Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jknezek

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 290
16
At public schools it can be difficult to get into all the classes you need for your major in only four years. Generally not an issue for privates.

Agreed. That's why the "within 6 year" measurement was used for the public schools. It's really just food for thought. I don't think there is much doubt having young men with an extra year under their belts, whether structured with the football team or just those who show the commitment to work out on their own for an entire year, is probably advantageous. How advantageous? I have no idea. I suspect less than having a large and active JV program, but that's just my guess.

17
Greyshirting is an interesting concept. It is not a concept that works for all schools however, and is one of the quirks that again creates a very interesting landscape in DIII.

For example you generally find higher numbers at Private Schools:

Washington and Lee 4 year graduation rate: 96%
Case Western: 94%
Johns Hopkins: 93.7%
W&J: 75.3%
Linfield: 65% in 4yrs, 78% in 6 years
UMU: 61.1%
St. Thomas: on time, 60.2%, in 6 years 75.8%

But that doesn't have to be the case:
Del Val: on time: 50.2%, within 6 years 57%
UMHB: on time: 28%, within 6 years 44%
Wesley: on time: 11%, within 6 years 28%


Then you have state schools, which set very different criteria. For example, they use a "reasonable graduation schedule" which is 2-3 years for a 2 year degree and 4-6 years for a 4 year degree.

Brockport: 68.9%
UWO (within 6 years) 52%
UWW (within 6 years) 57-60% depending on year

But that doesn't have to be the case with public schools:
College of NJ: 71.6% on time (2yrs for 2yr degree, 4yrs for 4yr degree), 84.5% within 6 years

Most info from Collegefactual.com

Regardless, there is no point in greyshirting at many schools. You are going to graduate before you get to that 5th year. But at public schools, it is harder to graduate in 4 years and greyshirting, especially with the roster limits in the WIAC and NJAC, becomes an intriguing option. Is it worth it? I have no idea.

18
Men's soccer / Re: Candidates Forum for Presidency of U.S. Soccer
« on: December 06, 2017, 02:06:02 pm »
I think it's very telling that Gulati came out the other day and said after meeting almost all of the candidates that most of them were going to be incredibly surprised at how little of the job actually involved the National Teams.

19
East Region football / Re: FB: Empire 8
« on: December 06, 2017, 01:44:33 pm »
Grandpa 91 always used to tell me that anything after "but" was bullsh%@

In this case I think the opposite was true. The b.s. came first. But the charity of providing the b.s. just isn't something you see in either of Purplesuit's incarnations. So I suppose he is correct that he would never say those things. My mistake.

20
East Region football / Re: FB: Empire 8
« on: December 06, 2017, 01:38:12 pm »
Well,
Whoever this ohsaa person is- the overall tenor and tone isnt in in line with the rest of the Cru faithful.
Hell it isnt in line with most.
He or she is entitled to their opinion, but there is an arrogance there that seems sophomoric.

For what little he's posted it's almost all OAC stuff. Another PurpleSuit pseudonym perhaps? Or at least a protege.

how dare you!  I would never say the things that Mr Davis....I mean OHSAA13 has posted.  I am offended.

Probably true. You would never open with "I do not intend to be disrespectful with my response, but"... I don't think it would cross your mind to do anything but go forward from after the BUT...

21
East Region football / Re: FB: Empire 8
« on: December 06, 2017, 10:45:08 am »
A UMU person.

Hmmm
Id expect more

Did you interact with PurpleSuit? Or perhaps his current incarnation? Every fan base seems to have a few. Just a question of whether they find their way here or not...

22
East Region football / Re: FB: Empire 8
« on: December 06, 2017, 10:40:49 am »
Well,
Whoever this ohsaa person is- the overall tenor and tone isnt in in line with the rest of the Cru faithful.
Hell it isnt in line with most.
He or she is entitled to their opinion, but there is an arrogance there that seems sophomoric.

For what little he's posted it's almost all OAC stuff. Another PurpleSuit pseudonym perhaps? Or at least a protege.

23
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: December 05, 2017, 07:24:02 pm »
Congrats to Josh Breece, Chris Osier, Max Garrett, D'Eric Bell, and Vic Smith on D3football.com First Team All South Region Team. The first 3 from W&L, the last two from Guilford. More on the 2nd and 3rd team but too hard to switch back and forth on my cell.  Breece is the only FY on the First Team for the South.

24
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: December 05, 2017, 04:34:07 pm »
Just for fun, and because I put the work in to build a spreadsheet last year and I don't want to just waste it  ;D, I calculated Commissioner's Cup Standings after the fall season. These do come with a warning that I might have made an error in how I calculate ties, but it should be pretty close:

Men: Why the different point totals? Because while all these teams play soccer, not all play football and RMC is the odd one out on Cross Country.

W&L 28/30 93.33%,
 Lynchburg 21/23 91.3%,
 Roanoke 19/23 82.6%,
 RMC 14.5/19 76.31%,
 Bridgewater 18.5/30 61.66%,
 H-SC 16.5/30 55%,
 Va Wes 10/23 43.47%,
 Shenandoah 12/30 40%,
 Guilford 10.5/30 35%,
 EMU 7.5/23 32.6%,
 Randolph 6.5/23 28.26%,
 E&H 8/30 26.66%,

Women: yeesh there are a lot of these and points vary based on who runs CC, plays soccer, field hockey and volleyball
W&L 40.5/45 90%,
 Lynchburg 38/45 84.44%,
 Bridgewater 33/45 73.33%,
 RMC 23/33 69.69%,
 Roanoke 30.5/45 67.77%,
 Va Wes 30.5/45 67.77%,
 EMU 21.5/45 47.77%,
 Shenandoah 20.5/45 45.55%,
 Guilford 15/37 40.54%,
 E&H 13.5/37 36.48%,
 Randolph 8/37 21.62%,
 Hollins 6/37 16.21%,
 Sweet Briar 3/25 12%,

Combined Standings exclude the 3 single sex schools:
W&L                   75   68.5   91.333%
Lynchburg   68   59   86.764%
Roanoke           68   49.5   72.794%
RMC                   52   37.5   72.115%
Bridgewater   75   51.5   68.666%
Va Wes           68   40.5   59.558%
Shenandoah   75   32.5   43.333%
EMU                   68   29   42.647%
Guilford           67   25.5   38.059%
E&H                   67   21.5   32.089%
Randolph           60   14.5   24.166%

25
General football / Re: FBS CFP vs. D3 Playoffs
« on: December 05, 2017, 10:58:06 am »
Every NCAA team sport follows the Pool A, B, C model except FBS and D1 basketball, but basketball at least does 32 AQs + 36 at-large so everyone who wins their conference gets into the playoff.  FBS is an outlier and not a good one as the CFP ranking process always omits teams like UCF for "not being good enough" despite being undefeated.   

Yes. But you don't kill the golden goose. And with the NCAA in charge of the tournament, the conferences and teams love to be the ones in charge of FBS. So I really don't expect it to change much, though I do think we will eventually get an 8 team tournament. That is good enough for me. It might still screw over the G5 teams, but I think that is something they are just going to have to live with. They aren't going to be allowed equal footing.

26
General football / Re: 2017 Playoffs
« 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.

27
General football / Re: 2017 Playoffs
« 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.

28
General football / Re: 2017 Playoffs
« 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.

29
General football / Re: 2017 Playoffs
« 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?

30
General football / Re: 2017 Playoffs
« 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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 290