves 14), the MHB 2nd unit seems to be much worse than their starters, which I think would be very typical around D3. 

One of the things that has set Mount apart is their depth.  Their 2nd string could go at least 7-3 if not better with a couple breaks.

And Emma is right, the best way to beat Mount is at the line of scrimmage.  If you can stop the run and get constant pressure on the QB without blitzing you're in good shape.  If you have to get creative & take chances to get pressure, Mount has too many athletes at the skill positions and is too diverse in their scheme to not burn you.    If the game is a stalemate at the line of scrimmage, then I like Mount's chances of our skill people being better than yours.   

What Whitewater has done in the late 2000's is to dominate the line of scrimmage and make the game a slug fest.  When Mount has won, it's been because of their skill people overcoming the deficit at the LOS. 

The inherent weaknesses of this Mount team, much like the recent past, is that the defense is very undersized and will struggle against a big, strong O-line.  It's built perfectly to defend the spread offenses that are typical in the OAC.  It's not built to defend a power running game.   And offensively they are built around a GREAT receiving corps that goes 6 or more deep.  Mount has an effect running game overall, but is missing that stub RB that can get the tough yards.  They're running game is more spread, finesse type schemes than what they were previously.  And none of their RB's are anywhere near as talented as Kmic, they're your typical D3 running backs.   A cold nasty rainy day (Salem in '07) or extreme winds (Salem '02) would have a terrible affect on this offense.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wally_wabash on November 16, 2012, 10:14:05 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2012, 09:00:50 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 09:14:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 15, 2012, 01:40:12 PM
Would have liked to have seen Rowan take on Kean ealier this month. I have a feeling if that game wasn't cancelled, there's a chance Rowan wouldn't be in the playoffs. Rowan caught a little break there.
That would have been a good game.
Would a Kean win over Rowan been enough "secondary criteria" to boost UMHB over UMU for the #2 seed?
Just curious...

Depends on if that hypothetical win would have pushed Kean into the East's regional rankings before the week 11 games (and their subsequent loss to Montclair State).  Even then, I'm kind of doubting it.  I think the committee was probably going to exercise the "previous year's championship" clause to make Mount Union no less than #2 in this tournament.

Yea, Mount would have stayed No. 1 no matter the outcome of that Rowan/Kean game.

Is this clause new, after what happened in 2010?

It was new for 2011 almost certainly because of the jam job the Warhawks got in 2010.  I don't have any inside info on that, but I am great at using contextual clues to figure some things out.   :)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:23:06 AM
This is kind of a weird year to me. Did anyone else at least go somewhat outside the box when doing the bracket challenge? The first round or two was rather standard but after that I ended up with some interesting combinations.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2012, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:23:06 AM
This is kind of a weird year to me. Did anyone else at least go somewhat outside the box when doing the bracket challenge? The first round or two was rather standard but after that I ended up with some interesting combinations.

I think I picked Heidelberg over Hobart, and Salisbury over Widener. Those are my two biggest round-two upsets.

Call me crazy, but I have MHB over UWO in the Stagg Bowl.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:33:24 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2012, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:23:06 AM
This is kind of a weird year to me. Did anyone else at least go somewhat outside the box when doing the bracket challenge? The first round or two was rather standard but after that I ended up with some interesting combinations.

I think I picked Heidelberg over Hobart, and Salisbury over Widener. Those are my two biggest round-two upsets.

Call me crazy, but I have MHB over UWO in the Stagg Bowl.

This may not be smart to say but I'm dead serious in saying that all of what you stated there is exactly what I did. Everything. Those two upsets and the Stagg Bowl.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:36:47 AM
And I'm going to leave the picks as they are with the timestamp before my post so that it can be shown I didn't cheat  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2012, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:33:24 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2012, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:23:06 AM
This is kind of a weird year to me. Did anyone else at least go somewhat outside the box when doing the bracket challenge? The first round or two was rather standard but after that I ended up with some interesting combinations.

I think I picked Heidelberg over Hobart, and Salisbury over Widener. Those are my two biggest round-two upsets.

Call me crazy, but I have MHB over UWO in the Stagg Bowl.

This may not be smart to say but I'm dead serious in saying that all of what you stated there is exactly what I did. Everything. Those two upsets and the Stagg Bowl.

Really?!?! That's funny.....I thought I would be the only one not have either UMU, Linfield or St. Thomas in the Salem. That would be kind of cool to have two totally different teams in the Stagg Bowl this year (compared to the last seven). I know that's easy for me to say, given that UWW is out. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:42:34 AM
I guess we'll either both be near the top or both near the bottom  :P
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:33:24 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2012, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:23:06 AM
This is kind of a weird year to me. Did anyone else at least go somewhat outside the box when doing the bracket challenge? The first round or two was rather standard but after that I ended up with some interesting combinations.

I think I picked Heidelberg over Hobart, and Salisbury over Widener. Those are my two biggest round-two upsets.

Call me crazy, but I have MHB over UWO in the Stagg Bowl.

This may not be smart to say but I'm dead serious in saying that all of what you stated there is exactly what I did. Everything. Those two upsets and the Stagg Bowl.

Now that's a little weird.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2012, 07:21:13 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 12:08:31 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2012, 11:29:28 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P

It is not UMU's fault that geography is nearly all in the d3 NCAA world, and that the western half is MUCH stronger than the eastern half, and they are in the eastern half. 

Last year and this year I think the committee has done a marvelous job of balancing things out.  I'd agree that UMU seems to have a relatively safe path to the semis (exceeded, perhaps, by St. Thomas), but having to beat consensus #2 UMHB to reach the Stagg itself will be a MAJOR test.

I too like the job the committee did in balancing the regions. 
I hesitate to give MHB too much of a chance vs Mt simply because I don't know that they have the overall defense.  I do think the one thing UWW has shown over the years is the importance of a very strong defense, especially vs. the run.  Stopping the run has been one of the biggest keys to beating Mt.  Does MHB have that type of defense?

I haven't dug real deep into MHB yet, but what I've found so far is that a lot of their points surrendered are late in their games after they have a big lead.  Unlike Mount where the 2nd and 3rd strings have given up less points than the starters (starters = 31 / reserves 14), the MHB 2nd unit seems to be much worse than their starters, which I think would be very typical around D3. 

One of the things that has set Mount apart is their depth.  Their 2nd string could go at least 7-3 if not better with a couple breaks.

And Emma is right, the best way to beat Mount is at the line of scrimmage.  If you can stop the run and get constant pressure on the QB without blitzing you're in good shape.  If you have to get creative & take chances to get pressure, Mount has too many athletes at the skill positions and is too diverse in their scheme to not burn you.    If the game is a stalemate at the line of scrimmage, then I like Mount's chances of our skill people being better than yours.   

What Whitewater has done in the late 2000's is to dominate the line of scrimmage and make the game a slug fest.  When Mount has won, it's been because of their skill people overcoming the deficit at the LOS. 

The inherent weaknesses of this Mount team, much like the recent past, is that the defense is very undersized and will struggle against a big, strong O-line.  It's built perfectly to defend the spread offenses that are typical in the OAC.  It's not built to defend a power running game.   And offensively they are built around a GREAT receiving corps that goes 6 or more deep.  Mount has an effect running game overall, but is missing that stub RB that can get the tough yards.  They're running game is more spread, finesse type schemes than what they were previously.  And none of their RB's are anywhere near as talented as Kmic, they're your typical D3 running backs.   A cold nasty rainy day (Salem in '07) or extreme winds (Salem '02) would have a terrible affect on this offense.

You're being a gentleman here Coach- the truth is the first team defense of MHB has given up quite a few points. Now, I don't think Mt has played the level of competition from an offensive perspective that MHB has, so I shouldn't draw too many conclusions.
My gut tells me MHB will struggle to stop Mt. - perhaps we see a shootout for the ages.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 16, 2012, 02:34:12 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 16, 2012, 10:36:47 AM
And I'm going to leave the picks as they are with the timestamp before my post so that it can be shown I didn't cheat  ;)

I'm not sure you can make adjustments after submitting your picks.  I went back to change one of mine, but was unable.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2012, 03:03:13 PM
Yeah, there was a ton of offense in the ASC this year. Meanwhile, a lot of OAC teams had disappointing years, as evidenced by the four coaching changes so far.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: roocru on November 16, 2012, 03:07:55 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 16, 2012, 07:21:13 AM
Quote from: emma17 on November 16, 2012, 12:08:31 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2012, 11:29:28 PM
Quote from: Bluenote on November 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 08:33:54 PM
Mount Union has the easier road to the semis by quite a wide margin

Interesting how that works pretty much every year.  :P

It is not UMU's fault that geography is nearly all in the d3 NCAA world, and that the western half is MUCH stronger than the eastern half, and they are in the eastern half. 

Last year and this year I think the committee has done a marvelous job of balancing things out.  I'd agree that UMU seems to have a relatively safe path to the semis (exceeded, perhaps, by St. Thomas), but having to beat consensus #2 UMHB to reach the Stagg itself will be a MAJOR test.

I too like the job the committee did in balancing the regions. 
I hesitate to give MHB too much of a chance vs Mt simply because I don't know that they have the overall defense.  I do think the one thing UWW has shown over the years is the importance of a very strong defense, especially vs. the run.  Stopping the run has been one of the biggest keys to beating Mt.  Does MHB have that type of defense?

I haven't dug real deep into MHB yet, but what I've found so far is that a lot of their points surrendered are late in their games after they have a big lead.  Unlike Mount where the 2nd and 3rd strings have given up less points than the starters (starters = 31 / reserves 14), the MHB 2nd unit seems to be much worse than their starters, which I think would be very typical around D3. 

One of the things that has set Mount apart is their depth.  Their 2nd string could go at least 7-3 if not better with a couple breaks.

And Emma is right, the best way to beat Mount is at the line of scrimmage.  If you can stop the run and get constant pressure on the QB without blitzing you're in good shape.  If you have to get creative & take chances to get pressure, Mount has too many athletes at the skill positions and is too diverse in their scheme to not burn you.    If the game is a stalemate at the line of scrimmage, then I like Mount's chances of our skill people being better than yours.   

What Whitewater has done in the late 2000's is to dominate the line of scrimmage and make the game a slug fest.  When Mount has won, it's been because of their skill people overcoming the deficit at the LOS. 

The inherent weaknesses of this Mount team, much like the recent past, is that the defense is very undersized and will struggle against a big, strong O-line.  It's built perfectly to defend the spread offenses that are typical in the OAC.  It's not built to defend a power running game.   And offensively they are built around a GREAT receiving corps that goes 6 or more deep.  Mount has an effect running game overall, but is missing that stub RB that can get the tough yards.  They're running game is more spread, finesse type schemes than what they were previously.  And none of their RB's are anywhere near as talented as Kmic, they're your typical D3 running backs.   A cold nasty rainy day (Salem in '07) or extreme winds (Salem '02) would have a terrible affect on this offense.

You're being a gentleman here Coach- the truth is the first team defense of MHB has given up quite a few points. Now, I don't think Mt has played the level of competition from an offensive perspective that MHB has, so I shouldn't draw too many conclusions.
My gut tells me MHB will struggle to stop Mt. - perhaps we see a shootout for the ages.

If you are looking at defensive stats, you have to take into account the ASC as a whole.  In an ATN post, Keith mentioned talking about the high scoring shootouts in the ASC this year.  The ASC is a prolific passing conference as shown below:
Total Passing Offense
National Rank    Team    YPG      Record
1   Hardin Simmons     423.3        6-4
11  Sul Ross              333.0        5-5
14  Texas Lutheran     325.6        4-6
18  Louisiana College   308.8        8-2
42  ETBU                  267.4         3-7
84  UMHB                  221.4        10-0
126  Miss College       190.5         2-7
213  Howard Payne     134.9        1-9

In addition UMHB played
47  Wesley                262.78      8-1
51  Trinity                 253.1        7-3
113   Kean                 199.28     5-4

If we look at Passing Efficiency:
5   UMHB                   171.04
9   Hardin Simmons      165.9
10  Sul Ross               164.33
50  Texas Lutheran      145.3
59  Louisiana College    141.52
146 ETBU                   118.02
166  Mississippi Col      110.57
225  Howard Payne      87.58

Once again in addition to conference UMHB played:
4  Trinity    173.86
64   Wesley   140.0
101  Kean      128.8

If you go by individual stats, The ASC had 5 quarterbacks in the top 100 at 3,8,10,58,and 67 and UMHB also faced non conference quarterbacks ranked, 12,62 and 92.  While looking at these stats it appeared that only the NWC conference was comparable, they just did not play as many games.

Texas high schools play a 7 on 7 season during the summer which adds greatly to the development of QB's who go on to college.  They are heavily influenced by the high scoring Big 12 offenses and other schools like Texas A&M and the University of Houston teams coached by Kevin Sumlin.  There are a lot of Texas HS qb's playing throughout the college ranks and the pros (RG3, Andrew Luck, Colt McCoy, Vince Young, etc.). 

I am not trying to bragg on UMHB in this post, just trying to place their low national rankings on pass defense into perspective.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 16, 2012, 03:13:06 PM
Or maybe nobody in the ASC/Texas knows how to play pass defense.  ;-)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2012, 03:14:59 PM
It is definitely a two-way street. These things do not exist independently of each other.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: roocru on November 16, 2012, 03:38:14 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 16, 2012, 03:13:06 PM
Or maybe nobody in the ASC/Texas knows how to play pass defense.  ;-)

They knew enough to beat Trinity by 21.  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 16, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2012, 10:49:28 AM
Love the capsules.  I love them better when Wabash gets profiled.   :)

I know the super juicy games come next weekend, but there are some really good games this weekend.  The few that have more of my interest than others are..

North Central @ CLU - This may be a pretty unpopular opinion, but I kind of think North Central has way more benefit of the doubt capital than they've really earned.  I know they aren't thrilled about being the team that got singled out to fly in round 1, but I think they should really embrace the opportunity.  This right here is the road that North Central can go through to finally validate all of the "next big thing" talk that has circled that team for the last few years. 

Witt @ Heidelberg - Here's the best non-Mount Union game for Heidelberg this year.  Probably the best team Witt has seen as well.  A little bit of NCAC/OAC pride going on here as well.  My sense is that Heidelberg is the better side, but when Wittenberg gets that offense clicking they can beat some good teams. 

W&J @ Hopkins - If you don't have another horse amongst the 32 teams, hard not to be pulling for the Presidents to make a run. 

Also would have loved to see Louisiana College separated from UMHB, but I think we knew better.

I don't think these are the only great games, but not much to quibble with here. Totally agree about North Central. I nearly dropped them out of the top 25 after the Wheaton loss. At some point, they have to beat somebody, not just be the team that came within 10 of Whitewater that one year.

(I know the year, I'm just saying it that way for effect)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: umhb2001 on November 17, 2012, 01:04:54 AM
Game day! Lets do this!


GO CRU!
[/color]
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: hazzben on November 17, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 16, 2012, 03:13:06 PM
Or maybe nobody in the ASC/Texas knows how to play pass defense.  ;-)

I think a significant part of this is both the massive popularity of HS football down south and the proliferation of 7 on 7 (Skelly) competitions down there. There are just tons of quality QB's and receivers flooding out of this region, Tx in particular, into all levels of college football right now. With the weather being what it is, and the football devotion, these guys are playing in increasingly complex offenses and many are playing some form of football year round. The Big12 is a classic example of this. The defenses are SEC standard. But the QB's are also better than anywhere in the country. And most of those QB's come out of TX (except for the best one this year, at outlier homeschooled kid from CO). I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation in the DIII ASC.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:00:20 PM
I foolishly picked a non-Mount union OAC team to advance two rounds...what was I thinking.

Outside of Mount, it's hard to find a team that can compete nationally in that conference. It's hard to gage how good that conference is, since they play only one non-conference game.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 17, 2012, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:00:20 PM
I foolishly picked a non-OAC team to advance two rounds...what was I thinking.

Outside of Mount, it's hard to find a team that can compete nationally in that conference. It's hard to gage how good that conference is, since they play only one non-conference game.

Well we both bit the bullet today on Heidelberg. I also foolishly picked Washington and Jefferson. My bracket is pretty much done, although our grand scale is still possible.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
if all the current scores hold up, that heidi game will be my only loss. but off course there's still some games that haven't started yet.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 17, 2012, 03:14:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
if all the current scores hold up, that heidi game will be my only loss. but off course there's still some games that haven't started yet.

So that means you'll beat me no matter what. Noooooooooooo.  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:20:36 PM
Anyone else get the NCC game video to work?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 17, 2012, 03:22:40 PM
I was going to ask about Coe's. It just won't stop buffering.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:29:27 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 17, 2012, 03:22:40 PM
I was going to ask about Coe's. It just won't stop buffering.

I'm watching that one now...great game
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 17, 2012, 03:31:50 PM
Great finish shaping up in the Bethel @ Concorida-Chicago game... down 7, CUC drives down and scores with 18 seconds left... went for two but failed
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:34:07 PM
Some great games today...I can't believe that NCC score early on!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:37:05 PM
Elmhurst just won. they got a first down and Coe can't stop the clock.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 17, 2012, 05:07:40 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 03:00:20 PM
I foolishly picked a non-Mount union OAC team to advance two rounds...what was I thinking.

Outside of Mount, it's hard to find a team that can compete nationally in that conference. It's hard to gage how good that conference is, since they play only one non-conference game.

The OAC has been down the last few years.   Was very good in early to mid 2000's.  H'Berg and JCU both have good sophomore QB's.   2013 should better and culminating in 2014.

I wasn't expecting much from HBerg today.   First ever playoff appearance with a sophomore dominated roster against a playoff tested opponent.  Plus their best RB was hurt against Mount.   Not a recipe for success.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 05:09:57 PM
NCC laying a beat down on CLU.  Linfield is in a dog fight and has struggled moving the ball, 17 pts off of PLU turnovers.  the video feed reallys sucks, too bad because the game is a good one.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 05:25:31 PM
pick six for Linfield. they now lead 27-17 in the fourth.

If they hold on this should be great game next weekend, when NCC comes to town. They looked great today.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on November 17, 2012, 05:37:11 PM
NCC showed exactly why they have been ballyhooed for the last few years. They can play with anybody. Their problem has been self inflicted typically.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 07:04:33 PM
some real interesting week 2 games.  the linfield/ncc game looks like a toss up after today's games.  the salisbury/widener game could turn into a shoot out.  hobart/wittenberg with hobart hosting? might favor them now.  even the franklin/umhb game might be closer than first thought with franklin playing better now.  some great week 1 games too.  love playoff time.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 05:09:57 PM
NCC laying a beat down on CLU.  Linfield is in a dog fight and has struggled moving the ball, 17 pts off of PLU turnovers.  the video feed reallys sucks, too bad because the game is a good one.
For what it's worth--I had no issues with the Cats video feed today (unless you mean the relatively wide angles).  If you were having a bunch of buffering issues then it may have been on your end.  Heck--I had 4 games going at once for a while with virtually no buffering at all....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:19:20 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 07:04:33 PM
some real interesting week 2 games.  the linfield/ncc game looks like a toss up after today's games.  the salisbury/widener game could turn into a shoot out.  hobart/wittenberg with hobart hosting? might favor them now.  even the franklin/umhb game might be closer than first thought with franklin playing better now.  some great week 1 games too.  love playoff time.
If the Cats (Linfield) play like they did today on offense then it could be ugly--that being said, it is a very interesting matchup--You have a good passing team (Linfield) vs. a good passing D.  You also have a good running team (NCC) vs. a good running D---
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: cawcdad on November 17, 2012, 07:23:54 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 05:09:57 PM
NCC laying a beat down on CLU.  Linfield is in a dog fight and has struggled moving the ball, 17 pts off of PLU turnovers.  the video feed reallys sucks, too bad because the game is a good one.
For what it's worth--I had no issues with the Cats video feed today (unless you mean the relatively wide angles).  If you were having a bunch of buffering issues then it may have been on your end.  Heck--I had 4 games going at once for a while with virtually no buffering at all....
No buffering problems here. Had two games going and listening to the Linfield audio.
I picked 13 of the 16 games on my bracket. Probably middle of the pack. How did others do?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:28:37 PM
Oh and Kudos to Keith for calling the score on Linfield v. PLU
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:31:46 PM
Quote from: cawcdad on November 17, 2012, 07:23:54 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 05:09:57 PM
NCC laying a beat down on CLU.  Linfield is in a dog fight and has struggled moving the ball, 17 pts off of PLU turnovers.  the video feed reallys sucks, too bad because the game is a good one.
For what it's worth--I had no issues with the Cats video feed today (unless you mean the relatively wide angles).  If you were having a bunch of buffering issues then it may have been on your end.  Heck--I had 4 games going at once for a while with virtually no buffering at all....
No buffering problems here. Had two games going and listening to the Linfield audio.
I picked 13 of the 16 games on my bracket. Probably middle of the pack. How did others do?
I got 14 (missed Elmhurst and Wittenberg) but I had Heiderlberg going to round 3....
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 17, 2012, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:31:46 PM
Quote from: cawcdad on November 17, 2012, 07:23:54 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 05:09:57 PM
NCC laying a beat down on CLU.  Linfield is in a dog fight and has struggled moving the ball, 17 pts off of PLU turnovers.  the video feed reallys sucks, too bad because the game is a good one.
For what it's worth--I had no issues with the Cats video feed today (unless you mean the relatively wide angles).  If you were having a bunch of buffering issues then it may have been on your end.  Heck--I had 4 games going at once for a while with virtually no buffering at all....
No buffering problems here. Had two games going and listening to the Linfield audio.
I picked 13 of the 16 games on my bracket. Probably middle of the pack. How did others do?
I got 14 (missed Elmhurst and Wittenberg) but I had Heiderlberg going to round 3....
I also had 14 (and had Coe and Heidelberg losing next round anyways), but if past brackets are any indication I'll miss 3 or 4 in the next round.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2012, 07:55:09 PM
I only got one game wrong ...the heildelberg game. And I had them going two rounds.  >:(
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2012, 07:59:02 PM
‏Sorry, lazy ... and reposting.

Quote@D3Keith

Fairly typical results for Pool C teams (2-5). Five road tms winning is impressive. No upsets were major, even if Bethel was 7, Coe 3. #d3fb

With 32 playoff teams, some outside the @d3football top 25 get in the field. None, however, advance to Round 2. No. 24 Witt the lowest #d3fb
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2012, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:28:37 PM
Oh and Kudos to Keith for calling the score on Linfield v. PLU

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Was kind of proud of picking the right range on Salisbury-Rowan too (I think I had 21-12).

But I'm sure I was way off on some scores.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2012, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:28:37 PM
Oh and Kudos to Keith for calling the score on Linfield v. PLU

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Was kind of proud of picking the right range on Salisbury-Rowan too (I think I had 21-12).

But I'm sure I was way off on some scores.
ha ha ha---I thought Linfield-PLU was going to be close but not in the way in played out--so many turnovers and Linfield really didn't get their offense going at all--Mickey Inns--no TD passes, what?  Thankfully our D was able to bail us out.   :)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 17, 2012, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9

What does it say that you have a favorite chart? Not that I can talk ... :D

Interesting that the middle conferences (PAC-ODAC-IIAC-SCAC), as they get further away from having teams that made deep runs in the early aughts, now way below .500.

Also how many Wesley wins til independents pass ACFC?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 08:12:53 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 17, 2012, 08:06:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9

What does it say that you have a favorite chart? Not that I can talk ... :D

Interesting that the middle conferences (PAC-ODAC-IIAC-SCAC), as they get further away from having teams that made deep runs in the early aughts, now way below .500.

Also how many Wesley wins til independents pass ACFC?
And how do they factor in conference rematches?  Not Fair!  I'm from the West and I'm complaining...  ::) (kidding of course)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2012, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9
Thanks.

We ASC fans look at that 26-20 record and think of all of those first round games in which geographic proximity has thrown two ASC/Texas teams together sooner than their natural seeds would have them play.

Today the South Region team with the highest Top 25 ranking played the team with the 4th highest Top 25 ranking.  That should have been a second round game. If the form chart and natural seedings held, then the ASC record this season would probably be 3-1 rather than 2-1 going into the Round of 8.  (Yes I am predicting a UMHB win over Franklin.)

What we saw in the UMHB-LaCollege game was an old fashioned statement game by the CRU.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2012, 12:40:24 AM
I also had only two losses (Adrian, after their impressive win at Huntingdon last week - tho I had Franklin ranked higher all season I thought I'd take a home-field flyer, and Heidi, which I had beating Hobart before losing), so I've still got 7 of 8 alive so far for round three, and all my semifinalists still alive.  Most years I have at least one totally disastrous loss first round, so I'm not complaining!

Especially since the CCIW went 2-0! ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2012, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2012, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9
Thanks.

We ASC fans look at that 26-20 record and think of all of those first round games in which geographic proximity has thrown two ASC/Texas teams together sooner than their natural seeds would have them play.

The rest of us know to expect that post from you every year. We get it, and everyone on this board gets it.

One thing I note when looking at this chart is that the .500 line is really high up. So even going 1-1 against yourself, as the ASC and NWC did today and as the OAC has on numerous occasions and the MIAC has as well, puts you pretty high on the list.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 18, 2012, 01:09:21 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9
I like it too.  Do you include conference matchups in the playoffs or just leave them out since it has to be 1-1?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 18, 2012, 01:26:49 AM
Oops, didn't read the whole thread before posting.  I'm not even looking to guess what a conference would be without the matchups.  I'd rather just leave them out entirely.  It drags down the good conferences and boosts the not as good ones.  That is if they ever get two teams in that meet.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 18, 2012, 01:35:28 AM
Quote from: cawcdad on November 17, 2012, 07:23:54 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2012, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: wesleydad on November 17, 2012, 05:09:57 PM
NCC laying a beat down on CLU.  Linfield is in a dog fight and has struggled moving the ball, 17 pts off of PLU turnovers.  the video feed reallys sucks, too bad because the game is a good one.
For what it's worth--I had no issues with the Cats video feed today (unless you mean the relatively wide angles).  If you were having a bunch of buffering issues then it may have been on your end.  Heck--I had 4 games going at once for a while with virtually no buffering at all....
No buffering problems here. Had two games going and listening to the Linfield audio.
I picked 13 of the 16 games on my bracket. Probably middle of the pack. How did others do?

I am pretty much in last place.  :'(.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2012, 01:41:35 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 18, 2012, 01:26:49 AM
Oops, didn't read the whole thread before posting.  I'm not even looking to guess what a conference would be without the matchups.  I'd rather just leave them out entirely.  It drags down the good conferences and boosts the not as good ones.  That is if they ever get two teams in that meet.

The 'bad' conferences never meet in the playoffs unless the SCIAC has (and even that year, if any, they must not have been bad), but you are right.  For those who pay attention to percentage (and that is how the listing is arranged), top conferences will be dragged down towards .500 by including in-conference matchups.

(Don't recall that the CCIW has ever had an in-conference knockout, since c. 80% of the losses are to UMU!)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2012, 01:42:35 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 18, 2012, 01:09:21 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9
I like it too.  Do you include conference matchups in the playoffs or just leave them out since it has to be 1-1?

Every game is included.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2012, 01:49:28 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2012, 01:42:35 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 18, 2012, 01:09:21 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9
I like it too.  Do you include conference matchups in the playoffs or just leave them out since it has to be 1-1?

Every game is included.

But if you arrange by percentage, SHOULD they be?  See above post.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: AO on November 18, 2012, 01:51:43 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2012, 01:41:35 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 18, 2012, 01:26:49 AM
Oops, didn't read the whole thread before posting.  I'm not even looking to guess what a conference would be without the matchups.  I'd rather just leave them out entirely.  It drags down the good conferences and boosts the not as good ones.  That is if they ever get two teams in that meet.

The 'bad' conferences never meet in the playoffs unless the SCIAC has (and even that year, if any, they must not have been bad), but you are right.  For those who pay attention to percentage (and that is how the listing is arranged), top conferences will be dragged down towards .500 by including in-conference matchups.

(Don't recall that the CCIW has ever had an in-conference knockout, since c. 80% of the losses are to UMU!)
It may make sense to include the number of in-conference matchups in a separate column, but it's not necessarily dragging a conference's winning pct to include the game in the w/l percentage as both teams could have lost if they hadn't played each other.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2012, 01:57:20 AM
Quote from: AO on November 18, 2012, 01:51:43 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2012, 01:41:35 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 18, 2012, 01:26:49 AM
Oops, didn't read the whole thread before posting.  I'm not even looking to guess what a conference would be without the matchups.  I'd rather just leave them out entirely.  It drags down the good conferences and boosts the not as good ones.  That is if they ever get two teams in that meet.

The 'bad' conferences never meet in the playoffs unless the SCIAC has (and even that year, if any, they must not have been bad), but you are right.  For those who pay attention to percentage (and that is how the listing is arranged), top conferences will be dragged down towards .500 by including in-conference matchups.

(Don't recall that the CCIW has ever had an in-conference knockout, since c. 80% of the losses are to UMU!)
It may make sense to include the number of in-conference matchups in a separate column, but it's not necessarily dragging a conference's winning pct to include the game in the w/l percentage as both teams could have lost if they hadn't played each other.

True, but they also could have both won.  It may not be 'dragging' a conference's % towards .500, but it IS taking them that direction (rightly or wrongly). ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on November 18, 2012, 08:42:33 AM
I don't have the time right now to look it up, but the 2nd place OAC team is going to be over .500 if you remove their re-matches against Mount.  Off the top of my head I can come up with OAC losses to Mount in the playoffs:
2006 - Capital lost to Mount in Round 3
2005 - Capital lost to Mount in the Round 3
2002  -  John Carroll  lost to Mount in the SEMI-FINALS
2000  - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 1
1999 - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 2
1997 –  John Carroll lost to Mount in Round 2

OAC losses that I can remember against someone else:
Baldwin Wallace (led by MSU tranfer Dan Larlham at QB) to Wheaton (I think) back in the early 2000's
Otterbein to Franklin a few years ago in a shoot out
Heidelberg yesterday to Wittenberg

I fully realize we're not the WIAC, CCIW, NWC or E-8 when it comes to depth and/or parity, and I know it's hard for the rest of the nation to realize, but the OAC is has been a little bit more than just Mount Union and a bunch of crap teams.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 18, 2012, 10:52:38 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2012, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2012, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
One of my favorite charts, updated. Playoff history by conference:

http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#9
Thanks.

We ASC fans look at that 26-20 record and think of all of those first round games in which geographic proximity has thrown two ASC/Texas teams together sooner than their natural seeds would have them play.

The rest of us know to expect that post from you every year. We get it, and everyone on this board gets it.

One thing I note when looking at this chart is that the .500 line is really high up. So even going 1-1 against yourself, as the ASC and NWC did today and as the OAC has on numerous occasions and the MIAC has as well, puts you pretty high on the list.
;)  Just bringing that nuance to the literally hundreds and hundreds of new readers who have logged on this season.

Following the progession in that chart is one of the fun things to follow season to season.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Since HSC brought it up, Elmhurst's appearance in the playoffs means that 7 of 8 CCIW teams have made it to the playoffs since 2000. Only North Park, which hasn't  even won a conference game during that span, has not been to the dance. And of the 7 teams, 6 have won 1st round games. The only first round losses the CCIW has since 2000 is Millikin @ Ohio Northern in 2000 and IWU v Monmouth last year.

That said, the CCIW has a chance to move up the conference rankings this week vs the NWC and MIAC. Both conferences are ranked ahead of the CCIW in D3's conference rankings. It's a great opportunity to see the relative strength.

Playoffs are a fun time.

Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ncc_fan on November 18, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
The only first round losses the CCIW has since 2000 is Millikin @ Ohio Northern in 2000 and IWU v Monmouth last year.

...and Capital @ NCC in 2005   :'(
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: hazzben on November 18, 2012, 11:31:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Since HSC brought it up, Elmhurst's appearance in the playoffs means that 7 of 8 CCIW teams have made it to the playoffs since 2000. Only North Park, which hasn't  even won a conference game during that span, has not been to the dance. And of the 7 teams, 6 have won 1st round games.

7 of 8 is an impressive stat and statement about the leagues depth and parity. Especially given how much Wheaton and North Central seem to dominate the headlines in a typical year. Not many other leagues - any ?? - could boast this
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: speedybigboy on November 19, 2012, 12:49:46 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 18, 2012, 11:31:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Since HSC brought it up, Elmhurst's appearance in the playoffs means that 7 of 8 CCIW teams have made it to the playoffs since 2000. Only North Park, which hasn't  even won a conference game during that span, has not been to the dance. And of the 7 teams, 6 have won 1st round games.

7 of 8 is an impressive stat and statement about the leagues depth and parity. Especially given how much Wheaton and North Central seem to dominate the headlines in a typical year. Not many other leagues - any ?? - could boast this
Northwest Conference is only at 4 of 7 since joining d3.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 19, 2012, 12:49:46 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 18, 2012, 11:31:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Since HSC brought it up, Elmhurst's appearance in the playoffs means that 7 of 8 CCIW teams have made it to the playoffs since 2000. Only North Park, which hasn't  even won a conference game during that span, has not been to the dance. And of the 7 teams, 6 have won 1st round games.

7 of 8 is an impressive stat and statement about the leagues depth and parity. Especially given how much Wheaton and North Central seem to dominate the headlines in a typical year. Not many other leagues - any ?? - could boast this
Northwest Conference is only at 4 of 7 since joining d3.

And "NWC since joining D3" is basically the same as "CCIW since 2000" since the NWC first became eligible for the D-III football playoffs in 1998.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: desertcat1 on November 19, 2012, 12:20:46 PM
Quote from: speedybigboy on November 19, 2012, 12:49:46 AM
Quote from: hazzben on November 18, 2012, 11:31:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Since HSC brought it up, Elmhurst's appearance in the playoffs means that 7 of 8 CCIW teams have made it to the playoffs since 2000. Only North Park, which hasn't  even won a conference game during that span, has not been to the dance. And of the 7 teams, 6 have won 1st round games.

7 of 8 is an impressive stat and statement about the leagues depth and parity. Especially given how much Wheaton and North Central seem to dominate the headlines in a typical year. Not many other leagues - any ?? - could boast this
Northwest Conference is only at 4 of 7 since joining d3.

Don't forget about  the NWC  has to NCAA  Championships since  1999. also?  :P
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 07:45:53 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 18, 2012, 11:31:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Since HSC brought it up, Elmhurst's appearance in the playoffs means that 7 of 8 CCIW teams have made it to the playoffs since 2000. Only North Park, which hasn't  even won a conference game during that span, has not been to the dance. And of the 7 teams, 6 have won 1st round games.

7 of 8 is an impressive stat and statement about the leagues depth and parity. Especially given how much Wheaton and North Central seem to dominate the headlines in a typical year. Not many other leagues - any ?? - could boast this

The ODAC has sent H-SC, R-MC, W&L, E&H, Bridgewater and Catholic since 2000. 6 of 7, or 7 of 8 since Shenandoah went in 2004 while a member of the USAC. Guilford is the loner, but was 8-2 in 1997 FWIW.

The MAC or CC would be the other leagues I guess have sent more than half of their teams. Off top:
CC: McDaniel, Susquehanna, Johns Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Dickinson. F&M and Gettysburg have had 7-/8-win seasons but no playoffs that I can recall.
MAC: Lyco, DelVal, Widener, Wilkes, King's, Albright. Lebanon Valley went 9-1 with an OT loss to Albright by 1 and missed. Stevenson and Misericordia don't count. That's seven ... not sure which side Moravian counts on, but it's been a while for them. 1993 maybe.

IIAC has sent five I think. WIAC hasn't sent many, but everyone but UW-RF has had eight-win or better years, I believe, now that Platteville and Oshkosh joined the club this year.

So it's not quite as rare as it seems, when you give it a 12-/13-year span, but it is an interesting accomplishment. I think it says more about parity than strength.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 07:54:02 PM
Yeah, it is JUST parity, IF you leave off the other part USEE mentioned: 6 of the CCIW's 7 won at least a first-round game.  ANY AQ conference with parity can send lots of different teams to the playoffs (the AQ is automatically in); only a conference with parity AND quality can win playoff games with so many different teams.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 08:13:34 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 07:54:02 PM
Yeah, it is JUST parity, IF you leave off the other part USEE mentioned: 6 of the CCIW's 7 won at least a first-round game.  ANY AQ conference with parity can send lots of different teams to the playoffs (the AQ is automatically in); only a conference with parity AND quality can win playoff games with so many different teams.

I did miss the part about winning in the first round. Is it Millikin who failed to advance ever?

I'd have to look that up to believe it. They beat Hope maybe in the early 2000s?

Anyway, saying the CCIW is a really good conference with evenly spread talent isn't saying anything we don't already know.

That said, the claim was made that after Round 1, the CCIW is the best conference. That's a possibility, but beating the SCIAC and IIAC champs, even on the road, one year after beating the IIAC and getting bounced by MWC and NCAC doesn't exactly cause a ripple throughout the conference rankings.

Winning at Linfield and/or at St. Thomas ... then we could start praising the CCIW's awesomeness. IMO.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
Yeah, Millikin (back in 2000) is the team that didn't advance.

I don't recall anyone claiming the CCIW to be the BEST conference.  (If anyone did, they should be blood tested!)  Are you mixing it up with the front page poll question on which conference HAD the best first round?  (Yes, I voted for the CCIW on THAT question. ;))
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
Yeah, Millikin (back in 2000) is the team that didn't advance.

I don't recall anyone claiming the CCIW to be the BEST conference.  (If anyone did, they should be blood tested!)  Are you mixing it up with the front page poll question on which conference HAD the best first round?  (Yes, I voted for the CCIW on THAT question. ;))

Keith doesn't mix stuff up. :) It was someone making the claim on Twitter.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
Yeah, Millikin (back in 2000) is the team that didn't advance.

I don't recall anyone claiming the CCIW to be the BEST conference.  (If anyone did, they should be blood tested!)  Are you mixing it up with the front page poll question on which conference HAD the best first round?  (Yes, I voted for the CCIW on THAT question. ;))

Keith doesn't mix stuff up. :) It was someone making the claim on Twitter.

The claim was made on Twitter.

Pat keeps me from making most of my public mixups. Everyone needs a good editor.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 19, 2012, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
Yeah, Millikin (back in 2000) is the team that didn't advance.

I don't recall anyone claiming the CCIW to be the BEST conference.  (If anyone did, they should be blood tested!)  Are you mixing it up with the front page poll question on which conference HAD the best first round?  (Yes, I voted for the CCIW on THAT question. ;))

Keith doesn't mix stuff up. :) It was someone making the claim on Twitter.

The claim was made on Twitter.

Pat keeps me from making most of my public mixups. Everyone needs a good editor.

I did call you the ruler of the universe or something last week, so you can't possibly make mistakes.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 08:59:55 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2012, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
Yeah, Millikin (back in 2000) is the team that didn't advance.

I don't recall anyone claiming the CCIW to be the BEST conference.  (If anyone did, they should be blood tested!)  Are you mixing it up with the front page poll question on which conference HAD the best first round?  (Yes, I voted for the CCIW on THAT question. ;))

Keith doesn't mix stuff up. :) It was someone making the claim on Twitter.

The claim was made on Twitter.

Pat keeps me from making most of my public mixups. Everyone needs a good editor.

I did call you the ruler of the universe or something last week, so you can't possibly make mistakes.

And I hit two of the Triple Take scores on the nose, so let's all ignore the games I missed!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 09:59:09 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 08:24:02 PM
Yeah, Millikin (back in 2000) is the team that didn't advance.

I don't recall anyone claiming the CCIW to be the BEST conference.  (If anyone did, they should be blood tested!)  Are you mixing it up with the front page poll question on which conference HAD the best first round?  (Yes, I voted for the CCIW on THAT question. ;))

Keith doesn't mix stuff up. :) It was someone making the claim on Twitter.

The claim was made on Twitter.

Pat keeps me from making most of my public mixups. Everyone needs a good editor.

It figures it was on Twitter, since whoever made the claim is a twit! ;)

Man, if only I had an editor to protect me from brain farts! ;D  (But once in a blue moon, even Pat needs an editor: he had two consecutive posts on the CCIW board where he called the former NPU coach 'Pethel' - never seen him make an error like that before! :o)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 10:16:50 PM
Nor have I ever seen people get so worked up about a typo. But let's not do your usual exaggeration, Chuck. It was one post.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4077.msg1465569#msg1465569
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 19, 2012, 10:40:21 PM
(chanting like a kid in school) Fight! Fight! Fight!  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 10:45:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 10:16:50 PM
Nor have I ever seen people get so worked up about a typo. But let's not do your usual exaggeration, Chuck. It was one post.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4077.msg1465569#msg1465569

Check post #27080 on the previous page.

I no longer EVER exaggerate! 8-)

(I figure during playoff season, you probably had Bethel on your mind and had a 'brain fart'.  Since I have LOTS of brain farts, I'm certainly not holding it against you.)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 10:45:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 10:16:50 PM
Nor have I ever seen people get so worked up about a typo. But let's not do your usual exaggeration, Chuck. It was one post.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4077.msg1465569#msg1465569

Check post #27080 on the previous page.

I no longer EVER exaggerate! 8-)

(I figure during playoff season, you probably had Bethel on your mind and had a 'brain fart'.  Since I have LOTS of brain farts, I'm certainly not holding it against you.)

Not consecutive posts. Not consecutive posts on the board, not consecutive posts of mine and not consecutive posts of mine on the board.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2012, 12:31:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 19, 2012, 10:45:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2012, 10:16:50 PM
Nor have I ever seen people get so worked up about a typo. But let's not do your usual exaggeration, Chuck. It was one post.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4077.msg1465569#msg1465569

Check post #27080 on the previous page.

I no longer EVER exaggerate! 8-)

(I figure during playoff season, you probably had Bethel on your mind and had a 'brain fart'.  Since I have LOTS of brain farts, I'm certainly not holding it against you.)

Not consecutive posts. Not consecutive posts on the board, not consecutive posts of mine and not consecutive posts of mine on the board.

Since I have made it clear I am being light-hearted, I can't believe you are being so defensive.  It was consecutive posts where you had mentioned 'Pethtel' and spelled it 'Pethel'.

Big deal.  We don't expect you to be perfect.  It just stuck with me BECAUSE such an error is so out of character for you.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Yeah, sorry -- that reads as being way more defensive than the tone I had in my head when I wrote it, sorry about that.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Yeah, sorry -- that reads as being way more defensive than the tone I had in my head when I wrote it, sorry about that.

Shame, shame, for not being able to convey tone in a typewritten post.  Clearly you need to start inserting more smiley faces.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: AUKaz00 on November 20, 2012, 12:04:02 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2012, 07:45:53 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 18, 2012, 11:31:00 PM
Quote from: USee on November 18, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
Since HSC brought it up, Elmhurst's appearance in the playoffs means that 7 of 8 CCIW teams have made it to the playoffs since 2000. Only North Park, which hasn't  even won a conference game during that span, has not been to the dance. And of the 7 teams, 6 have won 1st round games.

7 of 8 is an impressive stat and statement about the leagues depth and parity. Especially given how much Wheaton and North Central seem to dominate the headlines in a typical year. Not many other leagues - any ?? - could boast this

The ODAC has sent H-SC, R-MC, W&L, E&H, Bridgewater and Catholic since 2000. 6 of 7, or 7 of 8 since Shenandoah went in 2004 while a member of the USAC. Guilford is the loner, but was 8-2 in 1997 FWIW.

The MAC or CC would be the other leagues I guess have sent more than half of their teams. Off top:
CC: McDaniel, Susquehanna, Johns Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Dickinson. F&M and Gettysburg have had 7-/8-win seasons but no playoffs that I can recall.
MAC: Lyco, DelVal, Widener, Wilkes, King's, Albright. Lebanon Valley went 9-1 with an OT loss to Albright by 1 and missed. Stevenson and Misericordia don't count. That's seven ... not sure which side Moravian counts on, but it's been a while for them. 1993 maybe.

IIAC has sent five I think. WIAC hasn't sent many, but everyone but UW-RF has had eight-win or better years, I believe, now that Platteville and Oshkosh joined the club this year.

So it's not quite as rare as it seems, when you give it a 12-/13-year span, but it is an interesting accomplishment. I think it says more about parity than strength.

The E8 sent 5 of 7 original members in Alfred, Fisher, Hartwick, Ithaca and Springfield.  And Salisbury has gone the past two years.  From that list only Hartwick hasn't played past the 1st round.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 20, 2012, 05:13:59 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Yeah, sorry -- that reads as being way more defensive than the tone I had in my head when I wrote it, sorry about that.

Shame, shame, for not being able to convey tone in a typewritten post.  Clearly you need to start inserting more smiley faces.

Yeah. This is my move to change the tone of my posts even though I still really mean to be an a-hole  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2012, 06:04:41 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Yeah, sorry -- that reads as being way more defensive than the tone I had in my head when I wrote it, sorry about that.

Shame, shame, for not being able to convey tone in a typewritten post.  Clearly you need to start inserting more smiley faces.
:)   ;)   8-)   ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 20, 2012, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Yeah, sorry -- that reads as being way more defensive than the tone I had in my head when I wrote it, sorry about that.

Shame, shame, for not being able to convey tone in a typewritten post.  Clearly you need to start inserting more smiley faces.

I adopted these and lol as standard practice, even if making me look silly, after the first five or six times I almost lost a friend over something said over e-mail or on a message board.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 20, 2012, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 20, 2012, 05:13:59 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Yeah, sorry -- that reads as being way more defensive than the tone I had in my head when I wrote it, sorry about that.

Shame, shame, for not being able to convey tone in a typewritten post.  Clearly you need to start inserting more smiley faces.

Yeah. This is my move to change the tone of my posts even though I still really mean to be an a-hole  ;)

:idea:
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on November 21, 2012, 06:29:48 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 20, 2012, 09:08:54 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 20, 2012, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Yeah, sorry -- that reads as being way more defensive than the tone I had in my head when I wrote it, sorry about that.

Shame, shame, for not being able to convey tone in a typewritten post.  Clearly you need to start inserting more smiley faces.

I adopted these and lol as standard practice, even if making me look silly, after the first five or six times I almost lost a friend over something said over e-mail or on a message board.

Keith, you are dead to me.

:)

See how much better that looks?!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: pg04 on November 21, 2012, 09:50:43 AM
You are a ****ing idiot!  :) ;)

OK, I may have pushed it one post too far.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 26, 2012, 05:46:00 PM
I was wondering what I said/wrote to be dead to you for a second there.

;D
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 28, 2012, 06:21:18 PM
Here's article about one of the Wesley players who . Was diagnosed with lymphoma recently.
 
   http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121128/SPORTS08/311280039/Brooks-after-diagnosis-Don-t-worry-about-me
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on November 28, 2012, 06:30:16 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 28, 2012, 06:21:18 PM
Here's article about one of the Wesley players who . Was diagnosed with lymphoma recently.
 
   http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121128/SPORTS08/311280039/Brooks-after-diagnosis-Don-t-worry-about-me

We have written a story on Kirk Brooks as well, but probably won't post it for a day or two as we currently have a Wesley feature out front.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Hawks88 on November 28, 2012, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 28, 2012, 06:21:18 PM
Here's article about one of the Wesley players who . Was diagnosed with lymphoma recently.
 
   http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121128/SPORTS08/311280039/Brooks-after-diagnosis-Don-t-worry-about-me
He'll be in our prayers. That interception he had against Huntingdon was an awesome play. I'll remember that for a long time.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: SUADC on November 29, 2012, 09:59:18 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 28, 2012, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 28, 2012, 06:21:18 PM
Here's article about one of the Wesley players who . Was diagnosed with lymphoma recently.
 
   http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121128/SPORTS08/311280039/Brooks-after-diagnosis-Don-t-worry-about-me
He'll be in our prayers. That interception he had against Huntingdon was an awesome play. I'll remember that for a long time.

My prayers are with him and his family as well.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Raider 68 on November 30, 2012, 11:01:36 AM
Pat,

Today's Playoff Prediction page would not come up. I checked it a few times. :-\
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on November 30, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Funny, it works for me...unless they just fixed it.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 01, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.

Where is here? In Belton?

Won't the game be played in Alliance?
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 01, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.

Where is here? In Belton?

Won't the game be played in Alliance?
Oops, meant it more generally as in semifinal.  ;) It should be in Alliance.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 01, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 01, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.

Where is here? In Belton?

Won't the game be played in Alliance?
Oops, meant it more generally as in semifinal.  ;) It should be in Alliance.

As much as I want MHB to win....it's MHB that will need the very special game to win.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: emma17 on December 01, 2012, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.

I appreciate your zest, however, I think you're going to be seriously disappointed. 
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2012, 05:33:33 PM
The NCAA has begun using exclusively the north end zone field camera view for the Linfield UW-Oshkosh game.  AARRRRGGGGHHHH!
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: K-Mack on December 01, 2012, 09:35:59 PM
The seeds nearly held, as we would have had all purple and 1-2-3-4 in the poll, and the four No. 1 seeds all winning at home, if Linfield had held on.

Instead we are treated to a great finish and another week of UW-Oshkosh, perhaps the best story of the season. It's no consolation to the Linfield die-hards, but for general interest, we should be glad to have UW-O, St. Thomas and UMHB.

I think we can all agree that it would be better if the matchups were mixed up, but the fact we have playoffs mean we still get UMHB-Mount Union ... and we get a team to Salem for the first time, which should be cool. And since it's a MIAC/WIAC champ, we can expect that the team could be competitive with UMU (or UMHB, if it ends up being the Cru, which is a possibility at this point)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2012, 10:35:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2012, 05:33:33 PM
The NCAA has begun using exclusively the north end zone field camera view for the Linfield UW-Oshkosh game.  AARRRRGGGGHHHH!

The NCAA didn't have a role in producing that game, just for the record.
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2012, 11:45:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2012, 10:35:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2012, 05:33:33 PM
The NCAA has begun using exclusively the north end zone field camera view for the Linfield UW-Oshkosh game.  AARRRRGGGGHHHH!

The NCAA didn't have a role in producing that game, just for the record.
Thanks.

My confusion arose because the default screen when there was a change in the action was an "NCAA spot".
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: hazzben on December 02, 2012, 12:50:03 AM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you are crazy if you think you just saw the Stagg Bowl  :o Two very good teams played a very good game. But the team of the last decade and a half, Mount Union, was not a participant. And your optimism is admirable, but Mount is a clear favorite in Alliance next week
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: HScoach on December 02, 2012, 09:51:13 AM
Quote from: hazzben on December 02, 2012, 12:50:03 AM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you are crazy if you think you just saw the Stagg Bowl  :o Two very good teams played a very good game. But the team of the last decade and a half, Mount Union, was not a participant. And your optimism is admirable, but Mount is a clear favorite in Alliance next week

Hazzben:  Thanks for the support, but you're selling Mount a little short.  The last time Mount failed to make at least the semi-finals was 1994 when they lost to national champion Albion on the road 34-33.  So it's officially the "team of the last decade and 8/10's". ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Playoffs: Bracket Reactions & more
Post by: hazzben on December 02, 2012, 06:30:22 PM
Quote from: HScoach on December 02, 2012, 09:51:13 AM
Quote from: hazzben on December 02, 2012, 12:50:03 AM
Quote from: thewaterboy on December 01, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Great game today in Belton....IMO, this was the Stagg Bowl. Both teams were evenly matched, and plays went either way and it came down to who could get the job done best. Today that was the Cru. Im willing to go so far as to say that they are the best team left. Mount is going to have to come up with something special if they want to win here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you are crazy if you think you just saw the Stagg Bowl  :o Two very good teams played a very good game. But the team of the last decade and a half, Mount Union, was not a participant. And your optimism is admirable, but Mount is a clear favorite in Alliance next week

Hazzben:  Thanks for the support, but you're selling Mount a little short.  The last time Mount failed to make at least the semi-finals was 1994 when they lost to national champion Albion on the road 34-33.  So it's officially the "team of the last decade and 8/10's". ;)

Touche!  ;D