Pool C -- 2009

Started by Ralph Turner, October 18, 2009, 11:21:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Ypsi

You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.

Ralph Turner

#391
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.
I agree.

I want to see the UMHB-UWW's.

I want HSU to get credit for playing Linfield, and both teams flying across country to do that.  (and vice-versa!)

The top ranked teams ought to be playing for home field advantage in the semifinals and Regional finals in those games.

Depending on the JHU-Wesley game, we can get an idea of how strong the Pres AC was this year.

smedindy

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.

But if North Central had demolished Lakeland, would they have been ready for the CCIW season?

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: smedindy on December 04, 2009, 12:52:47 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
You're all ignoring my point (perhaps I wasn't clear enough).  There are five primary criteria; the selection committee seems to think there is ONE primary criterion (regional winning %), with the other four being secondary.  If, regardless of huge advantages in the other 'primary' criteria, a two-loss team has effectively a zero chance of selection over a one-loss team, the committee is not following the handbook, and teams should schedule nothing but cupcakes in the non-con portion of the season.

If, for example, North Central had demolished Lakeland instead of scheduling ONU, they would have been in the playoffs.  I don't like that set of incentives.

But if North Central had demolished Lakeland, would they have been ready for the CCIW season?

Yes, that is the flip side of the argument.  But the selection committee seems to be saying "lose any non-con game, you are eliminated from Pool C" (since going undefeated in conference would mean a Pool A).

I prefer Ralph's position - encourage the 'big dogs' to meet in the non-con.  Otherwise the first few weeks of the season will be unwatchable.

The committee's current process almost certainly rules out a Wabash vs IWU or Wheaton game, since the loser would have to run the CCIW (rare) or beat both Witt AND DePauw (though, until things change, I guess just beating Witt would give you the AQ). ;)  While winning the conference is obviously the 'simple' way in, I just think a 'two strikes, you're (all but automatically) out" policy is the wrong incentive for good non-con games.

usee

I disagree to some extent with the either/or scheduling proposition of Lakeland OR UWW. I don't think it's a binary result. The reality is a lot of CCIW schools already schedule difficult (but not impossible) non conf games to prepare them for a brutal CCIW schedule. If you are good enough to make the playoffs then scheduling Hope, Platteville, Coe, Wartburg, Wabash, etc for non conference is plenty to keep you ready for the playoffs. I think NCC would have been fine in the playoffs with Lakeland on their schedule. They have been to the playoffs so they know how what they have to do to succeed there. For the CCIW the non conf schedule is not as important because the conference is brutal enough and prepares for the playoffs as much as any non conf game would. So for our conference I don't ever see their being an incentive for the top schools to schedule a MUC or UWW non conference. In fact I would argue that NCC's slate w ONU was more penal to their playoff hopes than additive.

I don't think that's the case with many other conferences save the top 2 or 3. In those conferences they need to see the competition of the other top schools to know where they are as a program. I would argue Wabash's games the last 2 years against CCIW schools in the playoffs were far more helpful for them as a program than any other games on their schedule. Teams with weak conferences need stronger non conf games.

So basically I believe this issue is more complex than the Lakeland or UWW solution. There are lots of other reason's and middle ground and it depends on your situation.

bashbrother

#395
Quote from: USee on December 04, 2009, 09:34:54 AM
I would argue Wabash's games the last 2 years against CCIW schools in the playoffs were far more helpful for them as a program than any other games on their schedule.

Very true.

The NCAC/UAA agreement has Bash somewhat trapped into a Wash U./Chicago non-conference.   (Depauw is the other game and of greater value.)

Why should you go for it on 4th down?

"To overcome the disappointment of not making it on third down." -- Washington State Coach Mike Leach