D3boards.com

Post Patterns (Division III football) => General football => Topic started by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on October 31, 2017, 01:17:58 pm

Title: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on October 31, 2017, 01:17:58 pm
Starting the 2017 Playoff thread as it is getting close to time...
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on October 31, 2017, 02:13:16 pm
Question on home field (I understand true seeding isn't announced):

If the assumed #2 overall seed lost in the first three rounds, does the team that beat them hold home-field for future games- or does it depend on what that team was seeded?

Or is it determined week by week, which as I recall we have to wait for the NCAA to announce the locations of the following week's games?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on October 31, 2017, 02:21:40 pm
pretty sure that it is week-to-week.  I don't believe that if "seed" #8 beats #1, that #8 assumes the "seed" of #1. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on October 31, 2017, 02:27:22 pm
The NCAA will announce host site locations each week, but we pretty much know who would host given almost any matchup.  Sometimes we don't know for sure who would host semifinal games if the top seeds all hold, but those are probably about the only scenarios where we have to wait and see. 

Definitely though- home field advantage privileges are not transferable.  If Lakeland beats Oshkosh, Lakeland's still gonna be on the road in round 2. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2017, 02:42:36 pm
The NCAA will announce host site locations each week, but we pretty much know who would host given almost any matchup.  Sometimes we don't know for sure who would host semifinal games if the top seeds all hold, but those are probably about the only scenarios where we have to wait and see. 

Definitely though- home field advantage privileges are not transferable.  If Lakeland beats Oshkosh, Lakeland's still gonna be on the road in round 2.
and of course, the schools have to apply to host and have an acceptable facility to be allowed to host...
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 31, 2017, 03:27:59 pm
There are other factors, as has been alluded to, that can affect hosting of games... so the committee always waits to officially announce them the Sunday prior. There have been crazy reasons for some schools not to host across the sports of Division III. Usually, as has been noted, we can figure it out based on who is left... but in no way shape or form does an upset team carry on the home-field of the team they beat. That doesn't happen in any sport that I know.

Basically, who ever is the highest regionally ranked team will be the host. Remember, we see the final rankings now. It only gets crazy when crossing regional lines and the rankings are the same or close (i.e. 1 and 2, 2 and 3). Then just look at the data used for rankings and usually we can come up with the host rather easily.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on October 31, 2017, 03:39:28 pm
The NCAA will announce host site locations each week, but we pretty much know who would host given almost any matchup.  Sometimes we don't know for sure who would host semifinal games if the top seeds all hold, but those are probably about the only scenarios where we have to wait and see. 

Definitely though- home field advantage privileges are not transferable.  If Lakeland beats Oshkosh, Lakeland's still gonna be on the road in round 2.
and of course, the schools have to apply to host and have an acceptable facility to be allowed to host...

Do a significant number of schools submit the application to host or could we run into a situation in round 2 where two teams won that are unable to host? I imagine you can schedule to avoid that in round 1, but beyond that?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on October 31, 2017, 03:41:38 pm
The NCAA will announce host site locations each week, but we pretty much know who would host given almost any matchup.  Sometimes we don't know for sure who would host semifinal games if the top seeds all hold, but those are probably about the only scenarios where we have to wait and see. 

Definitely though- home field advantage privileges are not transferable.  If Lakeland beats Oshkosh, Lakeland's still gonna be on the road in round 2.
and of course, the schools have to apply to host and have an acceptable facility to be allowed to host...

Do a significant number of schools submit the application to host or could we run into a situation in round 2 where two teams won that are unable to host? I imagine you can schedule to avoid that in round 1, but beyond that?

It's not typical that schools either do not file or are not acceptable to host in football. I think MIT hit that snag a few years ago and I'm sure there are a few more scattered around, but it's much more prevalent in sports with bigger tournament fields.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on October 31, 2017, 05:14:08 pm
The NCAA will announce host site locations each week, but we pretty much know who would host given almost any matchup.  Sometimes we don't know for sure who would host semifinal games if the top seeds all hold, but those are probably about the only scenarios where we have to wait and see. 

Definitely though- home field advantage privileges are not transferable.  If Lakeland beats Oshkosh, Lakeland's still gonna be on the road in round 2.
and of course, the schools have to apply to host and have an acceptable facility to be allowed to host...

Do a significant number of schools submit the application to host or could we run into a situation in round 2 where two teams won that are unable to host? I imagine you can schedule to avoid that in round 1, but beyond that?

It's not typical that schools either do not file or are not acceptable to host in football. I think MIT hit that snag a few years ago and I'm sure there are a few more scattered around, but it's much more prevalent in sports with bigger tournament fields.
I was thinking of several years ago when CLU beat Linfield in the first week of the season and should have hosted the rematch in the first round of the playoffs but their field (they were still constructing their current stadium) did not meet the requirement so  CLU had to go to Linfield where their season ended.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2017, 05:21:14 pm
Yes, it definitely happens in football where a school is unable to host, but it's rare.

Some years ago, as another example, Hobart declined to host a second-round game because it couldn't staff the game on the holiday weekend.

Further back, Western Connecticut brain farted and failed to file to host beyond the second weekend. As the top seed. Fate intervened, of course, and since Western Connecticut should never have been the top seed in the first place, it lost to Montclair State in the second round. After getting a first-round bye.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: gordonmann on October 31, 2017, 07:56:37 pm
Brockport "hosted" John Carroll at Rochester years ago and Franklin more recently hosted Wheaton at a local high school, both because of bad field conditions.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 01, 2017, 12:14:09 pm
As Pat points out, it has happened. Usually, when those things occur many notice and make note of it themselves. For a lot of schools that I know, they will submit paperwork whether they have a chance of hosting or not; whether they have a chance of making the playoffs or not. They just do it to make sure they have got it done on for the outside chance it happens.

The most common one I see is when a facility is spoken for (rental usually) because a program/department is not used to that kind of success. The balance between bringing money in for a rental versus keeping it reserved for the off-chance of hosting is pretty tricky for some.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2017, 11:31:37 am
Top Seed Talk! 

I think we're all in agreement that UMHB, UWO, and UMU are going to be the top three seeds, with a 98% certainty that it will be in that order.  Now that we have regional rankings, we can really start to zero in on who is in play for that last top seed.  The contenders:

1E Delaware Valley - 8-0, 0.539 SOS, 1-0 vs RROs (24-19 W vs. 4E Wesley)
   Prognosis: Pretty good.  As the top ranked team from one of the regions, they seem the obvious choice.  Probably the favorite for that last spot right now. 

2E Brockport - 8-0, 0.532 SOS, 0-0 vs RROs
   Prognosis: Poor.  Brockport would have to surge ahead of Del Val in the East's rankings.  In order to do that, they'd probably need an RRO win.  The most likely candidate would be Alfred, but Brockport still has to beat Alfred to get to 10-0 and a third loss would certainly hold Alfred out of the rankings.  Tough year for the E8, and I think it's gonna cost Brockport a shot at a top seed. 

2N Wittenberg - 8-0, 0.546 SOS, 2-0 vs RROs (52-6 W @ 5N Depauw, 20-14 W @ 10S Westminster)
   Prognosis: You know what, maybe.  That Westminster chip is very nice for Wittenberg as long as Westminster keeps on winning.  Notching that extra RRO win in the out of conference game is a huge deal (often dumb luck).  Also consider a scenario where Wabash beats DePauw and both Wabash and DePauw wind up in the bottom of the North's rankings (possible).  That would make Witt 3-0 vs RROs and that might just be sexier than Del Val. 

2S Hardin-Simmons - 6-1, 0.559 SOS, 0-1 vs RROs (7-17 L vs. 1S UMHB)
   Prognosis: Not great.  While the result vs. UMHB isn't disqualifying (like something on the order of 50-7 would be), I'm just not sure there's enough meat on the bones here to warrant a #1 seed for the Cowboys.  I think you really need to have an RRO win in there, especially if you're carrying a loss.  The SOS is also at a highwater mark, so that's not going to be quite a nice at selection time.  And, you hate to bring it up but I don't really see a scenario where the NCAA is going to allow UMHB and HSU to stay away from each other for multiple rounds and guarantee extra flights for as long as those two stay in the tournament.  Best case scenario for H-SU realistically is that they get a home game in Round 1 against whoever, and then a rematch with UMHB in the second round. 

t2W Linfield - 6-1, 0.601 SOS, 1-1 vs RROs (3-24 L vs. 1S UMHB, 12-6 W vs. 10W George Fox)
   Prognosis: Stay tuned.  I think Linfield's penchant to just scrape by will ultimately keep them out of a top seed but I'm not going to bury them just yet.  Linfield also holds a win over SCIAC champion Chapman.  Chapman, I presume, is lurking just outside of the West top 10.  If they creep in and George Fox wins out and stays ranked (probably), then you've got Linfield with a 2-1 vs. RROs which is quite nice.  Linfield's schedule strength will come down some, but not immensely over the last two weeks.  Outside shot here for Linfield, but they have to have Chapman and George Fox be ranked.  And it would help if they scored some points against Puget Sound and Pacific.   

t2W Wartburg - 8-0, 0.599 SOS, 1-0 vs. RROs (36-13 W vs. 7W Monmouth)
   Prognosis: With a touch of help, pretty good.  Ties...pfft.  Obviously step one is that they can't be tied with Linfield.  The West RAC has to make a choice.  I think Linfield stays ahead as long as their ranked opponents stay ranked.  If GFU falls out and Chapman doesn't get in, then Wartburg is in position for the West #2 spot.  Wartburg's SOS is going to take a hit in weeks 10 and 11...it'll be interesting to see where that SOS ends up relative to Delaware Valley.  Also keep an eye on Wesley...if Wesley loses one of their last two games, that takes some shine off of Del Val's signature win and really opens up that last top seed to a team like Wartburg. 

Overall I think the pecking order for that last top seed looks like this at the moment:
Del Val
Wartburg
Wittenberg
Linfield
Hardin-Simmons
Brockport
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HScoach on November 02, 2017, 12:48:42 pm
Excellent summary.   

Though after reading that thru, the 4th #1 seed looks horribly weak.  No idea whatever the brackets end up, but I can't put a lock of faith in any of those potential teams actually winning a region.   Wartbug most likely.  Linfield on name recognition only, but not this year. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2017, 12:57:02 pm
As jknezek and I have been posting over on the various South Region boards, geographic proximity has the South-West bracket:

Chapman
at UMHB

HSU (Pool C)
at Linfield  (Pool A)

Geographic proximity overrides all other considerations.  Linfield can be 2W or 3W or even 4W. We have only 2 or 3 flights among the travel orphans.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2017, 12:59:34 pm
As jknezek and I have been posting over on the various South Region boards, geographic proximity has the South-West bracket:

Chapman
at UMHB

HSU (Pool C)
at Linfield  (Pool A)

Geographic proximity overrides all other considerations.  Linfield can be 2W or 3W or even 4W. We have only 2 or 3 flights among the travel orphans.
well almost--I mean if it overrides all consideration then you do Chapman at Linfield and HSU at MHB (1 flight).  But I agree with your projection....
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2017, 01:44:28 pm
As jknezek and I have been posting over on the various South Region boards, geographic proximity has the South-West bracket:

Chapman
at UMHB

HSU (Pool C)
at Linfield  (Pool A)

Geographic proximity overrides all other considerations.  Linfield can be 2W or 3W or even 4W. We have only 2 or 3 flights among the travel orphans.
well almost--I mean if it overrides all consideration then you do Chapman at Linfield and HSU at MHB (1 flight).  But I agree with your projection....
A second flight in Round 2 if your first round is the actual bracket.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 02, 2017, 01:52:55 pm
As jknezek and I have been posting over on the various South Region boards, geographic proximity has the South-West bracket:

Chapman
at UMHB

HSU (Pool C)
at Linfield  (Pool A)

Geographic proximity overrides all other considerations.  Linfield can be 2W or 3W or even 4W. We have only 2 or 3 flights among the travel orphans.
well almost--I mean if it overrides all consideration then you do Chapman at Linfield and HSU at MHB (1 flight).  But I agree with your projection....
A second flight in Round 2 if your first round is the actual bracket.
right--gauranteed 2 flights either way but a possible 3rd in the first option (and not in the second).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 02, 2017, 02:41:03 pm
I did this very quickly...a mock bracket!  Based on the selections I made in my projections last night.  I'll put this out there...crush it as you see fit.  It's a starting point.  :) 

(https://i.imgur.com/jSUidi9.png)

My top seeds are UMHB, UW-O, Mount Union, Delaware Valley. 

My next four are Wartburg, Linfield, Wittenberg, and Brockport.  Generally, you would have pods built around those four teams and those pods would wind up opposite the four-team pods built around the top seeds...but Linfield's isolation throws this out the window.  So, bad news for the UMHB region, good news for the Oshkosh region which doesn't have one of my 5-8 seeds in it...but I think the replacement pod there on the bottom half o the Oshkosh bracket is plenty challenging, so nobody is getting off too lightly. 

One flight in the first round, and I think just two for sure in the second.  There might be something else you could do with the Berry/Huntingdon winner that doesn't guarantee a flight, but I'd have to work through some more mocks. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2017, 03:13:14 pm
Linfield having an automatic bid is not a factor in it getting home field vs. HSU -- if that's why you've listed the Pools next to their names.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 02, 2017, 06:07:45 pm
One flight in the first round, and I think just two for sure in the second.  There might be something else you could do with the Berry/Huntingdon winner that doesn't guarantee a flight, but I'd have to work through some more mocks.
Huntingdon I don't think can reach anyone besides Berry. Berry I believe is in range of Franklin, W&L, and Witt (Berry to Witt is 500 while Witt to Berry is 499). When I made mention of a possible orphan bracket over in the Pool C thread a while back the one thing I was concerned about (as a Franklin guy) was a possibility of Franklin @ Witt round 1 because they can both reach Berry.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2017, 07:02:46 pm
I have no problem with Huntingdon versus Berry in the first round.

Undefeated Berry deserves to host a first round game.  Going to Berry is the logical choice for Huntingdon, and  possibly the best chance to win a game versus being flown to an "orphan" like HSU Linfield or UMHB.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wesleydad on November 02, 2017, 09:16:48 pm
I did this very quickly...a mock bracket!  Based on the selections I made in my projections last night.  I'll put this out there...crush it as you see fit.  It's a starting point.  :) 

(https://i.imgur.com/jSUidi9.png)

My top seeds are UMHB, UW-O, Mount Union, Delaware Valley. 

My next four are Wartburg, Linfield, Wittenberg, and Brockport.  Generally, you would have pods built around those four teams and those pods would wind up opposite the four-team pods built around the top seeds...but Linfield's isolation throws this out the window.  So, bad news for the UMHB region, good news for the Oshkosh region which doesn't have one of my 5-8 seeds in it...but I think the replacement pod there on the bottom half o the Oshkosh bracket is plenty challenging, so nobody is getting off too lightly. 

One flight in the first round, and I think just two for sure in the second.  There might be something else you could do with the Berry/Huntingdon winner that doesn't guarantee a flight, but I'd have to work through some more mocks.

Like it.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: UfanBill on November 02, 2017, 09:53:47 pm
Nice work Wally. You are very well versed in NCAA criteria to be able to conjure this up quickly. I'd take this as it stands right now but we all know there could be a dozen changes by next week!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Teamski on November 07, 2017, 12:47:52 pm
Nice work Wally. You are very well versed in NCAA criteria to be able to conjure this up quickly. I'd take this as it stands right now but we all know there could be a dozen changes by next week!

I concur...... ;)


-Ski
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2017, 12:54:10 pm
I'll do a projection Wednesday after the rankings come out. I'll probably skip the mock bracket as I'm 99% sure that D3football.com will do one and Pat is way better with the geography than I am. 

I do expect a very different projection as some things will have shuffled around due to Week 10 results and the committees applying all of the criteria this week. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 07, 2017, 02:51:06 pm
I looked at the last 10 years of tournament brackets, and made a proximity index for conferences. These are the weights I use to project out Stagg Bowl odds before the bracket gets posted. In developing the weighted average, a first-round matchup was given a weight of 1.0, a potential second-round matchup was given a weight of 0.5, and a potential third-round matchup was given a weight of 0.25. I've also posted the UMHB quadrant from last year to visually display how these weights are applied.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLqVCEjUIAE8SPu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NrFFaej.png)

EDIT: To clarify, I used the current conferences of former playoff participants, so Ithaca was always credited as a LL school, Wesley as NJAC, and so on.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 07, 2017, 03:33:07 pm
No Illinois Wesleyan?  :o
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 07, 2017, 03:36:08 pm
No Illinois Wesleyan?  :o

From last week's projection?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 07, 2017, 05:15:30 pm
Here's my first ever attempt at projecting a bracket. Let me know where I F'ed up.
(https://i.imgur.com/wQH56qJ.png)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 07, 2017, 05:24:18 pm
You've got just the 2 flights projected in round 1?
I had to look and see the distance between IWU and UST, as I wasn't sure if the CCIW schools fit under the 500 mile criteria for us.

The seedings are a bit stretched just to make them fit with some geographical concerns, right? Does the model take into account home field advantage at all?
The path for St Thomas would be: host Illinois Wesleyan, go to Wartburg (~89% chance of winning on the road seems high, especially since Wartburg has the home-algorithm advantage), go to Oshkosh (our odds against them, at their place seem really high too, but I know your model likes the Tommies).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 07, 2017, 05:48:24 pm
There's two flights the first round, and I believe a maximum of one flight the second round. Yes, home field advantage is taken into account.

As far as seedlings, I built a model that takes as much info as I can for a team, weights each of the criteria to minimize error from past regional rankings, and grades each team according to those weights, and then ranks teams according to that. Using that methodology, none of the seeds in the projected bracket are off by more than 1. This model did pretty well projecting the regional rankings last week. On every region, the top 5 were all the same, and none of the teams who made their regional top 10 were worse than #12 by my numbers. In reality though, we know that a team like Hardin-Simmons is better than a 5 seed, so take it with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 07, 2017, 06:07:23 pm
Just realized, it wouldn't be a "maximum" of one flight the second round. That's the number of flights if all home teams win.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: d-train on November 07, 2017, 06:11:42 pm
Here's my first ever attempt at projecting a bracket. Let me know where I F'ed up.
Well - for starters - you put seeds on the darn thing.  ;)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 07, 2017, 09:17:07 pm
Just realized, it wouldn't be a "maximum" of one flight the second round. That's the number of flights if all home teams win.

Keep something in mind... the NCAA, especially the liaison, will look down the road on the bracket and to some degree take into account some upsets to make sure flights are reduced. They understand that not all upsets should be considered, but they will question a lot of them.

What I am getting at is, don't base your flight predictions on just home teams per se. I have seen many a nice bracket have to be changed by a committee because of the real chance possibility of another team winning (the real underdogs are what they are and simply unavoidable).

Of course with all that said, the NCAA has shown signs in the last year-plus to be a bit more lenient and allowing an extra flight or two. There has been more room in the budget and they have allowed a bit more "flexibility" in the brackets.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 07, 2017, 09:45:59 pm
Just realized, it wouldn't be a "maximum" of one flight the second round. That's the number of flights if all home teams win.

Keep something in mind... the NCAA, especially the liaison, will look down the road on the bracket and to some degree take into account some upsets to make sure flights are reduced. They understand that not all upsets should be considered, but they will question a lot of them.

What I am getting at is, don't base your flight predictions on just home teams per se. I have seen many a nice bracket have to be changed by a committee because of the real chance possibility of another team winning (the real underdogs are what they are and simply unavoidable).

Of course with all that said, the NCAA has shown signs in the last year-plus to be a bit more lenient and allowing an extra flight or two. There has been more room in the budget and they have allowed a bit more "flexibility" in the brackets.

I feel like I did a decent job of weighing the probabilities of upsets in my mock bracket. Using my win probabilities, the average number of flights in round 2 would be 1.5. The Mount Union "Pod" is probably my least eloquently constructed, as the only non-flight game would be if Trine went to UMU.

Possible flight games:
Linfield @ UMHB - 54% likelihood
Monmouth @ Mount Union - 36%
Huntingdon @ Wittenberg - 34%
Husson @ Brockport - 15%
Franklin @ Huntingdon - 9%
Chapman @ Linfield - 1%
Chapman @ HSU - 1%
W&L @ Trine - <1%
W&L @ Monmouth - <1%
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on November 08, 2017, 12:06:53 pm
Hansen, some of the first round matchups you projected would be great to watch:
NCC v St. John's
St. T v IWU
Trine vs. Monmouth (I especially like this one as it seems these programs typically face a top 10 in the first round)
Witt v Franklin
Wesley v JHU
Case v Frostburg
Linfield v HSU
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: USee on November 08, 2017, 12:49:45 pm
Hansen, some of the first round matchups you projected would be great to watch:
NCC v St. John's
St. T v IWU
Trine vs. Monmouth (I especially like this one as it seems these programs typically face a top 10 in the first round)
Witt v Franklin
Wesley v JHU
Case v Frostburg
Linfield v HSU

Those would be some insanely good first round matchups.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HScoach on November 08, 2017, 12:52:34 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: USee on November 08, 2017, 12:55:02 pm
Well it's roughly half the field and those teams have to play somebody....here's hoping.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 01:01:58 pm
Wittenberg vs. Franklin is juicy.  I would love to see Chase Burton against the Wittenberg defense.  Also, it's a game that is seed-appropriate and, as an added bonus, you could pair that game up with Berry/Huntingdon as Berry can bus to either.  Huntingdon would have to fly no matter what in the 2nd round, but this pod at least gives the championship organizers the chance to avoid paying for a flight if Berry advances. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 08, 2017, 01:15:17 pm
I'm particularly fond of my Wartburg/Eureka projection. I'm a little sick of my Knights getting bracketed with the MIAC, CCIW, or WIAC whenever they make the tournament, even when they're undefeated. 
Wartburg's first-round opponents in recent tournaments:
2014 - 10-0 Wartburg vs. MIAC Runner-Up St. Thomas (we won)
2013 - 8-2 Wartburg @ CCIW Runner-Up IWU (we kicked their @$$)
2010 - 10-0 Wartburg vs. MIAC Runner-Up Bethel (we lost by 8)
2008 - 8-2 Wartburg @ WIAC Champion UWSP (we won)
2004 - 8-2 Wartburg @ MIAC Champion Concordia (we lost)
2003 - 10-0 Wartburg vs. MIAC Runner-Up Bethel (we won)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 08, 2017, 01:20:49 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2017, 09:11:56 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
... at the home of the Pool A bid...McMinnville, if HSU is a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 08, 2017, 09:13:12 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
... at the home of the Pool A bid...McMinnville.

With question of whether Linfield will have a week 1 home game, and the assumption that they will be in a POD with the Texas island, is it safe to say that there will not be a home game in McMinnville week 2, barring a major UMHB upset?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2017, 09:16:08 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
... at the home of the Pool A bid...McMinnville, if HSU is a Pool C bid.

Pool A teams play on the road all the time, including last year when Linfield went to H-SU.  It isn't obvious to me right now who would host that game, but how you qualify (auto vs. invite) isn't a factor. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 08, 2017, 09:27:36 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
... at the home of the Pool A bid...McMinnville, if HSU is a Pool C bid.

Pool A teams play on the road all the time, including last year when Linfield went to H-SU.  It isn't obvious to me right now who would host that game, but how you qualify (auto vs. invite) isn't a factor.
Last year it was UMHB 66 Linfield 27 and UMHB 20 HSU 15.  Both teams had one regular season loss.

This year UMHB 24 Linfield 3 and UMHB 17 HSU 7 are much closer.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 08, 2017, 09:43:23 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
... at the home of the Pool A bid...McMinnville, if HSU is a Pool C bid.

Pool A teams play on the road all the time, including last year when Linfield went to H-SU.  It isn't obvious to me right now who would host that game, but how you qualify (auto vs. invite) isn't a factor.
Last year it was UMHB 66 Linfield 27 and UMHB 20 HSU 15.  Both teams had one regular season loss.

This year UMHB 24 Linfield 3 and UMHB 17 HSU 7 are much closer.
and Linfield has better criteria numbers (SOS for sure and currently 1-1 vs RRO vs HSU 0-1).....either way you slice it---HSU is a huge challenge for Linfield this year.  They say defense wins championships but...
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2017, 11:15:58 pm
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
... at the home of the Pool A bid...McMinnville, if HSU is a Pool C bid.

Ralph, sir, you've been around long enough to know this is *never* a thing. Qualification pool is not a seeding criterion.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2017, 02:10:15 am
^ Which means they're likely to never happen..... :(
I think Linfield and HSU is highly likely (unless something strange happens this week)--the big question is where do they play?
... at the home of the Pool A bid...McMinnville, if HSU is a Pool C bid.

Ralph, sir, you've been around long enough to know this is *never* a thing. Qualification pool is not a seeding criterion.
Thank you, Pat. If a South #2 gets to host over a West #4, then I can understand.  But if #2 South HSU is not a better team than a #3 East (Springfield) for the other Pool B bid, then I have doubt in my mind that HSU might host.

If Chapman (6-2, with losses to Trinity Tx and Linfield) creeps into the West Top 10 (possibly by Trinity beating Berry and strengthening Chapman's SOS), then Linfield will have 1-1 versus RRO. (West #9 Lake Forest hosting Chicago looks vulnerable.)

Linfield has .572 SOS and plays 4-3 Pacific (SOS .479).

HSU has a .526 SOS and plays a 2-7 McMurry (SOS .470). That won't help HSU's SOS.

For me, the common opponent head-to-head with UMHB was not that drastic against Linfield vis-a-vis HSU.

As an aside, the ASC has been sending teams to the playoffs since 1999. I know that we are in the South Region, but since 2004, the only South Region team to eliminate an ASC team has been Wesley, UMHB 4 times, Miss College once.   UWW has been the victor 3 times, Linfield 5 times (UMHB 4 times and HSU once) and UMHB has eliminated HSU 4 times, LaCollege once and McMurry once. 

Once again, thank you for letting me elaborate.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 09, 2017, 09:27:51 am
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 09, 2017, 09:35:19 am
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D

I think it would be Hardin-Simmons losing. It would impact Pool B and Pool C, and throw a wrench in the PNW/California/Texas pod.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 09:41:56 am
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D

Both Del Val and NCC could potentially lose their Pool A bids this week. That would cause a good deal of chaos.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: USee on November 09, 2017, 09:46:50 am
While I think the chances of NCC losing on Saturday to Elmhurst are about 1%, if they did happen to forget there is a game and forfeit, IWU becomes the Pool A and NCC is a 2 loss pool C with no chance having lost HTH with Wheaton.  It wouldn't seem to create much chaos.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2017, 09:48:15 am
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D

I think it would be Hardin-Simmons losing. It would impact Pool B and Pool C, and throw a wrench in the PNW/California/Texas pod.

Then you'd just wind up with Chapman @ Linfield, and whatever leftover is out there flying to UMHB.  Maybe Huntingdon?  Probably Huntingdon. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 09, 2017, 09:49:41 am
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D

Both Del Val and NCC could potentially lose their Pool A bids this week. That would cause a good deal of chaos.

I think DelVal would still have a good shot at a Pool C if that happened, right? But it would give their A to Widener and kill their chance of having the #1 seed. I suppose that might pass on to Brockport then to keep it in the east?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2017, 09:58:04 am
I think Delaware Valley is good either way, unless they lose by 50.  The win over Wesley really has to keep them propped up above Frostburg, which would make them the first C in line from the East (provided Springfield goes in the B pool). 

As far as the dominos for the top seed, I don't think it's given that Brockport would get it.  Wartburg and Wittenberg are definitely in play with Brockport. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2017, 10:48:25 am
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D

I think it would be Hardin-Simmons losing. It would impact Pool B and Pool C, and throw a wrench in the PNW/California/Texas pod.
Yes. Atomic Football predicts HSU 46-8 with a 0.1% chance of an upset.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 10:58:12 am
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D

I think it would be Hardin-Simmons losing. It would impact Pool B and Pool C, and throw a wrench in the PNW/California/Texas pod.
Yes. Atomic Football predicts HSU 46-8 with a 0.1% chance of an upset.

My model gives McMurry four times those odds (with essentially the same score prediction)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: CruGuy on November 09, 2017, 12:03:53 pm
Here is a question to create discussion.  Which unexpected loss in this last week of the season would create the most chaos for playoff selections?   ;D

I think it would be Hardin-Simmons losing. It would impact Pool B and Pool C, and throw a wrench in the PNW/California/Texas pod.
Yes. Atomic Football predicts HSU 46-8 with a 0.1% chance of an upset.

Is 99.6 vs 99.9 the difference between three standard deviations and four? That seems insignificant and starkly different at the same time.
My model gives McMurry four times those odds (with essentially the same score prediction)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 12:27:20 pm
Is 99.6 vs 99.9 the difference between three standard deviations and four? That seems insignificant and starkly different at the same time.

It could be a few different things. Could be that Atomic Football doesn't use a normal distribution for their win probabilities, and instead use something with smaller tails. It's a mostly meaningless difference when you get to those extremes, because the win probabilities are just estimates anyways. There's a reason sites like fivethirtyeight.com don't use decimal points in their projections.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 09, 2017, 12:58:41 pm
I find UW-O having the nation's strongest schedule laughable, but it's time for seriousness.

http://www.newsadvance.com/sports/local/virginia-university-of-lynchburg-football-coach-part-ways/article_a9b17b97-8562-5d92-9700-3ebdf4a1c365.html

the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2017, 01:10:16 pm
What team does have the strongest schedule this year?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2017, 01:11:04 pm
VUL not being an NCAA school means I doubt that info naturally sits in the NCAA database but considering UWO isn't up for an at-large bid or anything, I don't think it's needed.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 09, 2017, 01:22:04 pm
What team does have the strongest schedule this year?

UWW, no bye week or lower level NAIA or USCAA team on the schedule.  But actual D3 teams, and decent ones at that
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2017, 01:25:30 pm
What team does have the strongest schedule this year?

Kind of hard to argue with Wash U. Their opponents are 58-23 on the season, only 2 are below .500 and both those are 3-4, and 4-5 types, and 4 are possibly heading to the playoffs. Somehow those 4 don't count UWW. Seriously, they have 2 teams on their schedule at 9-0, 1 at 8-1, 2 at 7-2...

I get not all of them play in a WIAC style league, but that was a brutal schedule no matter how you cut it. Of course, it's the kind of schedule only an independent can put together...
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 09, 2017, 01:30:30 pm
What team does have the strongest schedule this year?

Kind of hard to argue with Wash U. Their opponents are 58-23 on the season, only 2 are below .500 and both those are 3-4, and 4-5 types, and 4 are possibly heading to the playoffs. Somehow those 4 don't count UWW. Seriously, they have 2 teams on their schedule at 9-0, 1 at 8-1, 2 at 7-2...

I get not all of them play in a WIAC style league, but that was a brutal schedule no matter how you cut it. Of course, it's the kind of schedule only an independent can put together...

playing the toughest schedule with a losing record is a strange badge of honor.

UWW played two playoff teams in non-conference and Wash U
UWO played JCU and a bye and a high school JV team

whose schedule was tougher?

makes me sick to stand up for UWW, but UWO has a joke schedule masquerading as a tough schedule
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2017, 01:36:41 pm
What team does have the strongest schedule this year?

Kind of hard to argue with Wash U. Their opponents are 58-23 on the season, only 2 are below .500 and both those are 3-4, and 4-5 types, and 4 are possibly heading to the playoffs. Somehow those 4 don't count UWW. Seriously, they have 2 teams on their schedule at 9-0, 1 at 8-1, 2 at 7-2...

I get not all of them play in a WIAC style league, but that was a brutal schedule no matter how you cut it. Of course, it's the kind of schedule only an independent can put together...

playing the toughest schedule with a losing record is a strange badge of honor.

UWW played two playoff teams in non-conference and Wash U
UWO played JCU and a bye and a high school JV team

whose schedule was tougher?

makes me sick to stand up for UWW, but UWO has a joke schedule masquerading as a tough schedule

Between UWW and UWO it's UWW and not even close in my opinion. Who has been saying different? But I still go with Wash U overall.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 09, 2017, 01:39:40 pm
What team does have the strongest schedule this year?

Kind of hard to argue with Wash U. Their opponents are 58-23 on the season, only 2 are below .500 and both those are 3-4, and 4-5 types, and 4 are possibly heading to the playoffs. Somehow those 4 don't count UWW. Seriously, they have 2 teams on their schedule at 9-0, 1 at 8-1, 2 at 7-2...

I get not all of them play in a WIAC style league, but that was a brutal schedule no matter how you cut it. Of course, it's the kind of schedule only an independent can put together...

playing the toughest schedule with a losing record is a strange badge of honor.

UWW played two playoff teams in non-conference and Wash U
UWO played JCU and a bye and a high school JV team

whose schedule was tougher?

makes me sick to stand up for UWW, but UWO has a joke schedule masquerading as a tough schedule

To call UWO's schedule a "joke" is to be dramatically misinformed about the balance of power in DIII.

Not considering home/away Wash U. probably has my vote for toughest schedule, but considering that UWW played on the road against IWU & C-M, they probably had the tougher schedule. My model thinks UW-Stout and UW-Eau Claire's's schedules were the toughest in the country. Both played UST non-conference, and UWEC also played GFU. UWEC also had the misfortune of not getting to play against themselves in the WIAC.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 09, 2017, 01:48:47 pm
What team does have the strongest schedule this year?

Kind of hard to argue with Wash U. Their opponents are 58-23 on the season, only 2 are below .500 and both those are 3-4, and 4-5 types, and 4 are possibly heading to the playoffs. Somehow those 4 don't count UWW. Seriously, they have 2 teams on their schedule at 9-0, 1 at 8-1, 2 at 7-2...

I get not all of them play in a WIAC style league, but that was a brutal schedule no matter how you cut it. Of course, it's the kind of schedule only an independent can put together...

playing the toughest schedule with a losing record is a strange badge of honor.

UWW played two playoff teams in non-conference and Wash U
UWO played JCU and a bye and a high school JV team

whose schedule was tougher?

makes me sick to stand up for UWW, but UWO has a joke schedule masquerading as a tough schedule

To call UWO's schedule a "joke" is to be dramatically misinformed about the balance of power in DIII.

Not considering home/away Wash U. probably has my vote for toughest schedule, but considering that UWW played on the road against IWU & C-M, they probably had the tougher schedule. My model thinks UW-Stout and UW-Eau Claire's's schedules were the toughest in the country. Both played UST non-conference, and UWEC also played GFU. UWEC also had the misfortune of not getting to play against themselves in the WIAC.

of course UWO has a tough schedule due to the WIAC, but their OOC leaves a ton to be desired.  JCU was a good game, but that will look bad against Mount vs JCU, the rest is a bye and a team made up of D3boards posters
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: thunderdog on November 09, 2017, 02:05:09 pm
UWEC also had the misfortune of not getting to play against themselves in the WIAC.

That's an instant classic right there Logan
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2017, 02:10:10 pm
the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record

Can't believe there's any axe left to grind on this. 

Mount Union lost a game in 2016 and lost their right to host games in that season's tournament.  Then they lost in the semifinals which means that they lost their previous year's championship record protection to the teams that went farther...of which one is Oshkosh.  It's a full year process before Mount Union can get that protection back.  Unless they get help, the Raiders are going to have to advance to Salem by winning one game on the road.  That's just the way it's gonna be no matter how loud you want to yell about Va-Lynchburg. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me who Oshkosh was supposed to play.  You've deftly ignored that. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 09, 2017, 02:14:50 pm
the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record

Can't believe there's any axe left to grind on this. 

Mount Union lost a game in 2016 and lost their right to host games in that season's tournament.  Then they lost in the semifinals which means that they lost their previous year's championship record protection to the teams that went farther...of which one is Oshkosh.  It's a full year process before Mount Union can get that protection back.  Unless they get help, the Raiders are going to have to advance to Salem by winning one game on the road.  That's just the way it's gonna be no matter how loud you want to yell about Va-Lynchburg. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me who Oshkosh was supposed to play.  You've deftly ignored that.

Mount will go on the road, but I dont have access to the D3 composite schedule. But I would be shocked if there wasn't a team or two open.  But they didnt schedule anybody and I accept that, they chose to play an inter-mural team.  But a schedule with UVL and a bye shouldn't be praised as a meat grinder.  Should 10 conference teams start scheduling the College of Faith or Stark State for their non conference game?  UWO's choice of OOC is gross
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2017, 02:30:25 pm
the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record

Can't believe there's any axe left to grind on this. 

Mount Union lost a game in 2016 and lost their right to host games in that season's tournament.  Then they lost in the semifinals which means that they lost their previous year's championship record protection to the teams that went farther...of which one is Oshkosh.  It's a full year process before Mount Union can get that protection back.  Unless they get help, the Raiders are going to have to advance to Salem by winning one game on the road.  That's just the way it's gonna be no matter how loud you want to yell about Va-Lynchburg. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me who Oshkosh was supposed to play.  You've deftly ignored that.

Mount will go on the road, but I dont have access to the D3 composite schedule. But I would be shocked if there wasn't a team or two open.  But they didnt schedule anybody and I accept that, they chose to play an inter-mural team.  But a schedule with UVL and a bye shouldn't be praised as a meat grinder.  Should 10 conference teams start scheduling the College of Faith or Stark State for their non conference game?  UWO's choice of OOC is gross

You keep saying this like it was UW-O's deliberate choice to not play 10 games and to have a game against UVa-Lynchburg.  There were open teams?  Who was open?  And then who among those teams with open dates were willing to go play Oshkosh?  You go find that stuff out and get back to us.  I'll wait. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 09, 2017, 03:24:44 pm
the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record

Can't believe there's any axe left to grind on this. 

Mount Union lost a game in 2016 and lost their right to host games in that season's tournament.  Then they lost in the semifinals which means that they lost their previous year's championship record protection to the teams that went farther...of which one is Oshkosh.  It's a full year process before Mount Union can get that protection back.  Unless they get help, the Raiders are going to have to advance to Salem by winning one game on the road.  That's just the way it's gonna be no matter how loud you want to yell about Va-Lynchburg. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me who Oshkosh was supposed to play.  You've deftly ignored that.

Mount will go on the road, but I dont have access to the D3 composite schedule. But I would be shocked if there wasn't a team or two open.  But they didnt schedule anybody and I accept that, they chose to play an inter-mural team.  But a schedule with UVL and a bye shouldn't be praised as a meat grinder.  Should 10 conference teams start scheduling the College of Faith or Stark State for their non conference game?  UWO's choice of OOC is gross

You keep saying this like it was UW-O's deliberate choice to not play 10 games and to have a game against UVa-Lynchburg.  There were open teams?  Who was open?  And then who among those teams with open dates were willing to go play Oshkosh?  You go find that stuff out and get back to us.  I'll wait.

merlecanles, the thing you forget is UW-O literally waited until the last possible minute to schedule VAL. I had noticed sometime in May that they only had 1 noncon, so I kind of kept track of it all off season. I don't think they added Lynchburg until after camp had already started. I think they did make every effort to round out their schedule with D3 opponents, but it takes two to tango, and if no one was willing to play, their hands were tied. One team they might have been able to fit was UW Stout, who shared an open date, but then people would be complaining that they were playing a conference opponent twice. At the end of the day, the probably figured that at least they had a chance to play a game against a different team, and get their guys some reps. It wasn't the situation I'm sure they wanted, especially knowing how much it would hurt their SOS, but they really didn't have any other option.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HScoach on November 09, 2017, 03:50:24 pm
Guys, why should we let facts get in the way of a good Merle rant? ???

I'm as big of a Mount homer as there is, but Mount shouldn't be any higher than the #3 overall seed. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 09, 2017, 04:00:35 pm
UW-Stout had 10 games up until a couple weeks before the season started, when Trinity Bible dropped them.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on November 09, 2017, 05:03:22 pm
UWEC also had the misfortune of not getting to play against themselves in the WIAC.

That's an instant classic right there Logan

Merle, I give you credit for your sense of humor. Two instant classics were made possible, the one above, and yours:
Quote
JCU was a good game, but that will look bad against Mount vs JCU, the rest is a bye and a team made up of D3boards posters

Very funny.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 09, 2017, 09:50:21 pm
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/first-playoff-projection

I love the projection, even with HSU going on the road to Linfield.  IMHO, the Linfield pod is the toughest in the entire bracket.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: D3MAFAN on November 10, 2017, 10:02:40 am
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/first-playoff-projection

I love the projection, even with HSU going on the road to Linfield.  IMHO, the Linfield pod is the toughest in the entire bracket.

Doubt it shakes up like that. I think that  Linfield/HSU would get switch for the Depauw/NCC game or the Berry/Huntingdon game. It never goes as projected.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on November 10, 2017, 10:21:38 am
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/first-playoff-projection

I love the projection, even with HSU going on the road to Linfield.  IMHO, the Linfield pod is the toughest in the entire bracket.

Doubt it shakes up like that. I think that  Linfield/HSU would get switch for the Depauw/NCC game or the Berry/Huntingdon game. It never goes as projected.
I'd bet that one quadrant will be UMHB/Chapman vs Linfield/Hardin Simmons and Wittenberg/Franklin vs Berry/Huntingdon.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2017, 02:11:38 pm
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/first-playoff-projection

I love the projection, even with HSU going on the road to Linfield.  IMHO, the Linfield pod is the toughest in the entire bracket.

Doubt it shakes up like that. I think that  Linfield/HSU would get switch for the Depauw/NCC game or the Berry/Huntingdon game. It never goes as projected.
I'd bet that one quadrant will be UMHB/Chapman vs Linfield/Hardin Simmons and Wittenberg/Franklin vs Berry/Huntingdon.

I'm trying to push the NCAA out of its box even more than last year. Might as well consider it.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 10, 2017, 02:37:26 pm
UWEC also had the misfortune of not getting to play against themselves in the WIAC.

That's an instant classic right there Logan

Merle, I give you credit for your sense of humor. Two instant classics were made possible, the one above, and yours:
Quote
JCU was a good game, but that will look bad against Mount vs JCU, the rest is a bye and a team made up of D3boards posters

Very funny.

Thank you
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2017, 02:51:50 pm
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/first-playoff-projection

I love the projection, even with HSU going on the road to Linfield.  IMHO, the Linfield pod is the toughest in the entire bracket.

Doubt it shakes up like that. I think that  Linfield/HSU would get switch for the Depauw/NCC game or the Berry/Huntingdon game. It never goes as projected.
I'd bet that one quadrant will be UMHB/Chapman vs Linfield/Hardin Simmons and Wittenberg/Franklin vs Berry/Huntingdon.

I'm trying to push the NCAA out of its box even more than last year. Might as well consider it.
+1!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 10, 2017, 03:05:11 pm
the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record

Can't believe there's any axe left to grind on this. 

Mount Union lost a game in 2016 and lost their right to host games in that season's tournament.  Then they lost in the semifinals which means that they lost their previous year's championship record protection to the teams that went farther...of which one is Oshkosh.  It's a full year process before Mount Union can get that protection back.  Unless they get help, the Raiders are going to have to advance to Salem by winning one game on the road.  That's just the way it's gonna be no matter how loud you want to yell about Va-Lynchburg. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me who Oshkosh was supposed to play.  You've deftly ignored that.

Mount will go on the road, but I dont have access to the D3 composite schedule. But I would be shocked if there wasn't a team or two open.  But they didnt schedule anybody and I accept that, they chose to play an inter-mural team.  But a schedule with UVL and a bye shouldn't be praised as a meat grinder.  Should 10 conference teams start scheduling the College of Faith or Stark State for their non conference game?  UWO's choice of OOC is gross

You keep saying this like it was UW-O's deliberate choice to not play 10 games and to have a game against UVa-Lynchburg.  There were open teams?  Who was open?  And then who among those teams with open dates were willing to go play Oshkosh?  You go find that stuff out and get back to us.  I'll wait.

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Just running down the list of D3 teams, ranked from least amount of wins to most, there is at least 20 schools with only 8 games played by the time you get to 3 wins.  I bet they all were called and said no. 

Can't wait for your new playoff projection
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2017, 03:42:28 pm

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Nobody waits until June to schedule that year's games. For example, we relaunched our Open Dates board last month and UW-Oshkosh was one of the first to post its dates for 2018 and 2019.

But sometimes schools can't get people to schedule them. Mount Union might be able to schedule its one mediocre non-conference opponent six years in advance, but Oshkosh has to schedule three per year, and last year, only one Division III team had the guts to do it.

Two teams in the area played games against club programs that didn't count, rather than play Oshkosh. St. John's had a schedule opening as late as February, on a mutual open date with UWO, and chose to play an NAIA school instead.

Pretty sure you are just trolling and don't care about the response, but on the off chance someone else reads your post and thinks you're being serious, I figured I'd better respond.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: edward de vere on November 10, 2017, 09:29:50 pm
What time will D3 post its final playoff projection Saturday night or Sunday morning?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 10, 2017, 09:30:38 pm
What time will D3 post its final playoff projection Saturday night or Sunday morning?

Yes.

Sorry -- it's hard to predict how long it will take.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: edward de vere on November 10, 2017, 11:01:32 pm
Slackers.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2017, 12:09:35 am
the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record

Can't believe there's any axe left to grind on this. 

Mount Union lost a game in 2016 and lost their right to host games in that season's tournament.  Then they lost in the semifinals which means that they lost their previous year's championship record protection to the teams that went farther...of which one is Oshkosh.  It's a full year process before Mount Union can get that protection back.  Unless they get help, the Raiders are going to have to advance to Salem by winning one game on the road.  That's just the way it's gonna be no matter how loud you want to yell about Va-Lynchburg. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me who Oshkosh was supposed to play.  You've deftly ignored that.

Mount will go on the road, but I dont have access to the D3 composite schedule. But I would be shocked if there wasn't a team or two open.  But they didnt schedule anybody and I accept that, they chose to play an inter-mural team.  But a schedule with UVL and a bye shouldn't be praised as a meat grinder.  Should 10 conference teams start scheduling the College of Faith or Stark State for their non conference game?  UWO's choice of OOC is gross

You keep saying this like it was UW-O's deliberate choice to not play 10 games and to have a game against UVa-Lynchburg.  There were open teams?  Who was open?  And then who among those teams with open dates were willing to go play Oshkosh?  You go find that stuff out and get back to us.  I'll wait.

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Just running down the list of D3 teams, ranked from least amount of wins to most, there is at least 20 schools with only 8 games played by the time you get to 3 wins.  I bet they all were called and said no. 

Can't wait for your new playoff projection

Some teams also schedule only 9 games. The SCIAC and most of the NWC only play nine. The NESCAC only plays 8, as you know, and they don't do any non-conference games.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2017, 12:25:38 am
Psst ...
http://www.d3football.com/notables/2017/04/nescac-adds-ninth-game
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2017, 12:35:18 am
As usual, Pat beat me to the punchline.   The NESCAC now plays 9 games, but all still only among themselves, and no playoffs.  To my mind, they are playing intramurals, and (in football) not members of D3.  A shame, since they do so well in many other sports, but I wish Pat would declare it taboo to vote for NESCAC teams in football, since there is absolutely no way to compare them.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on November 11, 2017, 05:22:46 pm
Merle,
I do look forward to your comments.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: edward de vere on November 11, 2017, 05:26:54 pm
Well, that's one.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 11, 2017, 05:37:39 pm
of course UWO has a tough schedule due to the WIAC, but their OOC leaves a ton to be desired.  JCU was a good game, but that will look bad against Mount vs JCU,

You were saying, sir? 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 12, 2017, 12:10:11 pm

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Nobody waits until June to schedule that year's games. For example, we relaunched our Open Dates board last month and UW-Oshkosh was one of the first to post its dates for 2018 and 2019.


http://footballscoop.com/the-scoop-2/scoop-friday-june-2-2017/

maybe ask your buddy at football scoop about it.  Seems like a little late to send out invites for a friendly football match.

Pat, no need to be rude about Mount's OOC schedule.  UWW, UWO, SJF, Franklin, Wash U, does Rose-Hulman count? Your post was mediocre, not Mount's recent OOC

of course UWO has a tough schedule due to the WIAC, but their OOC leaves a ton to be desired.  JCU was a good game, but that will look bad against Mount vs JCU,

You were saying, sir? 

Mount under performed.  UWO's OOC still is garbage (VA-Lynchburg vs St Olaf, or even Bye week vs VA-Lynchburg, now that's a game) but they can enjoy the "North" region as the #1.  Mount will likely still host a semi-final game but would gladly travel to Wisconsin in middle December
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: merlecanlas on November 12, 2017, 12:23:32 pm
the coach for UWO's 2nd OOC (Jimmy Joe, what a name) was just fired for being 0-8 on the year.  Does this information get to the NCAA/RAC prior to ranking?  It was tough finding that W-L record

Can't believe there's any axe left to grind on this. 

Mount Union lost a game in 2016 and lost their right to host games in that season's tournament.  Then they lost in the semifinals which means that they lost their previous year's championship record protection to the teams that went farther...of which one is Oshkosh.  It's a full year process before Mount Union can get that protection back.  Unless they get help, the Raiders are going to have to advance to Salem by winning one game on the road.  That's just the way it's gonna be no matter how loud you want to yell about Va-Lynchburg. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to tell me who Oshkosh was supposed to play.  You've deftly ignored that.

Mount will go on the road, but I dont have access to the D3 composite schedule. But I would be shocked if there wasn't a team or two open.  But they didnt schedule anybody and I accept that, they chose to play an inter-mural team.  But a schedule with UVL and a bye shouldn't be praised as a meat grinder.  Should 10 conference teams start scheduling the College of Faith or Stark State for their non conference game?  UWO's choice of OOC is gross

You keep saying this like it was UW-O's deliberate choice to not play 10 games and to have a game against UVa-Lynchburg.  There were open teams?  Who was open?  And then who among those teams with open dates were willing to go play Oshkosh?  You go find that stuff out and get back to us.  I'll wait.

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Just running down the list of D3 teams, ranked from least amount of wins to most, there is at least 20 schools with only 8 games played by the time you get to 3 wins.  I bet they all were called and said no. 

Can't wait for your new playoff projection

Some teams also schedule only 9 games. The SCIAC and most of the NWC only play nine. The NESCAC only plays 8, as you know, and they don't do any non-conference games.

I dont believe my list had any NESCAC or SCIAC teams on it.  i've got NWC, ASC, MWC, USAC, NEWMAC, NACC, ODAC, IIAC schools without 10 games and that was only counting the bad ones. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2017, 12:40:18 pm

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Nobody waits until June to schedule that year's games. For example, we relaunched our Open Dates board last month and UW-Oshkosh was one of the first to post its dates for 2018 and 2019.


http://footballscoop.com/the-scoop-2/scoop-friday-june-2-2017/

maybe ask your buddy at football scoop about it.  Seems like a little late to send out invites for a friendly football match.

Pat, no need to be rude about Mount's OOC schedule.  UWW, UWO, SJF, Franklin, Wash U, does Rose-Hulman count? Your post was mediocre, not Mount's recent OOC

Seems like a silly assumption to think that was the first time UWO tried to schedule. When you get to emergency, yeah, perhaps you post again. You're smarter than that, even if you are just a pale purple suit.

You skipped some schools. And haven't played Rose-Hulman yet but kudos for scheduling them out five years in advance.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2017, 02:57:17 pm
I don't think Linfield has ever schedule 10 regular season games in a season - at least not in a while.

I'm sure there are teams in other conferences that would play a WIAC team, but have round-robins with only one slot. With the growth of conferences to have just one or two non-conference games, it's harder to find games for those with multiple weeks off.

Then there are some conferences and teams that don't have the budget to travel very far. Some of the New England teams can't really travel outside of their region to play.

Many MWC college teams have continued to play teams in their other division.

I also think you are looking at the wrong column in the standings as well...
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2017, 03:12:51 pm
Here's a list of teams (non-NESCAC) with 9 or fewer games, not counting the games lost to OXY.

Wi - Oshkosh
Linfield
WI - Stout
Redlands
Pacific Lutheran
Wash U
Cal Lutheran
Pacific
Pomona Pitzer
CMS
Puget Sound
Merchant Marine
LaVerne
Lewis & Clark
Willamette
Rochester
Whittier
Maine Maritime
Concordia - Chicago
Rockford
Finlandia

So, we have the NWC and SCIAC schools, who rarely or never play 10. Rochester schedules nine as a rule. Merchant Marine and Maine Maritime really stay in their region to play. Wash U. was an independent this year, and fit in teams where they could while playing their old UAA bretheren. Then there's Concordia, Rockford, and Finlandia, which have really no business playing a WIAC team, though Finlandia did last year.

Scheduling is hard - it's relatively easy for those teams with one bye week, but the more games you have to get, the fewer teams with open dates there are.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 12, 2017, 06:36:46 pm

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Nobody waits until June to schedule that year's games. For example, we relaunched our Open Dates board last month and UW-Oshkosh was one of the first to post its dates for 2018 and 2019.


http://footballscoop.com/the-scoop-2/scoop-friday-june-2-2017/

maybe ask your buddy at football scoop about it.  Seems like a little late to send out invites for a friendly football match.

Pat, no need to be rude about Mount's OOC schedule.  UWW, UWO, SJF, Franklin, Wash U, does Rose-Hulman count? Your post was mediocre, not Mount's recent OOC

of course UWO has a tough schedule due to the WIAC, but their OOC leaves a ton to be desired.  JCU was a good game, but that will look bad against Mount vs JCU,

You were saying, sir? 

Mount under performed.  UWO's OOC still is garbage (VA-Lynchburg vs St Olaf, or even Bye week vs VA-Lynchburg, now that's a game) but they can enjoy the "North" region as the #1.  Mount will likely still host a semi-final game but would gladly travel to Wisconsin in middle December

I don't think mount under performed as much as I think john carroll is actually a quality non playoff team that played two bad games against two other pretty good teams, and played two good games against two really great teams. Not totally sure what the crusade against oshkosh is all about, but they:
A. Won their conference
B. Were on a small list of teams that finished undefeated this year
C. Are in what we can all agree is one of the best conferences in the country  (and still posted an undefeated record)
D. Are the defending runners up, and thus will be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to seeding.

Yes, they only played 9 games,  and one was against a really, really weak opponent, but weather they played Lynchburg or not doesn't, and shouldn't, have bearing on how good the committee  (accurately) views them. And given the similar results against the common opponent, people are going to view them on Mount's level
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2017, 06:39:32 pm

maybe don't wait until June to schedule that year's football games?  I'm no AD but I would try to handle that prior to camp.

Nobody waits until June to schedule that year's games. For example, we relaunched our Open Dates board last month and UW-Oshkosh was one of the first to post its dates for 2018 and 2019.


http://footballscoop.com/the-scoop-2/scoop-friday-june-2-2017/

maybe ask your buddy at football scoop about it.  Seems like a little late to send out invites for a friendly football match.

Pat, no need to be rude about Mount's OOC schedule.  UWW, UWO, SJF, Franklin, Wash U, does Rose-Hulman count? Your post was mediocre, not Mount's recent OOC

of course UWO has a tough schedule due to the WIAC, but their OOC leaves a ton to be desired.  JCU was a good game, but that will look bad against Mount vs JCU,

You were saying, sir? 

Mount under performed.  UWO's OOC still is garbage (VA-Lynchburg vs St Olaf, or even Bye week vs VA-Lynchburg, now that's a game) but they can enjoy the "North" region as the #1.  Mount will likely still host a semi-final game but would gladly travel to Wisconsin in middle December

I don't think mount under performed as much as I think john carroll is actually a quality non playoff team that played two bad games against two other pretty good teams, and played two good games against two really great teams. Not totally sure what the crusade against oshkosh is all about, but they:
A. Won their conference
B. Were on a small list of teams that finished undefeated this year
C. Are in what we can all agree is one of the best conferences in the country  (and still posted an undefeated record)
D. Are the defending runners up, and thus will be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to seeding.

Yes, they only played 9 games,  and one was against a really, really weak opponent, but weather they played Lynchburg or not doesn't, and shouldn't, have bearing on how good the committee  (accurately) views them. And given the similar results against the common opponent, people are going to view them on Mount's level

Itís just a really bad and misinformed rant-turned multi-post
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 12, 2017, 06:53:20 pm
At this point people are just feeding the thing under the bridge.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MediaGuy on November 12, 2017, 07:16:16 pm
I think there are 2 other factors involved with scheduling that nobody has mentioned. First is cost, very few teams will sign a multi-year game contract that isn't a home and away deal, meaning one year they will have to travel, and many schools don't have a long road trip in their budget, so that limits the range of possible opponents. Second, every team scrimmages someone in the pre-season.  A Wartburg vs Platteville game or Dubuque vs Oshkosh game would make sense for possible regionally ranked opponents but they currently scrimmage each other, so that is just one less team from an ever shrinking list that you could possibly schedule
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2017, 08:08:51 pm
Kind of surprised it's nice and quiet about selections (for a change - no one is barking about the auto-bids), and the only questions I see are the St. John's @ North Central matchup. That's probably no doubt due to how they had to put other teams together and it's no worse than Hardin Simmons traveling to Linfield. it also matters that St. John's was 5th in the West rankings with really no chance to move ahead of the top 4.

It basically is a classic 4 vs 5.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Hawks88 on November 12, 2017, 08:33:42 pm
Looks like someone from the deep south is going to Minnesota for round 2. I wasn't sure who the higher seed is between Berry and St. Thomas but that slot with St. Thomas seems to be the higher seed in the other three brackets. Even though Berry has better record, higher SOS, same results vs RR(assuming Hendrix is still ranked). Or am I seeing that wrong?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 12, 2017, 08:51:39 pm
It isn't the same results vs. RR -- St. Thomas has a win vs. a fifth-ranked team and Berry wouldn't have one that high.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Hawks88 on November 12, 2017, 08:56:15 pm
St. Thomas also has the loss to a non-ranked. Wins over 5 and 8 vs wins over 7 and 10 are enough to off-set all that other? Maybe Hendrix dropped out of the final ranking?

Yeah, I looked at the SOS again and those 63 spots on the list are only .022 difference from Berry's not really great SOS so I buy what you are saying, Pat.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2017, 09:57:38 pm
I *think* St. Thomas would be chosen to host a game with Berry.  It's not overly obvious though in the way that I think it is obvious that Wittenberg is the #2 seed in the Mount Union region, even though they are on a different line the other #2's. 

It's certainly a closer call than I thought initially. 

And as I'm thinking more about this now...last week the regional rankings were as follows:
2S HSU
3S Berry

3W St. Thomas
4W Linfield

If they're sending Hardin-Simmons to Linfield, and Linfield is behind St. Thomas and Berry is behind Hardin-Simmons...then Berry is behind Linfield who is behind St. Thomas.  Clear, right?  I think St. Thomas is the host for a second round game vs. Berry if both teams win this weekend. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Hawks88 on November 12, 2017, 10:18:53 pm
Good call, Wally.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Hawks88 on November 12, 2017, 10:36:56 pm
Looks like someone from the deep south is going to Minnesota for round 2. I wasn't sure who the higher seed is between Berry and St. Thomas but that slot with St. Thomas seems to be the higher seed in the other three brackets. Even though Berry has better record, higher SOS, same results vs RR(assuming Hendrix is still ranked). Or am I seeing that wrong?
I'll just start over now. ;)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: TitanPride on November 12, 2017, 10:47:13 pm
I *think* St. Thomas would be chosen to host a game with Berry.  It's not overly obvious though in the way that I think it is obvious that Wittenberg is the #2 seed in the Mount Union region, even though they are on a different line the other #2's. 

It's certainly a closer call than I thought initially. 

And as I'm thinking more about this now...last week the regional rankings were as follows:
2S HSU
3S Berry

3W St. Thomas
4W Linfield

If they're sending Hardin-Simmons to Linfield, and Linfield is behind St. Thomas and Berry is behind Hardin-Simmons...then Berry is behind Linfield who is behind St. Thomas.  Clear, right?  I think St. Thomas is the host for a second round game vs. Berry if both teams win this weekend.

Completely understand the logic, but I went back to the brackets from 2011 to 2017 and every second round host has come from the line where Berry/Wittenberg/Trine/Wesley sit. If the NCAA is consistent with the bracketing from the last few years, it would seem to me that these are this year's 2 seeds.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 12, 2017, 11:05:23 pm
I *think* St. Thomas would be chosen to host a game with Berry.  It's not overly obvious though in the way that I think it is obvious that Wittenberg is the #2 seed in the Mount Union region, even though they are on a different line the other #2's. 

It's certainly a closer call than I thought initially. 

And as I'm thinking more about this now...last week the regional rankings were as follows:
2S HSU
3S Berry

3W St. Thomas
4W Linfield

If they're sending Hardin-Simmons to Linfield, and Linfield is behind St. Thomas and Berry is behind Hardin-Simmons...then Berry is behind Linfield who is behind St. Thomas.  Clear, right?  I think St. Thomas is the host for a second round game vs. Berry if both teams win this weekend.

Completely understand the logic, but I went back to the brackets from 2011 to 2017 and every second round host has come from the line where Berry/Wittenberg/Trine/Wesley sit. If the NCAA is consistent with the bracketing from the last few years, it would seem to me that these are this year's 2 seeds.

Last week Wesley was fourth behind Brockport and Springfield.  I don't see where Wesley would jump the both of them to be the 2nd highest seed in that quadrant. 

Likewise, I'm not sure how I can see Trine ranked ahead of Wartburg.  The SOS difference is enormous. 

I think the bracket is just poorly edited..or at least placement of the "#2s" is not consistent.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: art76 on November 13, 2017, 08:03:51 am
So, who really has the easier bracket in 2017, really?

As I have done for the past few years I have simply applied the D3 rankings to every team in a bracket and added them up. The higher the total, the easier the bracket becomes - at least using this criteria. If a team receives votes, but is not ranked, I simply kept counting down the list to the final three teams tied at 35th. If a team is unranked and receives no votes, those teams simply get the highest score tied for last, and that number is 38th this year.

Without further ado:

Easiest bracket: Delaware Valley at 201 points.
Next easiest: Oshkosh at 156 points.
Next more difficult: UMHB at 136 points.
Most difficult: Mount Union at 125 points.

However, as Keith has already pointed out on the podcast, the Mount Union bracket has only one top ten team in the bracket - them. As one looks at the brackets, there are definitely inconsistencies in the pairings dictated by travel costs, which all of us fans dislike. My parting thought is that the first week games in the lower right bracket look to all be yawners, as all four games are ranked teams versus unranked teams. This bracket won't get interesting until the second week, and for me, this seems to be the most disappointing. The committee should have spread out those unranked teams into some of the other brackets more equitably.

Edit - yes I know the committees don't use D3's rankings for selecting, no need to go there in replies.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2017, 11:29:41 am
In D2 football, they have four "Super Regions" - and they rank them 1-10. They have auto bids, but in each super region they're seeded as to the regional ranking. They allow 58 football players on the roster, and a 70 person travel party. Over 600 miles, they can fly, but they must bus at 600 or earlier.

In other D2 sports, the teams are seeded as to their regional ranking, and the #1 seed hosts the first two rounds.

There are pros and cons to this. Making a bracket without travel restrictions = a pro. Top and bottom heavy brackets = con.

Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2017, 11:39:04 am
Using the D2 model with 25 auto bids using the RRs just released

East:

1. Delaware Valley
2. Brockport
3. Springfield
4. Wesley
5. Husson
6. Plymouth St.
7. RPI
8. Western New England

North

1. Mt. Union
2. Wittenberg
3. Trine
4. North Central
5. Illinois Wesleyan
6. Franklin
7. Wheaton
8. Lakeland

South

1. UMHB
2. Hardin-Simmons
3. Berry
4. W&J
5. CWRU
6. Johns Hopkins
7. Washington & Lee
8. Huntingdon

West

1. Oshkosh
2. Wartburg
3. St. Thomas
4. Linfield
5. St. John's
6. Monmouth
7. Chapman
8. Eureka

Frostburg is out. Wheaton is in thanks to the RRs and the number of Eastern Conferences with an auto bid.

 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2017, 12:04:18 pm
In D2 football, they have four "Super Regions" - and they rank them 1-10. They have auto bids, but in each super region they're seeded as to the regional ranking. They allow 58 football players on the roster, and a 70 person travel party. Over 600 miles, they can fly, but they must bus at 600 or earlier.

In other D2 sports, the teams are seeded as to their regional ranking, and the #1 seed hosts the first two rounds.

There are pros and cons to this. Making a bracket without travel restrictions = a pro. Top and bottom heavy brackets = con.

They also have a much bigger piece of the NCAA pie with far less schools... they can do a lot of other things like bigger tournaments (in other sports).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on November 13, 2017, 12:10:42 pm
Smed, I love the D2 styled bracket.
Funny thing is, even with that, we'd want them to move things around. For instance in the North. In theory, you'd have a first round NCC and IWU rematch, and I assume you'd have NCC, IWU, Wheaton and Witt all in the same pod, which means people would still be saying "Mt gets the easy schedule". 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 13, 2017, 12:14:04 pm
Smed, I love the D2 styled bracket.
Funny thing is, even with that, we'd want them to move things around. For instance in the North. In theory, you'd have a first round NCC and IWU rematch, and I assume you'd have NCC, IWU, Wheaton and Witt all in the same pod, which means people would still be saying "Mt gets the easy schedule".

If cost and travel wasn't such a concern, I'd love a more mixed up bracket where we could get matchups between the regions and really gauge how regions, conferences, and teams match up. Many folks believe the east is relatively weak, but we won't really get to see that on the field this year. In years past, Mount Union has often been sent to the east and beat up on them so they didn't have a chance (but Mount Union beat up on most everybody except Whitewater).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 13, 2017, 12:14:18 pm
Smed, I love the D2 styled bracket.
Funny thing is, even with that, we'd want them to move things around. For instance in the North. In theory, you'd have a first round NCC and IWU rematch, and I assume you'd have NCC, IWU, Wheaton and Witt all in the same pod, which means people would still be saying "Mt gets the easy schedule".

Honestly, I think the people that peddle this trash are going to say it forever and ever no matter what.  Mount Union is such a heavy favorite in basically every single game that they play, that whoever they play against or might play against, it looks "easy".  It's not easy.  Winning games in this tournament is not easy.  That they so often make it look easy is a testament to how good their program is. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 13, 2017, 02:09:53 pm
I made a thing some of you may be interested in--an interactive graphic of each playoff team's stat profiles, using my opponent-adjusted metrics. You can use it to compare potential matchups for any combinations of teams in the tournament. If there's any edit you guys think would be useful to make it more read-able/user-friendly, let me know, and I'll see if I can oblige.
https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles (https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOh6e_xV4AEspcA.jpg)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2017, 02:11:43 pm
Smed, I love the D2 styled bracket.
Funny thing is, even with that, we'd want them to move things around. For instance in the North. In theory, you'd have a first round NCC and IWU rematch, and I assume you'd have NCC, IWU, Wheaton and Witt all in the same pod, which means people would still be saying "Mt gets the easy schedule".

That's true, but it seems they don't care in D2. There are first round NCAA matchups between conference members quite a bit in D2.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: USTBench on November 13, 2017, 02:13:12 pm
I made a thing some of you may be interested in--an interactive graphic of each playoff team's stat profiles, using my opponent-adjusted metrics. You can use it to compare potential matchups for any combinations of teams in the tournament. If there's any edit you guys think would be useful to make it more read-able/user-friendly, let me know, and I'll see if I can oblige.
https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles (https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOh6e_xV4AEspcA.jpg)

This is neat.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Teamski on November 13, 2017, 02:25:22 pm
I made a thing some of you may be interested in--an interactive graphic of each playoff team's stat profiles, using my opponent-adjusted metrics. You can use it to compare potential matchups for any combinations of teams in the tournament. If there's any edit you guys think would be useful to make it more read-able/user-friendly, let me know, and I'll see if I can oblige.
https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles (https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOh6e_xV4AEspcA.jpg)

This is neat.

I would say!  Well done!

-Ski
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MediaGuy on November 13, 2017, 03:24:43 pm
I'm not sure what board it was on but I saw somewhere that a few posters were upset that Linfield charges $10-$15 to view the games online and wondered if that would continue in the playoffs.  I work in the media and this is item 6 on the live video streaming policy from the ncaa broadcast services website

" 6. Free-to-User: The Streaming Entity agrees to deliver the live video stream of the Event Coverage FREE to all users. The Streaming Entity further agrees that no video streaming rights shall be granted or will be permitted as part of a subscription package. If the Streaming Entity normally uses a subscription package to broadcast video streams, the link to the stream of the Event Coverage must be separate from the subscription package and may not require any login or other user information"

I can appreciate the school trying to make some money to cover the cost of the broadcast but as a non-commercial entity they do not pay the $1,000 streaming rights fee that a commercial entity would be charged...so by the policy, Linfield should not be allowed to charge to view the playoff game(s).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 13, 2017, 03:29:55 pm
I'm not sure what board it was on but I saw somewhere that a few posters were upset that Linfield charges $10-$15 to view the games online and wondered if that would continue in the playoffs.  I work in the media and this is item 6 on the live video streaming policy from the ncaa broadcast services website

" 6. Free-to-User: The Streaming Entity agrees to deliver the live video stream of the Event Coverage FREE to all users. The Streaming Entity further agrees that no video streaming rights shall be granted or will be permitted as part of a subscription package. If the Streaming Entity normally uses a subscription package to broadcast video streams, the link to the stream of the Event Coverage must be separate from the subscription package and may not require any login or other user information"

I can appreciate the school trying to make some money to cover the cost of the broadcast but as a non-commercial entity they do not pay the $1,000 streaming rights fee that a commercial entity would be charged...so by the policy, Linfield should not be allowed to charge to view the playoff game(s).

I don't know about streaming, but I do know that the NCAA pretty strictly controls gate entrance costs (i.e. prices are set by NCAA, teams' season ticket packages aren't valid), so I'm sure they enforce the streaming policy as well.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 13, 2017, 03:36:58 pm
I'm not sure what board it was on but I saw somewhere that a few posters were upset that Linfield charges $10-$15 to view the games online and wondered if that would continue in the playoffs.  I work in the media and this is item 6 on the live video streaming policy from the ncaa broadcast services website

" 6. Free-to-User: The Streaming Entity agrees to deliver the live video stream of the Event Coverage FREE to all users. The Streaming Entity further agrees that no video streaming rights shall be granted or will be permitted as part of a subscription package. If the Streaming Entity normally uses a subscription package to broadcast video streams, the link to the stream of the Event Coverage must be separate from the subscription package and may not require any login or other user information"

I can appreciate the school trying to make some money to cover the cost of the broadcast but as a non-commercial entity they do not pay the $1,000 streaming rights fee that a commercial entity would be charged...so by the policy, Linfield should not be allowed to charge to view the playoff game(s).
Linfield has not (because they can't) charged for the livestream of a playoff game. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 13, 2017, 04:51:30 pm
Random question, am I the only one who kind of thinks Washington & Lee vs Washington & Jefferson would be a highly satisfying quarterfinal game? I'm ready for unbounded confusion if those two play!  ;D
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2017, 04:56:15 pm
Random question, am I the only one who kind of thinks Washington & Lee vs Washington & Jefferson would be a highly satisfying quarterfinal game? I'm ready for unbounded confusion if those two play!  ;D

They've met 3 times before though it's been a while and didn't work out to W&L's advantage:

Washington & Jefferson (0 - 3)   



Nov. 18, 1916   Richmond   L   6   10
Nov. 29, 1917   Richmond   L   0   12
Oct. 6, 1923   W&J   L   0   1

Compliments of W&L's sports information site. Little confused on the last score however.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bartman on November 13, 2017, 06:01:15 pm
I made a thing some of you may be interested in--an interactive graphic of each playoff team's stat profiles, using my opponent-adjusted metrics. You can use it to compare potential matchups for any combinations of teams in the tournament. If there's any edit you guys think would be useful to make it more read-able/user-friendly, let me know, and I'll see if I can oblige.
https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles (https://www.hansenratings.com/playoff-stat-profiles)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOh6e_xV4AEspcA.jpg)
totally cool tool
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MediaGuy on November 13, 2017, 06:05:20 pm
Random question, am I the only one who kind of thinks Washington & Lee vs Washington & Jefferson would be a highly satisfying quarterfinal game? I'm ready for unbounded confusion if those two play!  ;D

They've met 3 times before though it's been a while and didn't work out to W&L's advantage:

Washington & Jefferson (0 - 3)   



Nov. 18, 1916   Richmond   L   6   10
Nov. 29, 1917   Richmond   L   0   12
Oct. 6, 1923   W&J   L   0   1

Compliments of W&L's sports information site. Little confused on the last score however.
As per NCAA scoring rules, a game will be scored 1-0 if a game is forfit after play has started then 1 point will be awarded to the team leading at the time of the forfit.  Also I believe in the 1920's, a drop kick was scored as 1 point so it might be a legitimate score.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 13, 2017, 06:29:34 pm
They've met 3 times before though it's been a while and didn't work out to W&L's advantage:
Washington & Jefferson (0 - 3)   
Nov. 18, 1916   Richmond   L   6   10
Nov. 29, 1917   Richmond   L   0   12
Oct. 6, 1923   W&J   L   0   1
Compliments of W&L's sports information site. Little confused on the last score however.
W&J shows the 1917 game as 14-0.

W&L forfeited the 1923 game in Washington, PA because W&J's quarterback, Dr. Charles Pruner West, was black and W&J refused to bench him.
FTR: W&J doesn't list that game in its records at all, at least not the ones I have been able to find.

Interestingly enough, this past Saturday, the Rose Bowl Committee was on hand to recognize Dr. West and announced that he would be inducted into the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame December 30th.  Dr. West was a member of the W&J team that played California to a 0-0 tie in the 1922 Rose Bowl, the only scoreless tie in the history of the Grand-daddy of them all.  W&J played 11 men the entire game, including West.

Another tidbit on that season---on the train to Pasadena, West was forced to ride in the "colored" car.  His teammates chose to also ride with their "teammate, quarterback, leader and friend."

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2011/09/08/W-J-honors-early-black-football-star/stories/201109080225
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: D3MAFAN on November 13, 2017, 06:53:04 pm
They've met 3 times before though it's been a while and didn't work out to W&L's advantage:
Washington & Jefferson (0 - 3)   
Nov. 18, 1916   Richmond   L   6   10
Nov. 29, 1917   Richmond   L   0   12
Oct. 6, 1923   W&J   L   0   1
Compliments of W&L's sports information site. Little confused on the last score however.
W&J shows the 1917 game as 14-0.

W&L forfeited the 1923 game in Washington, PA because W&J's quarterback, Dr. Charles Pruner West, was black and W&J refused to bench him.
FTR: W&J doesn't list that game in its records at all, at least not the ones I have been able to find.

Interestingly enough, this past Saturday, the Rose Bowl Committee was on hand to recognize Dr. West and announced that he would be inducted into the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame December 30th.  Dr. West was a member of the W&J team that played California to a 0-0 tie in the 1921 Rose Bowl, the only scoreless tie in the history of the Grand-daddy of them all.  W&J played 11 men the entire game, including West.

Another tidbit on that season---on the train to Pasadena, West was forced to ride in the "colored" car.  His teammates chose to also ride with their "teammate, quarterback, leader and friend."

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2011/09/08/W-J-honors-early-black-football-star/stories/201109080225

Good to know. +K
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 13, 2017, 07:28:13 pm
They've met 3 times before though it's been a while and didn't work out to W&L's advantage:
Washington & Jefferson (0 - 3)   
Nov. 18, 1916   Richmond   L   6   10
Nov. 29, 1917   Richmond   L   0   12
Oct. 6, 1923   W&J   L   0   1
Compliments of W&L's sports information site. Little confused on the last score however.
W&J shows the 1917 game as 14-0.

W&L forfeited the 1923 game in Washington, PA because W&J's quarterback, Dr. Charles Pruner West, was black and W&J refused to bench him.
FTR: W&J doesn't list that game in its records at all, at least not the ones I have been able to find.[/b]

Interestingly enough, this past Saturday, the Rose Bowl Committee was on hand to recognize Dr. West and announced that he would be inducted into the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame December 30th.  Dr. West was a member of the W&J team that played California to a 0-0 tie in the 1921 Rose Bowl, the only scoreless tie in the history of the Grand-daddy of them all.  W&J played 11 men the entire game, including West.

Another tidbit on that season---on the train to Pasadena, West was forced to ride in the "colored" car.  His teammates chose to also ride with their "teammate, quarterback, leader and friend."

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2011/09/08/W-J-honors-early-black-football-star/stories/201109080225

+K for the history. I'm glad W&L lists that game and counts it against our record. I wish they had an explanation in the records why it was a forfeited game. W&L is increasingly facing it's less than stellar racial past. Keeping this information front and center would be a good reminder of where we've been.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Kip on November 15, 2017, 03:24:10 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2017, 03:51:26 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 15, 2017, 03:58:39 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.

Is there any chance that they put some weight on the 2016 H2H with Linfield beating Hardin-Simmons in Texas? It seems odd and I wouldn't have thought the prior year results would impact this situation, but something is definitely amiss unless it is how you say it should be. I guess we'll see who ends up hosting between St Thomas and Berry if both win and that will give us some indication.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 15, 2017, 04:05:14 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.
While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.? 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 15, 2017, 04:11:26 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.
While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

The question arises if the NCAA has historically treated all regions as being equal and awarded HFA to the higher ranked team, even in cross-regional comparisons.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 15, 2017, 04:15:53 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.
While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

To clarify what I was getting at, I was just saying that it appears odd that 2S would be behind 4W, not that it is inappropriate in this case.  You have to dig a little to see why that would happen.  I think they've got that right with Linfield hosting Hardin-Simmons. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MonroviaCat on November 15, 2017, 04:23:59 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.
While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

To clarify what I was getting at, I was just saying that it appears odd that 2S would be behind 4W, not that it is inappropriate in this case.  You have to dig a little to see why that would happen.  I think they've got that right with Linfield hosting Hardin-Simmons.
gotcha..on a related note--the capsules have been updated with both HSU and Linfield now the "likely #3" in the MHB pod.  I'm assuming HSU will eventually be edited to "#4"
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on November 15, 2017, 04:31:03 pm
D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.
While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

To clarify what I was getting at, I was just saying that it appears odd that 2S would be behind 4W, not that it is inappropriate in this case.  You have to dig a little to see why that would happen.  I think they've got that right with Linfield hosting Hardin-Simmons.
gotcha..on a related note--the capsules have been updated with both HSU and Linfield now the "likely #3" in the MHB pod.  I'm assuming HSU will eventually be edited to "#4"

It also now shows St Thomas as the likely #3. And if you look at the last Top 25 ranking for Linfield it shows 2016, so these appear to be a work in progress/editing.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: @d3jason on November 16, 2017, 03:38:35 pm
They've met 3 times before though it's been a while and didn't work out to W&L's advantage:
Washington & Jefferson (0 - 3)   
Nov. 18, 1916   Richmond   L   6   10
Nov. 29, 1917   Richmond   L   0   12
Oct. 6, 1923   W&J   L   0   1
Compliments of W&L's sports information site. Little confused on the last score however.
W&J shows the 1917 game as 14-0.

W&L forfeited the 1923 game in Washington, PA because W&J's quarterback, Dr. Charles Pruner West, was black and W&J refused to bench him.
FTR: W&J doesn't list that game in its records at all, at least not the ones I have been able to find.[/b]

Interestingly enough, this past Saturday, the Rose Bowl Committee was on hand to recognize Dr. West and announced that he would be inducted into the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame December 30th.  Dr. West was a member of the W&J team that played California to a 0-0 tie in the 1921 Rose Bowl, the only scoreless tie in the history of the Grand-daddy of them all.  W&J played 11 men the entire game, including West.

Another tidbit on that season---on the train to Pasadena, West was forced to ride in the "colored" car.  His teammates chose to also ride with their "teammate, quarterback, leader and friend."

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2011/09/08/W-J-honors-early-black-football-star/stories/201109080225

+K for the history. I'm glad W&L lists that game and counts it against our record. I wish they had an explanation in the records why it was a forfeited game. W&L is increasingly facing it's less than stellar racial past. Keeping this information front and center would be a good reminder of where we've been.

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2017, 03:53:10 pm
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 16, 2017, 03:53:39 pm

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 16, 2017, 03:55:28 pm
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

That's ok. I'm quite happy with W&L scoring that one a loss. I looked through the student newspaper articles of the time and found about what you would expect from the W&L side. Definitely a loss for humanity, happy for it to be a loss for the school.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 16, 2017, 04:05:36 pm
Will 2017 be the year when the "best" team from the East holds the opponent the ends its season to under 55 points?

2016 #12 Alfred gave up 70 to MUC
2015 #6 Wesley gave up 55 to MUC
2014 #7 Wesley gave up 70 to MUC
2013 #7 Wesley gave up 62 to MUC

The last competitive final score when the best from the East didn't give up 50 or more points was in 2012 when #6 Wesley lost 32-20 to #2 MHB (granted in 2013 they lost 62-59 to MUC in a wild game).

2011 #3 Wesley lost 28-21 to #2 MUC.

Given that the "best" from the East is going to play a beat up MHB/Hardin Simmons/Linfield/St Thomas it would seem to be their best chance.  Normally they face a well rested MUC to end their season.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: edward de vere on November 16, 2017, 08:24:17 pm

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.

Of course, then you go to Washington.  Doesn't have ALL the same issues as Lee but certainly a slave owner to his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/historic-alexandria-church-decides-to-remove-plaques-honoring-washington-lee/2017/10/28/97cb4cbc-bc1b-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 16, 2017, 09:05:13 pm

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.

Of course, then you go to Washington.  Doesn't have ALL the same issues as Lee but certainly a slave owner to his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/historic-alexandria-church-decides-to-remove-plaques-honoring-washington-lee/2017/10/28/97cb4cbc-bc1b-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

I'm willing to draw the line at someone who was following the norms of the day, as badly as we view them through modern eyes, versus someone who was willing to fight a war to keep those norms in place after a significant part of the world and his own country decided it was no longer acceptable. There is a difference. Washington, Jefferson, the Founding Fathers in general, existed in a time when slavery was barely questioned. Lee... well Lee was in charge of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands to preserve an institution that was no longer acceptable in his own time. It's a little different. Though I have no doubt the pendulum will continue swinging too far today and only hope some rationality will return at some point.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2017, 09:27:06 pm
What no one realizes is dropping it to just Washington isn't that smart... there is already a Washington College and a Washington University (of St. Louis; WashU).

Things seem so simple, yet they aren't. Not to mention the fact that Lee, when not a military officer, lead the now W&L in a very substantial way in its history.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 16, 2017, 09:30:34 pm
What no one realizes is dropping it to just Washington isn't that smart... there is already a Washington College and a Washington University (of St. Louis; WashU).

Things seem so simple, yet they aren't. Not to mention the fact that Lee, when not a military officer, lead the now W&L in a very substantial way in its history.

You couldn't drop it to just Washington. You'd have to do something else.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: edward de vere on November 16, 2017, 09:47:53 pm

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.

Of course, then you go to Washington.  Doesn't have ALL the same issues as Lee but certainly a slave owner to his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/historic-alexandria-church-decides-to-remove-plaques-honoring-washington-lee/2017/10/28/97cb4cbc-bc1b-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

I'm willing to draw the line at someone who was following the norms of the day, as badly as we view them through modern eyes, versus someone who was willing to fight a war to keep those norms in place after a significant part of the world and his own country decided it was no longer acceptable. There is a difference. Washington, Jefferson, the Founding Fathers in general, existed in a time when slavery was barely questioned. Lee... well Lee was in charge of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands to preserve an institution that was no longer acceptable in his own time. It's a little different. Though I have no doubt the pendulum will continue swinging too far today and only hope some rationality will return at some point.

While I am NOT in favor of all these name changes, I think "in a time when slavery was barely questioned" is WAY off-base.  There was ENORMOUS arguing over slavery at the time of the Constitutional Convention and at the Constitutional Convention ITSELF.

(This is why it's hilarious to hear some people say we need to have a conversation about race in this country.  Hell, we've been having a NON-STOP conversation about race in this part of the world for 400 years.)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: retagent on November 16, 2017, 09:58:33 pm
And I'm not sure about the abolishment of slavery all over the world at that time. Seems to me it was an accepted practice for long after 1880 in most parts of the world.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 16, 2017, 10:06:06 pm
While I am NOT in favor of all these name changes, I think "in a time when slavery was barely questioned" is WAY off-base.  There was ENORMOUS arguing over slavery at the time of the Constitutional Convention and at the Constitutional Convention ITSELF.

(This is why it's hilarious to hear some people say we need to have a conversation about race in this country.  Hell, we've been having a NON-STOP conversation about race in this part of the world for 400 years.)

Not really a place for a history lesson, but the serious arguments over slavery at the Constitutional Convention were about how to count slaves as part of the population, not about whether slavery should exist in states willing to have it. Don't kid yourself there.

As for slavery existing in the rest of the world in the 1880s, not inside the industrializing Western nations. While the slave trade still hung on, and many undeveloped nations still permitted forms of slavery later than 1865, most nations were well ahead of us in abolishing slavery within their own borders. We were a very sad laggard.

Not that Wikipedia is the best source for all things, but simple history is just fine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: edward de vere on November 16, 2017, 10:26:58 pm
If slavery wasn't a SERIOUS concern in revolutionary times why did Washington HIMSELF provide for the freedom of his slaves upon the deaths of he and his wife?

And here is Thomas Jefferson, another SOUTHERN slaveholder (though there were certainly northern slaveholders, as well):  https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

The reason that Jefferson didn't free his slaves is because he eventually figured out how to make them profitable.  (And God knows he needed the money, the way he spent.)

I'll say it again:  Slavery was ALWAYS contentious in this country.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2017, 12:55:35 am
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

A game from that era doesn't necessary fall under those guidelines, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 17, 2017, 07:59:54 am
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7fiJXUAA08PN.jpg)

Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7hS9WAAE2Qa1.jpg)

I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 17, 2017, 08:56:28 am
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

A game from that era doesn't necessary fall under those guidelines, for what it's worth.
Can't tell you how long ago (maybe 1923) when the decision was made but W&J has decided that they're not counting the game as a win, whatever the guidelines say now or then.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: art76 on November 17, 2017, 09:03:19 am
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7fiJXUAA08PN.jpg)

Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7hS9WAAE2Qa1.jpg)

I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Interesting, If I hit reply I see the links embedded with their tags, but in the "new Firefox", which hit my browser this morning, the links/pictures do not show up on the page. Hmmmm.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 17, 2017, 09:33:18 am
Art, you can see them here, too.
https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/931395806195744768 (https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/931395806195744768)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on November 17, 2017, 10:11:56 am
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7fiJXUAA08PN.jpg)

Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7hS9WAAE2Qa1.jpg)

I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Careful Hansen, with logic and thoughtfulness like that, you're gonna get asked to consult to the committee next year.  Really well done.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: D3MAFAN on November 17, 2017, 10:46:57 am
Will 2017 be the year when the "best" team from the East holds the opponent the ends its season to under 55 points?

2016 #12 Alfred gave up 70 to MUC
2015 #6 Wesley gave up 55 to MUC
2014 #7 Wesley gave up 70 to MUC
2013 #7 Wesley gave up 62 to MUC

The last competitive final score when the best from the East didn't give up 50 or more points was in 2012 when #6 Wesley lost 32-20 to #2 MHB (granted in 2013 they lost 62-59 to MUC in a wild game).

2011 #3 Wesley lost 28-21 to #2 MUC.

Given that the "best" from the East is going to play a beat up MHB/Hardin Simmons/Linfield/St Thomas it would seem to be their best chance.  Normally they face a well rested MUC to end their season.

I guess if history holds true, if Wesley was the representative, it's best case scenario would be to play Linfield.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2017, 11:07:14 am
jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

A game from that era doesn't necessary fall under those guidelines, for what it's worth.
Can't tell you how long ago (maybe 1923) when the decision was made but W&J has decided that they're not counting the game as a win, whatever the guidelines say now or then.

I wasn't attempting to question the decision or anything, Bob, just adding info to the conversation, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on November 17, 2017, 11:35:16 am
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7fiJXUAA08PN.jpg)

Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7hS9WAAE2Qa1.jpg)

I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Imagine that, making the impossible- possible, with a bit of mental elbow grease.
Great work Hansen.
Were there other bracket variations that also worked while achieving the same goals?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 17, 2017, 11:40:22 am
I was bored last night, so I decided to build a model to compute the number of probably and potential flights in the tournament.
Potential flights = worst-case scenario if every possible flight game occurred.
Probable flights = potential flights weighted by win probabilities.

Here's the NCAA's bracket:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7fiJXUAA08PN.jpg)

Here's a bracket I came up with that I feel is more balanced, avoids 1st round Top 10 match-ups, and has a smaller number of probable flights:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOz7hS9WAAE2Qa1.jpg)

I just wish the committee invested as much intellectual capital in these processes as some of we fans do.

Imagine that, making the impossible- possible, with a bit of mental elbow grease.
Great work Hansen.
Were there other bracket variations that also worked while achieving the same goals?

This was just the first setup I got to that had fewer flights than the NCAA's, while still making a HSU/UMHB quarterfinal game possible. I'm sure this isn't the only potential bracket that works out that way.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 17, 2017, 12:42:45 pm
Here's a piece of news:

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-stark/mount-union-quarterback-arrested-on-assault-warrant-out-of-florida
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: art76 on November 17, 2017, 12:47:37 pm
Here's a piece of news:

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-stark/mount-union-quarterback-arrested-on-assault-warrant-out-of-florida

Wow - that's literally a game changer.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 17, 2017, 12:49:44 pm
Here's a piece of news:

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-stark/mount-union-quarterback-arrested-on-assault-warrant-out-of-florida

Wow - that's literally a game changer.

I think the biggest way it changes the game this weekend is that W&L has been watching the tape on the wrong guy. Now deeper in the tournament? Yeah, it could be significant.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 17, 2017, 12:53:09 pm
We are assuming he isn't playing... no word on whether he will still be in custody or if the team plans to suspend him. Not saying it won't happen... but we await the news, as it where.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 17, 2017, 12:56:36 pm
We are assuming he isn't playing... no word on whether he will still be in custody or if the team plans to suspend him. Not saying it won't happen... but we await the news, as it where.

I think it's a legitimate assumption, but no. I haven't seen any more news. To be honest, if UMU needs their starting qb to beat W&L this week they aren't the contenders we think they are.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bob.Gregg on November 17, 2017, 01:14:45 pm
We are assuming he isn't playing... no word on whether he will still be in custody or if the team plans to suspend him. Not saying it won't happen... but we await the news, as it where.
This would lead me to believe he's not playing:

Fulford is currently being held in Stark County Jail and is waiting for an extradition order from Florida, authorities said.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 17, 2017, 01:23:09 pm
He has been released on bond... has waived an extradition hearing. We continue to wait to see what happens next and a decision from UMU.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 17, 2017, 01:27:04 pm
He has been released on bond... has waived an extradition hearing. We continue to wait to see what happens next and a decision from UMU.

As a member of the press you have to wait for confirmation from the school. I get that. But there is no way UMU is letting this young man step on the field tomorrow and, barring some serious tap dancing on the charges in FL, the rest of the season. The optics are just too bad.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 17, 2017, 01:32:35 pm
He has been released on bond... has waived an extradition hearing. We continue to wait to see what happens next and a decision from UMU.

As a member of the press you have to wait for confirmation from the school. I get that. But there is no way UMU is letting this young man step on the field tomorrow and, barring some serious tap dancing on the charges in FL, the rest of the season. The optics are just too bad.

My only thought on that... is what exactly is the charge he is up for... the quote in the story is "involved an incident relating to assault." That is wide open. While I tend to agree with you, I also wonder if it depends on the exact nature of the charge(s) or investigation.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on November 17, 2017, 01:40:43 pm
He has been released on bond... has waived an extradition hearing. We continue to wait to see what happens next and a decision from UMU.

As a member of the press you have to wait for confirmation from the school. I get that. But there is no way UMU is letting this young man step on the field tomorrow and, barring some serious tap dancing on the charges in FL, the rest of the season. The optics are just too bad.

My only thought on that... is what exactly is the charge he is up for... the quote in the story is "involved an incident relating to assault." That is wide open. While I tend to agree with you, I also wonder if it depends on the exact nature of the charge(s) or investigation.

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/36871299/mt-union-quarterback-arrested-during-traffic-stop-ahead-of-big-game-dangelo-fulford

Story was slightly updated. It was posted on the OAC boards. Something related to hazing and battery. You don't extradite for speeding tickets. "The UCEA allows the arrest of fugitives in a state accused of a crime in another state for which the penalty is at least one year in jail." Key word is of course accused. But at least a one year jail term means more than speeding tickets.

www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/out-of-state-arrest-warrants.html
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 17, 2017, 02:00:54 pm
Not sure what is being said in the OAC board because I can only do so much today, but I agree that speeding tickets don't tend to be arrestable, but at the same time... it is usually what happens after the speeding tickets... i.e. if you have a suspended license and what not, that can become an arrestable offense. But ... going down a rabbit hole without enough information.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: TheOsprey on November 18, 2017, 12:53:44 pm
Frosty up 14 - 0 at the half.   :o

Pick and put in less than a min. in 2nd half. 21-0 Bobcats!!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 18, 2017, 10:53:39 pm
I know weather played a factor at IWU and North Central, but all of the teams should know cold, rainy or snowy Novembers, so I was a little stunned that IWU and St. John's had very little for their opponents. Quite surprised Witt laid an egg and allowed Frostburg to run right over them, and Trine looks like they're going to give Wartburg fits.

If Husson can keep the ball for most of an entire quarter against Delaware Valley, they'll have a chance for a huge upset. I wouldn't count 'em out. And I was as shocked as anyone that RPI was hanging around for so long.

For all the talk about it being a bit unfair to Hardin - Simmons, they certainly didn't back up any gripes they may have had. This Linfield squad may have been ripe for a first round loss.

For the most part, a great start to week one.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wesleydad on November 22, 2017, 10:31:55 am
This week could have several lower seeded teams winning.  Wesley/ Brockport, Frostburg/W&J, NCC/Oshkosh, Linfield/UMHB, and Trine/Wartburg look like toss ups or games that the away team would not surprise if they won the game.  I think Del Val, Mount, and St. Thomas may get challenged but any of them losing would be considered a major upset.  This could be a fun week of mayhem in D3.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: D3MAFAN on November 22, 2017, 11:06:20 am
This week could have several lower seeded teams winning.  Wesley/ Brockport, Frostburg/W&J, NCC/Oshkosh, Linfield/UMHB, and Trine/Wartburg look like toss ups or games that the away team would not surprise if they won the game.  I think Del Val, Mount, and St. Thomas may get challenged but any of them losing would be considered a major upset.  This could be a fun week of mayhem in D3.

I concur.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HScoach on November 22, 2017, 11:07:26 am
This week could have several lower seeded teams winning.  Wesley/ Brockport, Frostburg/W&J, NCC/Oshkosh, Linfield/UMHB, and Trine/Wartburg look like toss ups or games that the away team would not surprise if they won the game.  I think Del Val, Mount, and St. Thomas may get challenged but any of them losing would be considered a major upset.  This could be a fun week of mayhem in D3.

I'm 100% behind an upset of UWO.   I'd much rather have NCC coming to Mount in the semi's than traveling to Wisconsin to play in what could very well be single digits or worse with a team solely built on the strength of the WR corps.

And yes, I agree with your point that round 2 could be a lot more interesting this year than most.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on November 22, 2017, 11:46:33 am
If Husson can play keep away with their running game, they could spring an upset.

Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: emma17 on November 22, 2017, 02:47:25 pm
This week could have several lower seeded teams winning.  Wesley/ Brockport, Frostburg/W&J, NCC/Oshkosh, Linfield/UMHB, and Trine/Wartburg look like toss ups or games that the away team would not surprise if they won the game.  I think Del Val, Mount, and St. Thomas may get challenged but any of them losing would be considered a major upset.  This could be a fun week of mayhem in D3.

I'm 100% behind an upset of UWO.   I'd much rather have NCC coming to Mount in the semi's than traveling to Wisconsin to play in what could very well be single digits or worse with a team solely built on the strength of the WR corps.

And yes, I agree with your point that round 2 could be a lot more interesting this year than most.

Why donít you two get a room.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bluestreak66 on November 22, 2017, 03:08:25 pm
This week could have several lower seeded teams winning.  Wesley/ Brockport, Frostburg/W&J, NCC/Oshkosh, Linfield/UMHB, and Trine/Wartburg look like toss ups or games that the away team would not surprise if they won the game.  I think Del Val, Mount, and St. Thomas may get challenged but any of them losing would be considered a major upset.  This could be a fun week of mayhem in D3.

I'm 100% behind an upset of UWO.   I'd much rather have NCC coming to Mount in the semi's than traveling to Wisconsin to play in what could very well be single digits or worse with a team solely built on the strength of the WR corps.

And yes, I agree with your point that round 2 could be a lot more interesting this year than most.

(https://www.memecreator.org/static/images/templates/770050.jpg)
What a semi-final game in Oshkosh feels like, more or less
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 22, 2017, 07:41:04 pm
Average Top 25 ranking of brackets - I'd think with 16 teams left we'd want these to average 8... we will see if the Top 25 voters know their stuff once it is settled on the field.

MHB 7.75
UMU 11.75
UWO 13.5
DV  16.25

MHB Bracket 7.75
MHB 1
Linfield 8
St Thomas 4
Berry 18

DV Bracket 16.25
DV 7
Husson NR - Will say 35
Brockport 10
Wesley 13

UWO 13.5
UWO 3
NC 9
Wartburg 17
Trine 25

UMU 11.75
UMU 2
CWR 16
WJ 14
Frostburg 15
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HScoach on November 22, 2017, 07:49:16 pm
This week could have several lower seeded teams winning.  Wesley/ Brockport, Frostburg/W&J, NCC/Oshkosh, Linfield/UMHB, and Trine/Wartburg look like toss ups or games that the away team would not surprise if they won the game.  I think Del Val, Mount, and St. Thomas may get challenged but any of them losing would be considered a major upset.  This could be a fun week of mayhem in D3.

I'm 100% behind an upset of UWO.   I'd much rather have NCC coming to Mount in the semi's than traveling to Wisconsin to play in what could very well be single digits or worse with a team solely built on the strength of the WR corps.

And yes, I agree with your point that round 2 could be a lot more interesting this year than most.

Why donít you two get a room.

Sorry, but I prefer blondes
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wesleydad on November 23, 2017, 09:35:42 am
If Husson can play keep away with their running game, they could spring an upset.

Smed, this could be true with the injury issues at Del Val on offense.  Del Val may struggle on offense and if they do Husson just may be able to do the same thing they did to Springfield last week.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wesleydad on November 25, 2017, 03:05:11 pm
In the end only 1 away team wins a game today.  Games that looked competitive turned out to be blowouts.  4 good ones next week.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 25, 2017, 07:47:14 pm
In the end only 1 away team wins a game today.  Games that looked competitive turned out to be blowouts.  4 good ones next week.

If you had asked me which game would not have been a monkey-stomp, the Tommie-Berry game would have been low on my list.

The headline says it all.

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2017/second-round-wrapup    Holiday Weekend Full of Second Round Turkeys
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 25, 2017, 09:59:43 pm
I was especially surprised by Trine @ Wartburg.  The "Quick Hits" guys and Logan Hansen all had it as a toss-up - it ended up the most lopsided of them all! :o  THREE TOs in the first half of the first quarter can really start an avalanche!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 25, 2017, 10:50:47 pm
Even without being unable to hold onto the football, Trine wasn't as fast as Wartburg. They definitely had some speed on offense but Wartburg was faster across the board, and especially on defense.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HansenRatings on November 27, 2017, 09:42:33 am
I was especially surprised by Trine @ Wartburg.  The "Quick Hits" guys and Logan Hansen all had it as a toss-up - it ended up the most lopsided of them all! :o  THREE TOs in the first half of the first quarter can really start an avalanche!

It wasn't just a turnover fest that led to the final score, either. Wartburg's net offensive/defensive differentials were all outstanding:
Yards/Play: +5.7
1st Down Rate: +31.9%
Points/Drive: +3.1

I've had Monmouth on & off my Top 25 fan ballot for the last couple of seasons, so I was really impressed by Trine's first-round win, but watching them on Saturday, I was pretty underwhelmed. On offense, Wartburg had wide open (like, wiiiiide open) receivers all over the field, not a single negative rush for the Knights all day, and a lot of missed tackles by Trine. Defensively, Wartburg didn't have to worry about the passing game at all, regularly committing to stopping the run, and Trine couldn't make any plays through the air to make Wartburg play slower at all. I think last week against Monmouth was the first time Trine had trailed all season (and by only 3 points), but it looked to me like they were shell-shocked after the fumble on the kickoff--they didn't know how to play from behind like that.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bartman on November 27, 2017, 10:03:22 am
As a Hobart fan I have been a bit lost this year with no playoffs, but I am still following the Eastern region , which I think has some strong representatives this year and might not fall to the customary sacrifice as has been this case in many of the years past. This coming week, we have an interesting matchup with Frostburg State v. Mount Union. In the past we might say this would be another 3-4 touchdown event in favor of Mount Union, but I don't think it will play out that way. I looked at the stats from the W&L game and although W&L did not score they moved the ball on The Mount when Mount Knew they would be running( 5 drives over 30 yards, one for 68 and 18 first downs).I watched the Frostburg-Wesley game earlier in the season, and despite the OT loss to Wesley, I thought Frostburg , of the two, would be a team you would want to avoid in the playoffs. I think Frostburg is a level up from W&L this year (no disrespect intended here) and the Bobcats may cause some problems for the Purple Raiders' defense this Saturday. I am not predicting  an upset, just that Mount Union better not make too many unforced errors , as Frostburg is a team that can take advantage of them. If there is a +2 advantage in turnovers,  the Bobcats could pull off the unexpected.
In the remaining Eastern game, I do expect Brockport to get past Delaware Valley, despite the road game, and be a strong challenge to an elite program like either UMHB or St. Thomas, although this could be wishful Eastern fan thinking ....we will see.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MUC57 on November 27, 2017, 10:23:47 am

Bartman

Sounds like a reasonable analysis to me. The Raiders have to be on their toes. No pushover here. Would rather be playing Wesley. We have their number. As I always say, may the better team win.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bartman on November 27, 2017, 02:34:01 pm

Bartman

Sounds like a reasonable analysis to me. The Raiders have to be on their toes. No pushover here. Would rather be playing Wesley. We have their number. As I always say, may the better team win.
MUC57,
     While I say turnovers are a key,unfortunately for the Bobcats,  my experience with Mount Union is that they do protect the ball pretty well. Looks like this year they only had 2 INTs, while losing 11 fumbles...and have  a +15 net TOs. Now from personal experience, Hobart played Mount fairly well until the end of the third quarter but had 2 TOs to sink any chance, while Mount was TO free....so the same thing applies to Frostburg (I think they have 25 TOs this year), if they have any chance to upset the Purple Raiders they must not cough it up. Other than that aspect, I think the Raider fans will be entertained by a very balanced Frostburg team, and barring the Bobcats' dream of an upset in Alliance(when did that happen last?),they should give the Purple Raiders a great test before the next round.   
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MUC57 on November 27, 2017, 03:54:15 pm

Bartman

Nice analysis, thanks. Having never played these guys, not sure what to expect. I'm sure the team knows a bit more, at least I hope. This Mount team has made most of us a little edgy at times. We'll keep the fingers crossed.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MANDGSU on November 28, 2017, 10:23:35 am
Just a thought, with the "lopsided" 2nd round matchups from last week. If we had a true bracket, would the results been any different?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on November 28, 2017, 10:46:07 am
Just a thought, with the "lopsided" 2nd round matchups from last week. If we had a true bracket, would the results been any different?

Honestly a lot of what we saw on Saturday is the manifestation of clearly defined strata in the division.  Mount Union and CWRU are just playing different levels of football with a different caliber of player.  Same for Del Val and Husson, UST and Berry, UMHB and Linfield.  The results in those games I don't think were big surprises.  The games with margins that I think were surprising were Wartburg/Trine and UWO/NCC.  Definitely looks today like people overreacted to Round 1 results with Wartburg/Trine and Trine was simply outclassed in the same way that the first group was.  And then I think we weren't sure that Oshkosh and North Central were living in different layers of the divisions, but they definitely are.  The North Central team capsule (http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-uw-oshkosh) should have tipped everyone off to what happens when North Central runs into a team that can keep them off of the QB, and that's exactly what went down on Saturday.  The one game that I'm not sure we have clearly defined differences in is the Frostburg/WJ game, but really that's a product of Frostburg's lack of playoff history.  We really don't know where Frostburg fits in the various layers of D3 just yet.  Saturday will tell the tale there.  And then I know Brockport ran away and hid from Wesley, but I think both of those teams are closer than that score indicates.  Turnovers are rough. 

But, to the point- if you matched up 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31., etc. and played it out that way, would the 2nd round results be different?  I don't think so.  What's left in the final 8 are the top 4 teams in the D3Football.com Top 25, plus #7, #10, #15, and #17.  That's not real far off from what you would have expected.  The only thing I think you avoid is having teams like Linfield and St. John's play teams in or above their level for an extra round.  Regardless of how the pairings go, the cream always rises in this tournament. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 28, 2017, 11:40:57 am
Just a thought, with the "lopsided" 2nd round matchups from last week. If we had a true bracket, would the results been any different?

Honestly a lot of what we saw on Saturday is the manifestation of clearly defined strata in the division.  Mount Union and CWRU are just playing different levels of football with a different caliber of player.  Same for Del Val and Husson, UST and Berry, UMHB and Linfield.  The results in those games I don't think were big surprises.  The games with margins that I think were surprising were Wartburg/Trine and UWO/NCC.  Definitely looks today like people overreacted to Round 1 results with Wartburg/Trine and Trine was simply outclassed in the same way that the first group was.  And then I think we weren't sure that Oshkosh and North Central were living in different layers of the divisions, but they definitely are.  The North Central team capsule (http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-uw-oshkosh) should have tipped everyone off to what happens when North Central runs into a team that can keep them off of the QB, and that's exactly what went down on Saturday.  The one game that I'm not sure we have clearly defined differences in is the Frostburg/WJ game, but really that's a product of Frostburg's lack of playoff history.  We really don't know where Frostburg fits in the various layers of D3 just yet.  Saturday will tell the tale there.  And then I know Brockport ran away and hid from Wesley, but I think both of those teams are closer than that score indicates.  Turnovers are rough. 

But, to the point- if you matched up 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31., etc. and played it out that way, would the 2nd round results be different?  I don't think so.  What's left in the final 8 are the top 4 teams in the D3Football.com Top 25, plus #7, #10, #15, and #17.  That's not real far off from what you would have expected.  The only thing I think you avoid is having teams like Linfield and St. John's play teams in or above their level for an extra round.  Regardless of how the pairings go, the cream always rises in this tournament.
+1  for the analysis!

I think that Frostburg State fits nicely into a very competitive NJAC. I like the comment about (lack of) post-season experience. The South lost some strength when the ACFC schools moved to the NJAC, but the ACFC move strengthens the whole East Region.

We will see how good UMHB is this year as we get deeper into the playoffs. If UMHB is really at the next level, then it has finally occurred.  For so many years, they were always 1 play away from the level where we would see 3 or 4 Walnut and Bronzes in the trophy case.  I think that Linfield is at the top of the second tier.

Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Teamski on December 01, 2017, 11:05:35 am

We will see how good UMHB is this year as we get deeper into the playoffs. If UMHB is really at the next level, then it has finally occurred.  For so many years, they were always 1 play away from the level where we would see 3 or 4 Walnut and Bronzes in the trophy case.  I think that Linfield is at the top of the second tier.

Yeah, I think UMHB will own St. Thomas tomorrow.  Easy.

-Ski
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Teamski on December 02, 2017, 03:32:35 pm

Yeah, I think UMHB will own St. Thomas tomorrow.  Easy.

-Ski

They didn't exactly own them, but the UMHB defense was pretty smothering.

-Ski
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2017, 03:55:51 pm
As best as I can tell, the UMHB Brockport game is the first ever playoff game between a Texas team (including the very good Trinity teams from the turn of the century) and an East Region team. There are several games against Lycoming and Wesley when they were still South Region.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ray Finkles on December 02, 2017, 08:20:47 pm
Ralph, UMHB beat Rowan and St. John Fisher in back-to-back games in the 2013 playoffs (Second Round and Quarterfinals). So this should be the third meeting between a Texas team and a true East Region program.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2017, 09:22:27 pm
Ralph, UMHB beat Rowan and St. John Fisher in back-to-back games in the 2013 playoffs (Second Round and Quarterfinals). So this should be the third meeting between a Texas team and a true East Region program.
Oh yes!  Thanks!  +1! :)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2017, 10:38:31 pm
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...

but back to D3.

Great games coming up this Saturday!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 10:54:53 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...


...because they were rightfully not deemed to be among the top 4 teams in the country.  The committee got it right.   
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on December 04, 2017, 11:07:04 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...

but back to D3.

Great games coming up this Saturday!
I think you mean 7 conference champions ;)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 11:10:23 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...

but back to D3.

Great games coming up this Saturday!
I think you mean 7 conference champions ;)

Does anyone really think G5 schools stand a prayer of getting into the CFP? They don't. If it wouldn't hurt them so much financially they'd be better off declaring themselves a different division. You could have had an 8 team playoff and UCF wouldn't have gotten in. 12 or 16 teams and they are probably the only G5 school even in the running. It's just not a system that is going to reward a G5 school.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 04, 2017, 11:33:15 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...


...because they were rightfully not deemed to be among the top 4 teams in the country.  The committee got it right.
The Dodgers go 3 and 4 against the Astros and come in second!

Auburn goes 2-2 against the field and is sitting at home!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on December 04, 2017, 11:35:52 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...


...because they were rightfully not deemed to be among the top 4 teams in the country.  The committee got it right.
The Dodgers go 3 and 4 against the Astros and come in second!

Auburn goes 2-2 against the field and is sitting at home!

The Astros only had a chance to win it because they didn't have to face the Twins, since the Twins lost 1 game against the Yankees and never had a chance to compete in the ALCS!

Just like Auburn also lost 1 game against LSU, a team not in the field, in addition to those other 2 losses.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 11:36:58 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...


...because they were rightfully not deemed to be among the top 4 teams in the country.  The committee got it right.
The Dodgers go 3 and 4 against the Astros and come in second!

Auburn goes 2-2 against the field and is sitting at home!

And the reason they aren't in is the big loss to LSU, which was 100% a failure of the offensive coaching minds. Like the head coach. Who just got something like $49 million over the next 7 years to stay. DI football is institutional insanity.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bluestreak66 on December 04, 2017, 11:41:12 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...

but back to D3.

Great games coming up this Saturday!
I think you mean 7 conference champions ;)

Does anyone really think G5 schools stand a prayer of getting into the CFP? They don't. If it wouldn't hurt them so much financially they'd be better off declaring themselves a different division. You could have had an 8 team playoff and UCF wouldn't have gotten in. 12 or 16 teams and they are probably the only G5 school even in the running. It's just not a system that is going to reward a G5 school.

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 11:50:32 am
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...

but back to D3.

Great games coming up this Saturday!
I think you mean 7 conference champions ;)

Does anyone really think G5 schools stand a prayer of getting into the CFP? They don't. If it wouldn't hurt them so much financially they'd be better off declaring themselves a different division. You could have had an 8 team playoff and UCF wouldn't have gotten in. 12 or 16 teams and they are probably the only G5 school even in the running. It's just not a system that is going to reward a G5 school.

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

I think this idea will come, and I think shutting out the Big 10 this year for 2 SEC schools will more or less guarantee it happens. But, the highest rank G5 will never be an AQ. They will have to be inside the top 8 to get a bid.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 04, 2017, 12:20:13 pm
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...

but back to D3.

Great games coming up this Saturday!
I think you mean 7 conference champions ;)

Does anyone really think G5 schools stand a prayer of getting into the CFP? They don't. If it wouldn't hurt them so much financially they'd be better off declaring themselves a different division. You could have had an 8 team playoff and UCF wouldn't have gotten in. 12 or 16 teams and they are probably the only G5 school even in the running. It's just not a system that is going to reward a G5 school.

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

I think this idea will come, and I think shutting out the Big 10 this year for 2 SEC schools will more or less guarantee it happens. But, the highest rank G5 will never be an AQ. They will have to be inside the top 8 to get a bid.

Perhaps they could be convinced to treat G5 like Pool B?! ;)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 04, 2017, 12:27:42 pm
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...


...because they were rightfully not deemed to be among the top 4 teams in the country.  The committee got it right.
The Dodgers go 3 and 4 against the Astros and come in second!

Auburn goes 2-2 against the field and is sitting at home!

The Astros only had a chance to win it because they didn't have to face the Twins, since the Twins lost 1 game against the Yankees and never had a chance to compete in the ALCS!

Just like Auburn also lost 1 game against LSU, a team not in the field, in addition to those other 2 losses.
I know!    >:(  Auburn was winning the LSU game when I boarded the plane, coming home from a meeting.  I was shocked when I saw the final score when the plane landed.

I feel about the Southeast (Clemson, Georgia, Auburn and Tuscaloosa) and D1 as I do about the West Region and the ASC (which is in the longitudes of the West Region).

Look at the map of D3, e.g.,  UW-O and other WIAC-powers-du-jour, Tommies/Johnnies/Cobbers (the Cobbers would probably win 18-20 of the 27 conferences), Linfield ,UMHB/HSU and even Wartburg and the CCIW.  There are perennially the toughest teams in the brackets apart, from Mount Union and an occasional group that string together a few good seasons.

I am excited that we get to see Brockport in the Semifinals and welcome them to Texas.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 04, 2017, 12:34:58 pm
Great podcast.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2017/12/04/atn-podcast-187-last-gasps-kicks-picks/
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: JCUStreaks70 on December 04, 2017, 01:01:32 pm
And in other news, 2 conference champions will not be invited to their biggest dance of the season...

but back to D3.

Great games coming up this Saturday!
I think you mean 7 conference champions ;)

Does anyone really think G5 schools stand a prayer of getting into the CFP? They don't. If it wouldn't hurt them so much financially they'd be better off declaring themselves a different division. You could have had an 8 team playoff and UCF wouldn't have gotten in. 12 or 16 teams and they are probably the only G5 school even in the running. It's just not a system that is going to reward a G5 school.

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

I think this idea will come, and I think shutting out the Big 10 this year for 2 SEC schools will more or less guarantee it happens. But, the highest rank G5 will never be an AQ. They will have to be inside the top 8 to get a bid.

I see what you're saying and I understand it, however, FBS football is the only level of any sport on the planet where not everyone has a real route to the championship. If an AAC team, ahem, goes undefeated, I believe they've earned the right to play for it all. There are 10 FBS conferences, and only 5 have a chance.

We all know certain conferences will never get there, but at least they have an actual feasible chance when the season begins...

Anyway those are my two cents, for what their worth.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on December 04, 2017, 01:12:21 pm
I for one am shocked that a four team playoff designed for five conferences is awkward.  Who could have possibly seen that coming. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 01:15:25 pm
I for one am shocked that a four team playoff designed for five conferences is awkward.  Who could have possibly seen that coming.

Better than what had been before. Hoping for one more iteration to 8 teams with the first round on campus after a 1 week bye from the conference championships. Will it interfere with finals? No more than the other bowl games that start that early do.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Teamski on December 04, 2017, 01:32:53 pm
I for one am shocked that a four team playoff designed for five conferences is awkward.  Who could have possibly seen that coming.

Better than what had been before. Hoping for one more iteration to 8 teams with the first round on campus after a 1 week bye from the conference championships. Will it interfere with finals? No more than the other bowl games that start that early do.

I know this is getting way OT, but I posted this below on Youtube.  I applied some DIII logic which obviously doesn't apply to the FBS.  One of the ESPN pundits even had the temerity to say a playoff is like giving everyone a trophy!  Bowls obviously don't, right?

"So, am I missing something here?  OK, Listen me out if you could for a second.  Alabama beats out Ohio State for the last playoff spot by NOT playing in the SEC Championship game.  So, they did not play a game that had they lost, would have knocked them out of the playoffs.  SO, Alabama effectively had a first round bye in the playoffs by losing to Auburn.  How does that make sense?  You could have a case where  Sabin could intentionally throw the Auburn game knowing that they would not have to play in the championship that would preserve a one loss season AND your players are better off from one less game played than anybody else in the playoffs.

Just like DIII, DII and the FCS, the FBS needs a true playoff.  This bowl system is just crap (and I am a Wisconsin fan by the way)"

-Ski
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wally_wabash on December 04, 2017, 01:52:39 pm
I for one am shocked that a four team playoff designed for five conferences is awkward.  Who could have possibly seen that coming.

Better than what had been before. Hoping for one more iteration to 8 teams with the first round on campus after a 1 week bye from the conference championships. Will it interfere with finals? No more than the other bowl games that start that early do.

I know this is getting way OT, but I posted this below on Youtube.  I applied some DIII logic which obviously doesn't apply to the FBS.  One of the ESPN pundits even had the temerity to say a playoff is like giving everyone a trophy!  Bowls obviously don't, right?

"So, am I missing something here?  OK, Listen me out if you could for a second.  Alabama beats out Ohio State for the last playoff spot by NOT playing in the SEC Championship game.  So, they did not play a game that had they lost, would have knocked them out of the playoffs.  SO, Alabama effectively had a first round bye in the playoffs by losing to Auburn.  How does that make sense?  You could have a case where  Sabin could intentionally throw the Auburn game knowing that they would not have to play in the championship that would preserve a one loss season AND your players are better off from one less game played than anybody else in the playoffs.

Just like DIII, DII and the FCS, the FBS needs a true playoff.  This bowl system is just crap (and I am a Wisconsin fan by the way)"

-Ski

I don't think Nick Saban is throwing games to Auburn and forfeiting a shot at an SEC championship to get into the playoff (there was no guarantee that would happen), but these kinds of win-by-losing scenarios aren't so far off course that they don't dirty up the FBS playoff waters. 

As a non-partisan, I don't really care who the fourth team was, but I can appreciate the animous by conference champions that got left out or never really considered.  Clemson vs. tOSU or Alabama is fun.  Oklahoma vs. Georgia is fun.  I enjoy these playoff games and can't wait until they build another round or two on to the tournament. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

But what does that solve?  Clemson vs. UCF?  USC vs. Oklahoma?  That isn't going to answer any question.  After the first round, you'd be left with the 4 teams you have right now.  There is no team outside of the top 4 that would have a reasonable chance of winning three straight games.  The committee got it right.

Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jamtoTommie on December 04, 2017, 02:56:09 pm

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

But what does that solve?  Clemson vs. UCF?  USC vs. Oklahoma?  That isn't going to answer any question.  After the first round, you'd be left with the 4 teams you have right now.  There is no team outside of the top 4 that would have a reasonable chance of winning three straight games.  The committee got it right.

I've heard this same argument from folks about 2 teams vs 4. And we've had more 4 seeds (1) win the CoFoPlOff than 1 seeds (never).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 02:57:56 pm

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

But what does that solve?  Clemson vs. UCF?  USC vs. Oklahoma?  That isn't going to answer any question.  After the first round, you'd be left with the 4 teams you have right now.  There is no team outside of the top 4 that would have a reasonable chance of winning three straight games.  The committee got it right.

Really? Because Auburn lost by 8 to Clemson week 2, beat Georgia, lost to Georgia, and beat Alabama. I think they absolutely had a reasonable chance of going on a run to win 3 in a row considering they went 2-2 against 3 of those teams. I do think the committee got it right, and was consistent in how the criteria was applied last year and this year, but there is certainly a team left out that showed the chops to be in that grouping. It's just not a team that stood a chance of being in that last spot. If you had an 8 team playoff, you think any of the top 4 would have relished facing Auburn since they had already beat 2 of them?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 03:04:58 pm
I for one am shocked that a four team playoff designed for five conferences is awkward.  Who could have possibly seen that coming.

Better than what had been before. Hoping for one more iteration to 8 teams with the first round on campus after a 1 week bye from the conference championships. Will it interfere with finals? No more than the other bowl games that start that early do.

I know this is getting way OT, but I posted this below on Youtube.  I applied some DIII logic which obviously doesn't apply to the FBS.  One of the ESPN pundits even had the temerity to say a playoff is like giving everyone a trophy!  Bowls obviously don't, right?

"So, am I missing something here?  OK, Listen me out if you could for a second.  Alabama beats out Ohio State for the last playoff spot by NOT playing in the SEC Championship game.  So, they did not play a game that had they lost, would have knocked them out of the playoffs.  SO, Alabama effectively had a first round bye in the playoffs by losing to Auburn.  How does that make sense?  You could have a case where  Sabin could intentionally throw the Auburn game knowing that they would not have to play in the championship that would preserve a one loss season AND your players are better off from one less game played than anybody else in the playoffs.

Just like DIII, DII and the FCS, the FBS needs a true playoff.  This bowl system is just crap (and I am a Wisconsin fan by the way)"

-Ski

I don't think Nick Saban is throwing games to Auburn and forfeiting a shot at an SEC championship to get into the playoff (there was no guarantee that would happen), but these kinds of win-by-losing scenarios aren't so far off course that they don't dirty up the FBS playoff waters. 

As a non-partisan, I don't really care who the fourth team was, but I can appreciate the animous by conference champions that got left out or never really considered.  Clemson vs. tOSU or Alabama is fun.  Oklahoma vs. Georgia is fun.  I enjoy these playoff games and can't wait until they build another round or two on to the tournament.

Today has come to remind me of the day after selection Sunday for March Madness.  They'd set the field of 64 and then for the next 24 hours ESPN was just a bunch of people screaming at each other about how 65-68 got screwed.  But then the tournament starts, the best teams emerge, a winner is crowned and then reflecting back all that bitching and moaning seems silly.
 
I feel that same way about today and the CFP.  Is it perfect?  No, but it's pretty damn good.  Ohio State, Auburn and Wisconsin all had their chances this past weekend.  Ohio State took advantage of theirs, but in the end they lost out to Alabama in the eyes of the committee.  Turns out giving up 55 points and losing by 30 to a team that went 6-6, is not a good thing.

The problem with the CFP is that it was designed by 5 conferences, but for only 4 spots.  Those gears turning in opposite directions are never going to mesh well.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 03:18:04 pm

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

But what does that solve?  Clemson vs. UCF?  USC vs. Oklahoma?  That isn't going to answer any question.  After the first round, you'd be left with the 4 teams you have right now.  There is no team outside of the top 4 that would have a reasonable chance of winning three straight games.  The committee got it right.



Really? Because Auburn lost by 8 to Clemson week 2, beat Georgia, lost to Georgia, and beat Alabama. I think they absolutely had a reasonable chance of going on a run to win 3 in a row considering they went 2-2 against 3 of those teams. I do think the committee got it right, and was consistent in how the criteria was applied last year and this year, but there is certainly a team left out that showed the chops to be in that grouping. It's just not a team that stood a chance of being in that last spot. If you had an 8 team playoff, you think any of the top 4 would have relished facing Auburn since they had already beat 2 of them?

At some point, you have to pick the teams for the playoff.  The regular season is this beautiful, imperfect merry go round of who played who, who beat who, by how much and so forth.  You'll never have all the questions answered, but at the end of the day (season), you gotta pick 4.  The committee got it right.  Last year it was Penn State who many thought got left out.  Ohio State promptly went out and got shut out 31-0 against Clemson.  Penn State had beaten OSU by 3 points in the regular season.  Would Penn State have loved a shot at Clemson?  Heck yes!  Would they have fared any better?  Probably not. 

Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:32:42 pm

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

But what does that solve?  Clemson vs. UCF?  USC vs. Oklahoma?  That isn't going to answer any question.  After the first round, you'd be left with the 4 teams you have right now. There is no team outside of the top 4 that would have a reasonable chance of winning three straight games.  The committee got it right.



Really? Because Auburn lost by 8 to Clemson week 2, beat Georgia, lost to Georgia, and beat Alabama. I think they absolutely had a reasonable chance of going on a run to win 3 in a row considering they went 2-2 against 3 of those teams. I do think the committee got it right, and was consistent in how the criteria was applied last year and this year, but there is certainly a team left out that showed the chops to be in that grouping. It's just not a team that stood a chance of being in that last spot. If you had an 8 team playoff, you think any of the top 4 would have relished facing Auburn since they had already beat 2 of them?

At some point, you have to pick the teams for the playoff.  The regular season is this beautiful, imperfect merry go round of who played who, who beat who, by how much and so forth.  You'll never have all the questions answered, but at the end of the day (season), you gotta pick 4.  The committee got it right.  Last year it was Penn State who many thought got left out.  Ohio State promptly went out and got shut out 31-0 against Clemson.  Penn State had beaten OSU by 3 points in the regular season.  Would Penn State have loved a shot at Clemson?  Heck yes!  Would they have fared any better?  Probably not.

The bolded part above is what I took issue with. Auburn absolutely could and showed it. I don't have a problem with them being left out of a 4 team playoff. Lose 3 games and it is what it is. However... I just don't think your original statement was correct.

I do think the precedent the committee is setting is the opposite of what they should be doing. There is no incentive for Ohio State to schedule Oklahoma going forward. Had they scheduled Podunk U they would be in at 11-1 and a conference champ. The kind of thinking they applied this year is unfortunate even if I think it was correct.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 03:47:34 pm

I do think the precedent the committee is setting is the opposite of what they should be doing. There is no incentive for Ohio State to schedule Oklahoma going forward. Had they scheduled Podunk U they would be in at 11-1 and a conference champ. The kind of thinking they applied this year is unfortunate even if I think it was correct.

Ohio State would be solidly in this thing if they didn't lose by 30 to a 6-6 Iowa team.  The committee recognizes tough competition and rewards that as the season goes along and the rankings come out each week.  The committee spokesman has said this many times.  Conversely, playing nobody does not get rewarded.  It's why Alabama was #2 in the initial CFP rankings, while #1 in most polls.  Georgia was viewed as having played better teams and was undefeated at the time.

"Podunk" U is the Wisconsin model this year.  They played nobody of note and then got beat by Ohio State, their only top 10 competition.  That's too risky a route to take and you'll likely be left out every time. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:54:11 pm

I do think the precedent the committee is setting is the opposite of what they should be doing. There is no incentive for Ohio State to schedule Oklahoma going forward. Had they scheduled Podunk U they would be in at 11-1 and a conference champ. The kind of thinking they applied this year is unfortunate even if I think it was correct.

Ohio State would be solidly in this thing if they didn't lose by 30 to a 6-6 Iowa team.  The committee recognizes tough competition and rewards that as the season goes along and the rankings come out each week.  The committee spokesman has said this many times.  Conversely, playing nobody does not get rewarded.  It's why Alabama was #2 in the initial CFP rankings, while #1 in most polls.  Georgia was viewed as having played better teams and was undefeated at the time.

"Podunk" U is the Wisconsin model this year.  They played nobody of note and then got beat by Ohio State, their only top 10 competition.  That's too risky a route to take and you'll likely be left out every time.

Wisconsin was one drive away from going. Alabama didn't play anyone really either. Lost to Auburn at 7, beat LSU at 17. Ohio St lost to OK at 2, beat Wisconsin at 6, beat Penn State at 9, and beat Michigan State at 16. The theory that the committee rewarded a tough schedule doesn't hold up. They didn't reward the tough schedule, they punished it. There is no way around that when you look at the final data. If Ohio State was 11-1, with the only difference dropping the loss to OK at 2, the results are not much different than Clemson. Some big wins, one ugly loss, one conference title, and you are in. The committee punished losing to OK.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 04:18:18 pm
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil. 
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 04, 2017, 04:42:25 pm
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.
... as does Auburn's misearable 4th quarter against an LSU team that finished 3rd in the SEC West (6-2).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 04:44:57 pm
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.

Don't have 2 losses? The best way to do that in a P5 conference is to avoid an OOC good loss. Here's the break down:

2014/15 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss
Oh St - lost to VT **
Oregon - lost to Arizona
Fl St - undefeated

2015/16 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss
Mich St - lost to Nebraska
Clemson - undefeated
Oklahoma - lost to TX

2016/17 National Title
Al - undefeated
Washington - USC
Clemson - Pitt
Ohio St - Penn St

2017/18 National Title
Al - Auburn
Clemson - Syracuse
Georgia - Auburn
Oklahoma - Iowa State

What do we see? Out of 16 teams, only three times did teams reach the playoffs undefeated. For the other 13 teams, 12 took a conference loss, one took an OOC loss. So far, you are 75% likely to take a conference and loss and make the playoffs, and you are 81% likely to take a loss. If you can't take 2 losses, and 75% of you are likely to take a conference loss, then schedule easy OOC. You will still get in, see Washington last year.

Moral of the story? Don't schedule an opponent likely to beat you in the OOC portion, because you are extremely likely to lose at least once in conference. And winning your conference doesn't outweigh the second loss is exactly what we just learned.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: K-Mack on December 04, 2017, 05:24:36 pm
I guess technically these are 2017 playoffs you're talking about.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 05:41:52 pm
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.

Don't have 2 losses? The best way to do that in a P5 conference is to avoid an OOC good loss. Here's the break down:

2014/15 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Oh St - lost to VT **
Oregon - lost to Arizona (Arizona went 10-3 in regular season)
Fl St - undefeated

2015/16 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Mich St - lost to Nebraska (Lost to Neb by 1 point.  Neb went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was MSU's only loss)
Clemson - undefeated
Oklahoma - lost to TX (Lost to TX by 7 points.  Texas went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was Oklahoma's only loss)

2016/17 National Title
Al - undefeated
Washington - USC (USC went 9-3 in regular season)
Clemson - Pitt (Pitt went 8-4 in regular season)
Ohio St - Penn St (Penn State went 10-2 in regular season)

2017/18 National Title
Al - Auburn
Clemson - Syracuse
Georgia - Auburn
Oklahoma - Iowa State

What do we see? Out of 16 teams, only three times did teams reach the playoffs undefeated. For the other 13 teams, 12 took a conference loss, one took an OOC loss. So far, you are 75% likely to take a conference and loss and make the playoffs, and you are 81% likely to take a loss. If you can't take 2 losses, and 75% of you are likely to take a conference loss, then schedule easy OOC. You will still get in, see Washington last year.

Moral of the story? Don't schedule an opponent likely to beat you in the OOC portion, because you are extremely likely to lose at least once in conference. And winning your conference doesn't outweigh the second loss is exactly what we just learned.

Not all losses are created equal.  See above notes. 

Rolling the dice to try to back into the playoffs via a weak OOC schedule is not a smart way to schedule.  Winning games matters, as it should. 

In 2014, Baylor and TCU both went 11-1, both missed the playoffs.  Both played nobody in OOC.  Co champs, but skunked on selection Sunday.  There's your "winnable OOC" and "one loss in conference" and neither got in.  This is why Big 12 went to a championship game this year. 

Iowa in 2015, went 12-0 in the regular season, lost by 3 to MSU in Big 10 championship and got left out.  Weak OOC schedule, 1 loss, didn't make it in. 

In 2016, Washington made it in with 1 loss and weak OOC (and was justly ranked 4th by the committee and got waxed by Alabama)

In 2017 Alabama made it in with 1 loss and a strange OOC schedule.  FSU was ranked top 5 at the time they played, but tanked to 6-6. 

Out of the above, 1 in 5 made it in via the scheduling path you suggest.  That's too risky and schools know this.

Moral of the story....you can have an OOC loss, or you can have a conference loss, but you can't have both.  And if you lose an OOC game against a quality opponent, you sure as hell better beat a mid pack conference team. 

Also, the SEC must go to a 9 game conference schedule.  Every other conference does this. 

Also, Part II, I like UHMB and UMU to make the finals.  There Keith, fixed it.  ;D



Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: desertraider on December 04, 2017, 05:59:01 pm
Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bluestreak66 on December 04, 2017, 06:01:37 pm
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.

Don't have 2 losses? The best way to do that in a P5 conference is to avoid an OOC good loss. Here's the break down:

2014/15 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Oh St - lost to VT **
Oregon - lost to Arizona (Arizona went 10-3 in regular season)
Fl St - undefeated

2015/16 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Mich St - lost to Nebraska (Lost to Neb by 1 point.  Neb went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was MSU's only loss)
Clemson - undefeated
Oklahoma - lost to TX (Lost to TX by 7 points.  Texas went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was Oklahoma's only loss)

2016/17 National Title
Al - undefeated
Washington - USC (USC went 9-3 in regular season)
Clemson - Pitt (Pitt went 8-4 in regular season)
Ohio St - Penn St (Penn State went 10-2 in regular season)

2017/18 National Title
Al - Auburn
Clemson - Syracuse
Georgia - Auburn
Oklahoma - Iowa State

What do we see? Out of 16 teams, only three times did teams reach the playoffs undefeated. For the other 13 teams, 12 took a conference loss, one took an OOC loss. So far, you are 75% likely to take a conference and loss and make the playoffs, and you are 81% likely to take a loss. If you can't take 2 losses, and 75% of you are likely to take a conference loss, then schedule easy OOC. You will still get in, see Washington last year.

Moral of the story? Don't schedule an opponent likely to beat you in the OOC portion, because you are extremely likely to lose at least once in conference. And winning your conference doesn't outweigh the second loss is exactly what we just learned.

Not all losses are created equal.  See above notes. 

Rolling the dice to try to back into the playoffs via a weak OOC schedule is not a smart way to schedule.  Winning games matters, as it should. 

In 2014, Baylor and TCU both went 11-1, both missed the playoffs.  Both played nobody in OOC.  Co champs, but skunked on selection Sunday.  There's your "winnable OOC" and "one loss in conference" and neither got in.  This is why Big 12 went to a championship game this year. 

Iowa in 2015, went 12-0 in the regular season, lost by 3 to MSU in Big 10 championship and got left out.  Weak OOC schedule, 1 loss, didn't make it in. 

In 2016, Washington made it in with 1 loss and weak OOC (and was justly ranked 4th by the committee and got waxed by Alabama)

In 2017 Alabama made it in with 1 loss and a strange OOC schedule.  FSU was ranked top 5 at the time they played, but tanked to 6-6. 

Out of the above, 1 in 5 made it in via the scheduling path you suggest.  That's too risky and schools know this.

Moral of the story....you can have an OOC loss, or you can have a conference loss, but you can't have both.  And if you lose an OOC game against a quality opponent, you sure as hell better beat a mid pack conference team. 

Also, the SEC must go to a 9 game conference schedule.  Every other conference does this. 

Also, Part II, I like UHMB and UMU to make the finals.  There Keith, fixed it.  ;D
I think the problem there was TCU had a decent OOC opponent in Minnesota. I think the problem was that since Baylor's OOC was so bad, and TCU lost the head to head with them, it created a problem. They didn't want to put Baylor in because of their weak OOC schedule, and they couldn't put in TCU due to having the same record as a team that beat them head to head, so OSU represented an easy third choice
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 04, 2017, 11:08:26 pm
Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.

What you suggest is something we see run by the NCAA... since this isn't... ::shrug::
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: tf37 on December 04, 2017, 11:14:07 pm
Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.

This sounds nice on paper, but let's be real.  The Power 5 team are not giving up 1-2 home games per year for a 16 team playoff.  School like Michigan and Texas, just to name a couple,  who are struggling to win conference championships, but can easily schedule 7-8 home games will keep their money and be happy.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: smedindy on December 04, 2017, 11:26:15 pm
And also, there will be smaller schools that will schedule a pay game against a power team for the cash money.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2017, 12:39:18 am
Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.

This sounds nice on paper, but let's be real.  The Power 5 team are not giving up 1-2 home games per year for a 16 team playoff.  School like Michigan and Texas, just to name a couple,  who are struggling to win conference championships, but can easily schedule 7-8 home games will keep their money and be happy.
The problem with a 32 or 64 team playoff is that 31 or 63 teams finish the season with a loss.

With 35 bowl games, 35 coaches won the last game of the season and 15 of the losers were just glad to make to a bowl for the first time   ...  in 57 years, e.g., New Mexico State (if they can raise the money).
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 05, 2017, 11:57:21 am
Pretty much the reason why big-time coaches love the bowls so much. "We won a bowl game last year!" "My bowl record is ..."

SMH. Ego.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: wm4 on December 05, 2017, 12:30:42 pm
Pretty much the reason why big-time coaches love the bowls so much. "We won a bowl game last year!" "My bowl record is ..."

SMH. Ego.

...and paychecks.  Bumped into this yesterday.

"With all CFP-affiliated bowl bids now distributed, FBS head coaches have secured more than $7.9 million in bonuses so far this season"
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 05, 2017, 01:40:33 pm
Pretty much the reason why big-time coaches love the bowls so much. "We won a bowl game last year!" "My bowl record is ..."

SMH. Ego.

...and paychecks.  Bumped into this yesterday.

"With all CFP-affiliated bowl bids now distributed, FBS head coaches have secured more than $7.9 million in bonuses so far this season"

Yep - it is a major part of the contracts. Go .500, win a bowl game, and you can buy a Rolls Royce.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 08, 2017, 12:27:02 pm
18-minute tour of the CRUthedral at UMHB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mnlec3ouOA
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 09, 2017, 06:51:49 pm
UMU and UMHB preserve the Order of the Purple in the Stagg Bowl.

Other members of the exclusive group include UW-Whitewater, Linfield and Albion.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Toby Taff on December 09, 2017, 09:19:58 pm
UMU and UMHB preserve the Order of the Purple in the Stagg Bowl.

Other members of the exclusive group include UW-Whitewater, Linfield and Albion.
is the order winners only? If not i think UST is in as well
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: desertraider on December 09, 2017, 09:40:12 pm
UMU and UMHB preserve the Order of the Purple in the Stagg Bowl.

Other members of the exclusive group include UW-Whitewater, Linfield and Albion.
is the order winners only? If not i think UST is in as well

Saint-Tropez has a University? And they played in the Stagg Bowl? Well if you say so. ;D
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 09, 2017, 09:56:07 pm
UMU and UMHB preserve the Order of the Purple in the Stagg Bowl.

Other members of the exclusive group include UW-Whitewater, Linfield and Albion.
is the order winners only? If not i think UST is in as well
Entry into the Order of the Purple is a Walnut and Bronze...

No Tommies, yet.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bartman on December 10, 2017, 05:36:43 pm
Good luck to all the Purple teams in the 2017 Stagg Bowl ;D
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 10, 2017, 08:47:51 pm
Entry into the Order of the Purple is a Walnut and Bronze...

No Tommies, yet.

...or maybe Hobart some day.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Bartman on December 11, 2017, 10:03:55 am
Entry into the Order of the Purple is a Walnut and Bronze...

No Tommies, yet.

...or maybe Hobart some day.
Nice of you to acknowledge our PURPLE and orange colors....but I think our realistic goal is to win our league and a few games in the playoffs....that final four level is a whole 'nuther commitment to a program....but you never know , we competed well against a "down" Mount Union(if UMU can be down) in the first round last year, but watching the Brockport team against the Crusaders and the quality of the Wisconsin v.Ohio boys yesterday was very impressive... The Order of Purple membership is a dream, for sure
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 15, 2017, 08:27:30 pm
The two lowest scoring Staggs ever were last year (UMHB over UWO) and 2000 (UMU over SJU), both 10-7, with 1974 (Central over Ithaca) just behind at 10-8.  This year is shaping up as a definite threat to those records: at the half, UMU 3, UMHB 0.

While I'm not predicting it, an OT FG for one or the other to win 6-3 would not shock me.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 15, 2017, 10:03:09 pm
New all-time low score: UMU 12,  UMHB 0.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2017, 12:23:26 am
I will always remember how many times the ESPNU commentators made reference to how cold and windy it was.

https://vortex.plymouth.edu/wxpmaps/uschill.gif

At 0400 Zulu 12/16/2017 it is 24 near Salem; 44 in Houston and 16 near Canton.


This is the windchill map from the web site at (D3) Plymouth State University.
The university has numerous weather maps for you to explore and bookmark.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: WRMUalum13 on December 16, 2017, 10:04:16 am
I will always remember how many times the ESPNU commentators made reference to how cold and windy it was.

https://vortex.plymouth.edu/wxpmaps/uschill.gif

At 0400 Zulu 12/16/2017 it is 24 near Salem; 44 in Houston and 16 near Canton.

Yeah... thatís one reason Iím not convinced canton is an optimal location for a December championship
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: HScoach on December 16, 2017, 03:06:50 pm
I will always remember how many times the ESPNU commentators made reference to how cold and windy it was.

https://vortex.plymouth.edu/wxpmaps/uschill.gif

At 0400 Zulu 12/16/2017 it is 24 near Salem; 44 in Houston and 16 near Canton.

Yeah... thatís one reason Iím not convinced canton is an optimal location for a December championship

The temps might be a few degrees colder, but their was ZERO wind in Canton which is very the case in Salem.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: WRMUalum13 on December 17, 2017, 02:44:15 pm
I will always remember how many times the ESPNU commentators made reference to how cold and windy it was.

https://vortex.plymouth.edu/wxpmaps/uschill.gif

At 0400 Zulu 12/16/2017 it is 24 near Salem; 44 in Houston and 16 near Canton.

Yeah... thatís one reason Iím not convinced canton is an optimal location for a December championship

The temps might be a few degrees colder, but their was ZERO wind in Canton which is very the case in Salem.

Quite a bit of snow though
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 18, 2017, 06:45:56 pm
UMHB had a hard run to the Stagg.

After first round Chapman:

Linfield #6
St Thomas #4
Brockport #5.

UMU had:
W&L  (RV27)
CWRU #13
FSU #9
UWO #3
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2017, 02:51:07 pm
MUC and I were discussing the most recent Stagg Bowl.  I have moved the conversation from the ASC board to a more appropriate (National) board.


D O. C.

Mount goes thru the bracket given them by the NCAA. Over the years, Mount has played: UWW, UMHB, Wesley, Wittenberg, Wabash, St. John's, St. Thomas, North Central, UWO, Bethel, Wheaton and numerous others  - in the playoffs. These are teams that are always top rated. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound all that easy.
Try as you may, you can't belittle 13 national championships.
Happy New Year and best to the 'Cats in 2018!
I took your post as an opportunity to look at the "Run to Salem" for UMU and their opponents.

As a proxy for strength of opponent, I used D3football.com's Week #11 Top 25. For a bye or an unranked team, I gave a value of 26. So, the lower the total, the tougher the schedule. (The first Top 25 was in 2003.)

2003  UMU  Bye-26   UWL 7  Wheaton IL 5 Bridgewater 10  =  48
          SJU  Crown -26  SNC  26   Linfield 3 RPI 26   = 81

2005  UMU  MSJ 26  Augie 10 Capital 10 Rowan 11 = 63
         UWW Central 18  SJU 3 Linfield 1 Wesley 24  = 46

2006  UMU  Hope 26  Wheaton IL  18 Capital 4 SJF  16 =  64
          UWW  SNC 26 UWL 7  SJU 12 Wesley 3   = 48

2007   UMU  Ithaca 26  TCNJ 26  SJF 5 Bethel 9 = 66
          UWW  Capital 14  NCC 20 Wabash 12 UMHB 4  = 50

2008  UMU   RMC  26 Hobart 23 Cortland 16 Wheaton IL 25 = 90
         UWW SJU 24 Willamette 6 Wartburg 26 UMHB 5  =  61

2009  UMU W&J 20 Montclair St 24 Albright 26 Wesley 3  = 73
         UWW  Lakeland 26 IWU 14 Witt 12 Linfield  5 = 57

2010  UMU  St Lawrence 26  Del Valley 18 Alfred 26 Bethel 14  = 84
         UWW Franklin 26 Trine 12 NCC 5 Wesley 3  = 44

2011 UMU  Benedictine 26  Centre 25  Wabash 9 Wesley 7  = 67
        UWW  Albion  26 Franklin 17 Salisbury 10 Tommies 3 = 56

2012  UMU  CNU 26  JHU 19 Widener 9 UMHB 2  = 56
         Tommies  SNC 26 Elmhurst 17 Hobart 7 UWO 5 = 55

2013  UMU  W&J 26 Witt 12 Wesley 15 NCC 4 = 57
         UWW  SNC 26 Franklin 20 Linfield 2 UMHB 3  = 51

2014  UMU  Adrian 26 W&J 19 JCU 6 Wesley 4 = 55
         UWW  Macalester 26 Wabash 14 Wartburg 5 Linfield 10 = 55

2015  UMU  St Lawrence 26 Albright 20 Wesley 11 UWW 5 = 60
         Tommies La Verne 26 SJU 10 Wabash 7 Linfield 2  = 45

2017  UMU W&L 26 CWRU 16 Frostburg St 15 UWO 3 = 60
         UMHB Chapman 26 Linfield 8 Tommies 4 Brockport 10 = 48

Using this metric, UMU consistently has had the easier opponents on the way to the Stagg Bowl.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2017, 07:53:34 pm
edward de vere made the next post.

Since somebody has to have the easiest run to the Stagg Bowl for the last 15 years, I invite Ralph Turner, DOC Trolliday and others to make two lists, with teams ranked one through five, regarding who should have had the easiest run to the Stagg Bowl in aggregate the last 15 years.

LIST ONE:  Using the criteria the D3 committee uses, including geography, especially geography of the 500-mile nature.

LIST TWO:  Pure merit, by which I mean the quality of the team.

For instance, LIST ONE might say:  1) Mount Union  2)  Whitewater 3) UMHB  4) St. Thomas 5) Wesley

LIST TWO might say:  1)  Whitewater 2) Mount Union 3) St. Thomas 4)  UMHB 5) Linfield

* * *  Please note:  I just threw out these two lists off the top of my head.  I put about 30 seconds thought into them, just so there would be examples.  * * *

Here are my two questions:  Is there a sane person on Planet Earth who would put Mount Union on LIST ONE (using the committee criteria) lower than number one?  If so, how much lower and WHY?   Is there a sane person on Planet Earth who would Mount Union on LIST TWO ( the pure merit list) any lower than number two?  If so, how much lower and WHY?
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2017, 07:54:53 pm
I made the next post.
Thanks for the comment, edward.

What we are seeing in the 2 lists is a significant difference in the 2 roads to the Stagg.

The perfect 32- team bracket would be List #2. Let's imagine the perfectly seeded bracket (Made possible by Trillions of NCAA March Madness TV dollars). Let's assume the winners always moved forward.

North #1(UMU)  would play #32 national, then #16, then #8 then #4 = 60 points. Since I assigned only 26 points to non-rated teams, we have 26 + 16 + 8 + 4  = 54 points

Other bracket #1 (UMU's Stagg Challenger) would play #31, then #15, then #7 then #3 = 56 points.  Since I assigned only 26 points to non-rated teams, we have 26 + 15 + 7 + 3 = 51 points.
 
The 51-54 point range would be the average bracket.

Fewer than 51-54 points is a tougher post-season bracket. More than 51-54 points is an easier than average bracket.

List 1 is documented on this beautiful D3 football map that was created by the father of a D3 player about a decade ago.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/NCAA_Division_3_football_map.gif

(There needs to be some minor revisions,  but it serves the general purpose.)

Mount Union has the good fortune to be one of the closest teams to the East Region.

Meanwhile UWW, UST, Linfield, and UMHB are not uncommonly meeting in the early rounds, as noted above.
I have emboldened the games in which one of the "five" played each other in the first 3 rounds, before the Semifinals.

It works out to 5 times for the Non-UMU team and none for UMU.

I have italicized the semi-final matchups involving two of the "five". IN that case, there were 7 semi-final games between the non-UMU teams. Twice UMU faced one of the other teams of the "five".
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2017, 08:07:45 pm


D O. C.

Mount goes thru the bracket given them by the NCAA. Over the years, Mount has played: UWW, UMHB, Wesley, Wittenberg, Wabash, St. John's, St. Thomas, North Central, UWO, Bethel, Wheaton and numerous others  - in the playoffs. These are teams that are always top rated. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound all that easy.
Try as you may, you can't belittle 13 national championships.
Happy New Year and best to the 'Cats in 2018!
I took your post as an opportunity to look at the "Run to Salem" for UMU and their opponents.

As a proxy for strength of opponent, I used D3football.com's Week #11 Top 25. For a bye or an unranked team, I gave a value of 26. So, the lower the total, the tougher the schedule. (The first Top 25 was in 2003.)

2003  UMU  Bye-26   UWL 7  Wheaton IL 5 Bridgewater 10  =  48
          SJU  Crown -26  SNC  26   Linfield 3 RPI 26   = 81

2005  UMU  MSJ 26  Augie 10 Capital 10 Rowan 11 = 63
         UWW Central 18  SJU 3 Linfield 1 Wesley 24  = 46

2006  UMU  Hope 26  Wheaton IL  18 Capital 4 SJF  16 =  64
          UWW  SNC 26 UWL 7  SJU 12 Wesley 3   = 48

2007   UMU  Ithaca 26  TCNJ 26  SJF 5 Bethel 9 = 66
          UWW  Capital 14  NCC 20 Wabash 12 UMHB 4  = 50

2008  UMU   RMC  26 Hobart 23 Cortland 16 Wheaton IL 25 = 90
         UWW SJU 24 Willamette 6 Wartburg 26 UMHB 5  =  61

2009  UMU W&J 20 Montclair St 24 Albright 26 Wesley 3  = 73
         UWW  Lakeland 26 IWU 14 Witt 12 Linfield  5 = 57

2010  UMU  St Lawrence 26  Del Valley 18 Alfred 26 Bethel 14  = 84
         UWW Franklin 26 Trine 12 NCC 5 Wesley 3  = 44

2011 UMU  Benedictine 26  Centre 25  Wabash 9 Wesley 7  = 67
        UWW  Albion  26 Franklin 17 Salisbury 10 Tommies 3 = 56

2012  UMU  CNU 26  JHU 19 Widener 9 UMHB 2  = 56
         Tommies  SNC 26 Elmhurst 17 Hobart 7 UWO 5 = 55

2013  UMU  W&J 26 Witt 12 Wesley 15 NCC 4 = 57
         UWW  SNC 26 Franklin 20 Linfield 2 UMHB 3  = 51

2014  UMU  Adrian 26 W&J 19 JCU 6 Wesley 4 = 55
         UWW  Macalester 26 Wabash 14 Wartburg 5 Linfield 10 = 55

2015  UMU  St Lawrence 26 Albright 20 Wesley 11 UWW 5 = 60
         Tommies La Verne 26 SJU 10 Wabash 7 Linfield 2  = 45

2017  UMU W&L 26 CWRU 16 Frostburg St 15 UWO 3 = 60
         UMHB Chapman 26 Linfield 8 Tommies 4 Brockport 10 = 48

Using this metric, UMU consistently has had the easier opponents on the way to the Stagg Bowl.


I have emboldened the games in which one of the "five" played each other in the first 3 rounds, before the Semifinals.

It works out to 5 times for the Non-UMU team and none for UMU.

I have italicized the semi-final matchups involving two of the "five". In that case, there were 7 semi-final games between the non-UMU teams. Twice UMU faced one of the other teams of the "five" in the semi-finals.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: bleedpurple on December 30, 2017, 10:41:49 pm
Wow. Lots of work put in here. Thanks for that. I  am not sure of the context of all this, however. Is it because:
1. There is a dispute as to whether Mount Union's runs to the Stagg are easier than the other top seeds?
2. The perceived disparity between Mount's path and that of the other top seeds is somehow nefarious?
3. The perceived disparity between Mount's path and that of the other top seeds taints the number of championships?
4. Something else.

I think Mount probably has had the easier path many years. But I don't think there is anything nefarious involved. First, they are often the eastern-most number one seed.  Second, having established themselves as an annual power, they will normally get a top two seed, giving them all home games in their run to the Stagg. I think in any given year, it's hard to argue where they have been seeded. 

To be honest, I don't think Mount's path has always served them well in the Stagg Bowl.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: hsbsballcoach7 on December 31, 2017, 11:55:50 am
Wow. Lots of work put in here. Thanks for that. I  am not sure of the context of all this, however. Is it because:
1. There is a dispute as to whether Mount Union's runs to the Stagg are easier than the other top seeds?
2. The perceived disparity between Mount's path and that of the other top seeds is somehow nefarious?
3. The perceived disparity between Mount's path and that of the other top seeds taints the number of championships?
4. Something else.

I think Mount probably has had the easier path many years. But I don't think there is anything nefarious involved. First, they are often the eastern-most number one seed.  Second, having established themselves as an annual power, they will normally get a top two seed, giving them all home games in their run to the Stagg. I think in any given year, it's hard to argue where they have been seeded. 

To be honest, I don't think Mount's path has always served them well in the Stagg Bowl.

Agreed that this hasn't always benefitted UMU. Let me ask this, do you want the number one team to face the toughest challenge? Usually you want to earn a 1 seed to have a slightly "easier" path to the championship. I think that would be a major point. As mentioned before Mount has benefited from being within driving distance to East Region teams, but also because a larger number of quality teams are located in WI, MN, IA, IL, etc.

Just points to ponder.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 31, 2017, 01:24:48 pm
Wow. Lots of work put in here. Thanks for that. I  am not sure of the context of all this, however. Is it because:
1. There is a dispute as to whether Mount Union's runs to the Stagg are easier than the other top seeds?
2. The perceived disparity between Mount's path and that of the other top seeds is somehow nefarious?
3. The perceived disparity between Mount's path and that of the other top seeds taints the number of championships?
4. Something else.

I think Mount probably has had the easier path many years. But I don't think there is anything nefarious involved. First, they are often the eastern-most number one seed.  Second, having established themselves as an annual power, they will normally get a top two seed, giving them all home games in their run to the Stagg. I think in any given year, it's hard to argue where they have been seeded. 

To be honest, I don't think Mount's path has always served them well in the Stagg Bowl.

Agreed that this hasn't always benefitted UMU. Let me ask this, do you want the number one team to face the toughest challenge? Usually you want to earn a 1 seed to have a slightly "easier" path to the championship. I think that would be a major point. As mentioned before Mount has benefited from being within driving distance to East Region teams, but also because a larger number of quality teams are located in WI, MN, IA, IL, etc.

Just points to ponder.
Excellent post.

I agree with the slightly easier path.

In the perfect 32-team bracket, and assuming the higher seed wins in each round, #1 seed will face #32, #16, #8 and #4.

Using the Top 25 scoring system, 26 points + 16 +8 = 50 points.

The #4 seed in its bracket will face #29, #13, #5, and then #1 in the semifinals.

Using the Top 25 scoring system, 26 points + 13 + 5 = 44 points.

That looks the appropriate degree "easier".  We can explain it with geography.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MUC57 on December 31, 2017, 01:34:23 pm
Ralph Turner

You're certainly a class act. I think some other posters could emulate your attitude when responding to comments. Not hostile or argumentative but rather lets look at the situation and talk about it. Damn, that's refreshing.                                 
I have watched football for a lot of my 81 years. However; you have a much better feel for the fine points, like analysis of playoffs, than I.
I tried looking for flaws in your breakdown of the playoffs but, alas, could not find any.
Having said all the above, my comments - for what they're worth.
We. Mount fans have known for some time that we seem to get an easier bracket than others. Meaning no disrespect for these teams, but a 1st round game against St. Lawrence, Randolph-Macon, Adrian, Benedictene is not exactly a challenge. As has been mentioned, maybe a reward for being a #1 seed. We are aware of the situation. I guess we get a little testy when someone points it out!
However; let's look at another aspect of your analysis as it relates to 2017.
UMU had the easier bracket and UMHB had the harder bracket. No argument! But Mount beat UMHB. Can we then infer that Mount could have won the UMHB bracker! Maybe, but I know it doesn't work that way. The old A beats B, B beats C; therefore A beats C. Doesn't work that way. But , something to think about, I guess!
So, given that we have a not quite perfect playoff system, what's the solution? A few tears back we opened the playoffs against Randolph-Macon who came in with a record of 6-4. But they were ODAC champions, although tied with 3 others at 6-4. Should they really be in the playoff Spot? How about a team with no losses that doesn't make it. Or a team with a record of 8-2 or even 7-3 in a tough conference, like the WIAC that can't make it in.
Thanks Ralph for all your work on the playoffs. Thanks also to bleedpurple, several Mount posters and anyone else who contributed to the discussion.
Hey, gives us something to talk about for awhile.
At the risk of being repetitious , Happy New Year. And may your team do well in 2018!
Title: Re:
Post by: MUC57 on December 31, 2017, 02:02:27 pm

Ralph Turner

Also snuk (or is it snuck), how about sneaked, in a +k.
Title: Re:
Post by: bleedpurple on December 31, 2017, 02:42:25 pm

Ralph Turner

Also snuk (or is it snuck), how about sneaked, in a +k.

It's "gave you".  ;D

Happy New Year MUC57 and all posters!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MUC57 on December 31, 2017, 02:53:38 pm
bleedpurple

Yes, I "gave it" to him, but I didn't tell anyone. So..........
Nah nah nah nah nah - followed by sound like the raspberries. So there!

And you said Happy New Ayear. Well, the same to you, fellow.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MUC57 on December 31, 2017, 07:27:17 pm
 
This is an add-on to my long post above.

And UMHB was the defending national champion and ranked #1 all season. Does it matter that Mount had the easier road to the Stagg? Except for UWO, of course. Theoretically, the Stagg Bowl features the top 2 teams in the country. OK, OK, not always in reality but you know what I mean!

Mount Union plays the teams in their quarter of the bracket as set up by the NCAA. Mount has no control over who it is. Someone mentioned earlier that an easy path doesn't help prepare them for the Stagg, or even the semifinal. And that is certainly true! But, so far, for the most part at least, they have done OK.

Would love to hear from others.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 31, 2017, 08:20:06 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful post, MUC57.

It is one thing to rant/boast that UMU has an easier road to the Stagg.

If you listen to Pat and Keith on the podcasts, UMHB and UMU just played another half-season of football.  That means more reps, more practice, and more experience in the post-season for underclassmen who will be starters next season.

Yes, you have a limited roster, but an easier early round opponent gives the coach a chance to give real playing time to the non-starters in playoff games.

This also rests the bodies of the starters in game #11, #12 and maybe #13.

Perhaps the rest and the "easier" level of competition decreases the risk of injury at this time of the year.

UMHB has made it to the Stagg Bowl three times. Over on the Best Teams South Region Board I have listed UMHB's runs.

1) 2016 UMHB -- (15-0) Beat UW-Oshkosh 10-7 in the Stagg. Had a good run to Salem beating (unranked in Week #11 Top 25) Redlands, #8 Linfield, #13 Wheaton IL, #7 Mount Union in the CRUthedral.

2)  2004 UMHB -- (13-2) Did it Ginger Rogers style.  (Refers to the old joke, who was the better dancer...Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers?  Rogers did everything that Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.)  Was a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3.  Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road.  Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.

2017  UMHB Chapman unranked, Linfield #8 Tommies #4 Brockport #10
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: desertraider on December 31, 2017, 11:33:29 pm
All the talk of easier road is fine in any given year - I guess. But let's be realistic: Mount plays whom ever the bracket says they play. They can't control who it is - most of it is determined by geography. However, it's hard to argue easier path over the course of 25+ years. I don't think the NCAA manufactures Mounts results because in all honesty I think they (the NCAA) would prefer to stack the deck against them - especially after this many years. But when all is said and done Mount has played UWW, UWO, Tommies, Johnnies, Wheaton, NCC, Wesley, UMHB, Trinity, Bridgewater, and Rowan (among others) and beat them all. This argument always comes back to this: if you want Mount to have a "harder road" - beat them. jcu beat them in 2016 and Mount went on the road and still made it to the semis (lost 14-12 to eventual champion UMHB) with a 3rd string Fr. QB. Face it - Mount is good. Period.   
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MUC57 on January 01, 2018, 07:43:44 am

desertraider

Welcome to 2018! Your last post was about the same as one I put on the ASC board before Ralph Turner moved the discussion over here. Hope you read my earlier posts on this board. I think, for a change, I made some sense!
You and I seem to understand how the playoff selection impacts Mount. Why can't everyone else?
In the meantime, while others talk about Mount's "easy path" to the Stagg Bowl, we'll be looking for #14, all the while having a good time. Damn, it feels good to be a Mount Union alumnus and a Raider fan!
Best to ya in this new year and go get 'em Raiders!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: crufootball on January 01, 2018, 11:25:39 am
All the talk of easier road is fine in any given year - I guess. But let's be realistic: Mount plays whom ever the bracket says they play. They can't control who it is - most of it is determined by geography. However, it's hard to argue easier path over the course of 25+ years. I don't think the NCAA manufactures Mounts results because in all honesty I think they (the NCAA) would prefer to stack the deck against them - especially after this many years. But when all is said and done Mount has played UWW, UWO, Tommies, Johnnies, Wheaton, NCC, Wesley, UMHB, Trinity, Bridgewater, and Rowan (among others) and beat them all. This argument always comes back to this: if you want Mount to have a "harder road" - beat them. jcu beat them in 2016 and Mount went on the road and still made it to the semis (lost 14-12 to eventual champion UMHB) with a 3rd string Fr. QB. Face it - Mount is good. Period.

The problem with this argument is neither side is ever going to be able to truly understand the other side.

Mount Union fans can accurately point out that they don't make the bracket, that they play whoever is put in front of them and that they have shown they can beat just about everyone on a consistent basis.

However everyone else can point to that fact that the bracket is not "fair" (and never will be) and they are forced into playing tougher teams early in the bracket which means one of them is putting up the pads earlier than they probably should.

And to speak directly to your argument about beating Mount Union, UMHB did and was rewarded this year by playing the 4th, 5th, and 6th best teams in the country, while Mount played the 3rd, 9th and 13th. Now we obviously did lose to Mount Union so they proved they were the better team but I also do have to point out that we held the first string QB to 12 points too, we just didn't score the 14 points this year  ;)

In the end Mount Union is, was, and probably will be on of the best D3 footballs teams in any given year and the rest of us are just doing our best to try to earn our shot to get in the way.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 01, 2018, 11:43:51 am
+1! Crufootball

The D3 playoffs ... "It is what it is."

Detaching ourselves from the emotional involvement of the respective schools, the arguments have been elaborated and we on the "island of D3", along with the NWC, have access to the playoffs.

Win them all.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: MUC57 on January 01, 2018, 11:50:21 am
crufootball

Good post. Can't argue with what you said. UMHB is certainly a standout program. On this day, Mount was better. You'll have to excuse some of us. We tend to be a little overzealous.
I graduated in 1957 (now the MUC57 makes sense),. The four years I was here the team won 10 games total. So those of us that are older are having fun but also get a little testy on some issues.
I hope that recognition for their staggering accomplishments or not, stinging criticizesms or not, the Raiders continue winning. Hey, we're all mostly grown adults. The championships and records cannot be taken away. We know this phenomenal stretch will not last forever.
But damn, this sure does feel good. We're having a great time. Looking for #14.
Good luck to The Cru in 2018. I feel fairly sure you'll be back, fighting for another championship!
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: jknezek on January 01, 2018, 04:47:33 pm
And once again the DI system craps the bed. So thankful how the rest of the NCAA actually allows teams to have a shot at the championship at the beginning of every season.  13-0, beat a team that beat 2 CFP teams, and still no shot at the National Title. It's just pathetic how DI football is run...
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: desertraider on January 01, 2018, 05:21:47 pm
And once again the DI system craps the bed. So thankful how the rest of the NCAA actually allows teams to have a shot at the championship at the beginning of every season.  13-0, beat a team that beat 2 CFP teams, and still no shot at the National Title. It's just pathetic how DI football is run...

Great point. As flawed as some may think the D3 system is - 32 teams have a legitimate shot at a title every year. Some may have a harder road but it doesn't take away from the fact that 32 teams get in the tourney every year. I can't stand to see the D1'ers argue the "playoff" - it isn't a playoff. Put in a system where every conference champ get an AQ (I think it's 19 conferences). Allow 5 pool B or at large or whatever - 24 team tourney. Play starts the Sat after season wraps and goes each Sat until Championship (rotated among the Bowl games like they do now). Get rid of the cupcake games from week 1 and 2 to trim season down to 15 games total.

On the path to Stagg - it has just worked out that UMHB, Linfield, UWW, UWO, Tommies are geographically prohibited from the East bracket. That is going to put them in West/North/South. To fix it...what have teams from CA, TX, MN or WI travel to NY, MD, PA or reverse? I don't see that happening with he travel restrictions in place.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: WRMUalum13 on January 01, 2018, 07:42:48 pm
And once again the DI system craps the bed. So thankful how the rest of the NCAA actually allows teams to have a shot at the championship at the beginning of every season.  13-0, beat a team that beat 2 CFP teams, and still no shot at the National Title. It's just pathetic how DI football is run...

Great point. As flawed as some may think the D3 system is - 32 teams have a legitimate shot at a title every year. Some may have a harder road but it doesn't take away from the fact that 32 teams get in the tourney every year. I can't stand to see the D1'ers argue the "playoff" - it isn't a playoff. Put in a system where every conference champ get an AQ (I think it's 19 conferences). Allow 5 pool B or at large or whatever - 24 team tourney. Play starts the Sat after season wraps and goes each Sat until Championship (rotated among the Bowl games like they do now). Get rid of the cupcake games from week 1 and 2 to trim season down to 15 games total.

On the path to Stagg - it has just worked out that UMHB, Linfield, UWW, UWO, Tommies are geographically prohibited from the East bracket. That is going to put them in West/North/South. To fix it...what have teams from CA, TX, MN or WI travel to NY, MD, PA or reverse? I don't see that happening with he travel restrictions in place.

Thereís only 10 d1 FBS conferences
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: desertraider on January 01, 2018, 09:43:19 pm
And once again the DI system craps the bed. So thankful how the rest of the NCAA actually allows teams to have a shot at the championship at the beginning of every season.  13-0, beat a team that beat 2 CFP teams, and still no shot at the National Title. It's just pathetic how DI football is run...

Great point. As flawed as some may think the D3 system is - 32 teams have a legitimate shot at a title every year. Some may have a harder road but it doesn't take away from the fact that 32 teams get in the tourney every year. I can't stand to see the D1'ers argue the "playoff" - it isn't a playoff. Put in a system where every conference champ get an AQ (I think it's 19 conferences). Allow 5 pool B or at large or whatever - 24 team tourney. Play starts the Sat after season wraps and goes each Sat until Championship (rotated among the Bowl games like they do now). Get rid of the cupcake games from week 1 and 2 to trim season down to 15 games total.

On the path to Stagg - it has just worked out that UMHB, Linfield, UWW, UWO, Tommies are geographically prohibited from the East bracket. That is going to put them in West/North/South. To fix it...what have teams from CA, TX, MN or WI travel to NY, MD, PA or reverse? I don't see that happening with he travel restrictions in place.

Thereís only 10 d1 FBS conferences

Great - even easier. 10 bids, 6 at large. 16 team tourney.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: hsbsballcoach7 on January 01, 2018, 10:06:51 pm
And once again the DI system craps the bed. So thankful how the rest of the NCAA actually allows teams to have a shot at the championship at the beginning of every season.  13-0, beat a team that beat 2 CFP teams, and still no shot at the National Title. It's just pathetic how DI football is run...

Great point. As flawed as some may think the D3 system is - 32 teams have a legitimate shot at a title every year. Some may have a harder road but it doesn't take away from the fact that 32 teams get in the tourney every year. I can't stand to see the D1'ers argue the "playoff" - it isn't a playoff. Put in a system where every conference champ get an AQ (I think it's 19 conferences). Allow 5 pool B or at large or whatever - 24 team tourney. Play starts the Sat after season wraps and goes each Sat until Championship (rotated among the Bowl games like they do now). Get rid of the cupcake games from week 1 and 2 to trim season down to 15 games total.

On the path to Stagg - it has just worked out that UMHB, Linfield, UWW, UWO, Tommies are geographically prohibited from the East bracket. That is going to put them in West/North/South. To fix it...what have teams from CA, TX, MN or WI travel to NY, MD, PA or reverse? I don't see that happening with he travel restrictions in place.

Thereís only 10 d1 FBS conferences

Great - even easier. 10 bids, 6 at large. 16 team tourney.

The D1 complaint is either
1. Too much stress on students to play 15 games and go to class
2. Too short of notice to travel $$$

I think it's all crappy excuses. Why can EVERY SPORT IN EVERY DIVISION do it, but D1? $$$$(so they think) All they have to do to "fix" the number of games is to force people to quit scheduling FCS, Citadel, GA St, Kent State.... they'd "lose money" by losing a home game, but have the potential to gain a ton more if you play even 1 playoff game and keep playing.
Even though I think they'd make more money than now.
8 team playoff with 5 Power 5 conference champs, then 3 at large. Then you still give the Notre Dames, UCF, Boise St, etc a chance if they go undefeated.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: desertraider on January 01, 2018, 10:59:49 pm
And the biggest joke of an excuse is the 'they have to go to class' argument. To many 2 and outs to make that argument. It is all about the money. I would love to see D1 experiment with it 1 year - announce they will try the expanded playoff in 2021. I am willing to bet the money would go up.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 01, 2018, 11:41:38 pm
I have one other perspective. In D-3, 31 coaches lost the last game of the season.

In FBS, 30 coaches won their last game of the season, and I will bet another 10-15 teams were glad to play in a bowl. (Wait til next year!) Much less pressure on the Head Coach.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: joelmama on January 02, 2018, 01:29:40 pm
Ralph,

This is a really good discussion and a lot of good arguments made by a number of folks from almost every region.

The facts are:

Teams in the South and the West are likely to have a tougher road unless D3 expands more in those regions (it is doing so but at a pretty slow pace). 
Mount generally has had an easier time of it, generally being at home and also being in proximity to the East region which has generally been a weaker region for the past two decades.
One factor that might influence the analysis (using the rankings) that you did Ralph is that if a team was playing on the road against a team that should also make the road a little harder.
Mount's reputation and performance in the Stagg has given them the #1 seed a number of years when maybe their performance should have merited them the 2nd, 3rd or 4th seed.

In the end Mount won 13 of 20 Stagg's, and assuming they were playing the best available in D3 in the Stagg that is a pretty good ratio that says Mount however they got their was appropriately placed.
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 02, 2018, 02:09:19 pm
Ralph,

This is a really good discussion and a lot of good arguments made by a number of folks from almost every region.

The facts are:

Teams in the South and the West are likely to have a tougher road unless D3 expands more in those regions (it is doing so but at a pretty slow pace).
Mount generally has had an easier time of it, generally being at home and also being in proximity to the East region which has generally been a weaker region for the past two decades.
One factor that might influence the analysis (using the rankings) that you did Ralph is that if a team was playing on the road against a team that should also make the road a little harder.
Mount's reputation and performance in the Stagg has given them the #1 seed a number of years when maybe their performance should have merited them the 2nd, 3rd or 4th seed.

In the end Mount won 13 of 20 Stagg's, and assuming they were playing the best available in D3 in the Stagg that is a pretty good ratio that says Mount however they got their was appropriately placed.
Thanks for the kind words, joelmanna.

You prompt a thought.

I want to go back to the beginning of the time ( ;)  when D3football.com come online which is roughly when D3 went to the Pool system for football   ;) ) and see who has added football.

Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 02, 2018, 02:25:15 pm
Here's your answer on that, Ralph:
http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/general#16
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 02, 2018, 02:42:40 pm
2013 was a banner year for the South Region :)
Title: Re: 2017 Playoffs
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 02, 2018, 04:16:09 pm
Here's your answer on that, Ralph:
http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/general#16

Thanks!!!  Through 2015


East Region  (10)
1999 - Mount Ida
2001 - Utica
2002 - No new programs
2003 - Endicott, Husson
2005 - Becker
2006 - SUNY-Maritime
2009 - Anna Maria, Castleton State
2011 - Stevenson
2012 - Misericordia

(Announced but yet to take the field: Alvernia, which starts in 2018; University of New England, which will play its first varsity season in the fall of 2018.)
----

North Region (3)
2000 - Rockford, Wisconsin Lutheran
2015 - Finlandia  (having landed as an affiliate in the MIAA)

----

South Region (Starting Fall 1999)  (12)

2000 - Averett, East Texas Baptist, Louisiana College, Shenandoah
2003 - Huntingdon
2004 - North Carolina Wesleyan
2006 - LaGrange
2007 - St. Vincent, Birmingham-Southern
2013 - Hendrix, Berry, Southwestern

West Region (3)

2008 - St. Scholastica
2010 - Pacific
2011 - Presentation (and now NAIA)
2014 - George Fox

...almost as many to the "east" of Mount Union as to the "south" of Mount Union.

For the sake of a balanced playoff, I like Wesley, FSU and Salisbury's move to the NJAC to strengthen the East.  As much trouble as Wesley has given the ASC in the last decade, they are a credit to the East Region and to the evaluation of "balance".