Author Topic: Pool C -- 2014  (Read 136047 times)

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Karma: +749/-531
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #960 on: November 22, 2014, 12:33:41 am »
No, favored. Remember, Curry won a game as a "C" and some don't want that conference even to get an auto bid.

Saying a "C" can only come from 'better' conferences means the others have no chance, even if they do things right (win their non-cons and they scheduled up, and lose one game)

 Smed-  If your position isn't strong enough to stand on the facts, perhaps you should reconsider your position.   
1.  Using the exception as the rule.  How many times have you pointed to Curry as your example?  They are the exception to the rule.  Shall we count the number of Pool C games lost by teams like Curry or the number of Pool C teams won by teams that aren't like Curry? 
2.  Word play.  I don't recall anybody saying Pool C teams can "only" come from the better conferences.  Each candidate should be evaluated based on its merits.  Yes, teams from stronger conferences will have an advantage for obvious reasons, but that doesn't equate to "only" teams from better conferences should qualify as Pool C. 

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Karma: +749/-531
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #961 on: November 22, 2014, 12:48:43 am »
Maybe Oshkosh would have been 9-1. Maybe 8-2. Maybe 7-3. It all depends on who they could have slotted in there. If they played a non-conference slate like Bethel they may have gone 7-3. If they beat up on the MWC and NAC and MIAA they may have gone 9-1. They almost lost to LAX, who wasn't setting everything on fire this year. Almost loss isn't the same as losing, but still...

I looked up the Massey ratings for those three teams. Obviously South Dakota St is far superior to anyone in D3, and I hope the check cleared. Bob Morris is rated around Platteville's neighborhood, and Marian is rated right with John Carroll.

I think the dagger for them was Platteville probably falling out of the ratings (we'll never know). No RR win, unlike St. Thomas. Just six wins. Danger, high voltage.

I don't want to drag the UWO debate on any longer.  They lost 1 D3 game and it was to the defending national champion. 
The main point is that the committee clearly uses subjective measures in their selections as evidenced by Wesley being given the number one seed in their bracket despite a non D 3 loss.   

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Karma: +749/-531
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #962 on: November 22, 2014, 12:57:52 am »
emma, I think the reason for smed's capitalization is that it's the only way to emphasize in print. Words, and phrases take on slightly different meaning when one word is emphasized, as opposed to when it is not. I find that when I read his posts, I can actually hear a voice speaking the words, which lends to my better understanding what he's ACTUALLY ( ;D) saying.

Also, I've tried to get this across before, but I'll try again. OWO's losses to non D III competition just restricts what we know about them as a team. If they had played an all D III schedule, it would give us more upon which to evaluate them. Or, in the same vein, if other D III teams had played the same opponent, it might also tell us more. As it is, it's a big nothing burger. Maybe they are better than teams that made it, but, there's no way to tell.

Just as an example, though St John's beat River Falls by a greater margin than did UWW, it doesn't tell us that the Johnnies are a better team than UWW, but it does tell us that they are somewhere in the vicinity. But just that without the results against Bethel, St Thomas and Gustavus and Augsburg, would tell us a whole lot less.

Thanks Ret, but I'll respectfully disagree. 
Adding Emphasis Without Shouting
By Miss eM@nners
In my view, there is no place for typing in all caps or using formatting to reflect emphasis in business emails.  There is always an alternative in your choice of verbiage that can get your point across with the intended importance.  Using all caps is perceived by many as yelling or shouting and certainly is not a professional way to communicate.

You mean like Wesley?

I'll reiterate, my main complaint with Pool C isn't that UWO didn't get in (although I think they were the obvious choice), it's that TLU was given the Pool B, which automatically resulted in one less Pool C since Centre was getting in with certainty.
TLU should have been put up against all the other Pool C candidates. 

Offline smedindy

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10197
  • Karma: +1099/-916
  • ‘Heliotrope, Hell!’ orated he: ‘We want blood!’
    • View Profile
    • Music reviews for one and all, or me at least.
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #963 on: November 22, 2014, 01:24:09 am »
We don't want to lose the chance that another Curry could happen. It did. It's inconvenient and it did. Big time conferences lay a lot of eggs as "C"s. (John Carroll last year, for example). Others carped last year about "Northeast conferences stealing our bids". I remember those debates well. The fact is that some want to restrict "A" bids and "C" bids to 'favored' conferences.

Favored IS accurate. Because people say they're better, they FAVOR them.

TLU probably would have been the "C", anyway. They had the SOS chops that was very close to Oshkosh and nine wins. If Muhlenberg got in, TLU definitely would have been chosen as a "C".

People lose sight that St. Thomas was ahead of Oshkosh. Oshkosh was not on the board. I believe St. Thomas was the final "C" choice. If it wasn't St. Thomas, it was Muhlenberg. 9-1 is better than 6-1. Same record vs. RR (assuming Platteville got the ziggy). The quibble is with the ranking of Oshkosh behind St. Thomas, NOT with the selection of Muhlenberg or TLU. Can't get selected if you don't get to the board.

Personally, Framingham has a much bigger beef with the selection if Muhlenberg or St. Thomas than Oshkosh does being blocked by St. Thomas.

BTW, Wesley had one non D-3 loss, Oshkosh had three. Wesley also played Charlotte, whose overall athletics program is much stronger and more well financed that SD State. Charlotte is moving to D-1A in 2015 and will be bowl eligible in 2016. Maybe instead of Bob Morris, Oshkosh could have scheduled Wesley?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 01:40:41 am by smedindy »

Offline smedindy

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10197
  • Karma: +1099/-916
  • ‘Heliotrope, Hell!’ orated he: ‘We want blood!’
    • View Profile
    • Music reviews for one and all, or me at least.
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #964 on: November 22, 2014, 02:52:20 pm »
Looks like Muhlenberg proved their playoff mettle, despite the nay-sayers. Took Widener down to the last seconds before losing.

Centre got rolled by JCU, but John Carroll is playing at a very elite level so I think most every D3 team would have gotten jacked up by them today.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 02:59:39 pm by smedindy »

Offline D3AlumniParent

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: +10/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #965 on: November 22, 2014, 03:11:18 pm »
Looks like Muhlenberg proved their playoff mettle, despite the nay-sayers. Took Widener down to the last seconds before losing.

Centre got rolled by JCU, but John Carroll is playing at a very elite level so I think most every D3 team would have gotten jacked up by them today.
JC is a very good team. Most impressed by: 3) overall team speed, 2) defensive line- big, athletic and disruptive, and 1) the QB- that guy is on a different level than anyone on the field. He is truly a defensive back's nightmare because he makes great, accurate throws into tight coverage. Very, very impressed with him.

I'll probably watch JCU's games the rest of the way. If they continue to play like this, it's going to take a excellent effort by an elite team to beat them.

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28612
  • Karma: +1796/-385
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #966 on: November 22, 2014, 04:53:28 pm »
Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow.  I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me.  I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time.  I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion. 

This.  I hated it when Alabama got the second-chance-against-LSU national title.
Yes, but with a 4-team or 8-team playoff in D1FBS that may be more common.

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28612
  • Karma: +1796/-385
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #967 on: November 22, 2014, 05:03:09 pm »
At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?

There have been some very close calls, though.  PLU was a conference runner-up and #7 seed in a 28 team field in 1999.  They won four playoff games on the road and the Stagg Bowl.  SJU was the West #7 the next year and gave Mount all it could handle in the Stagg.  Who's to say that one of those teams just outside the cut couldn't have done the same?  So in theory you don't 'know' for sure. 

That said, I mostly support the current system.  I fully support the Saints and Scots being in, even if they end up losing by 40.  But I'd have some type of 3rd or 4th loss clause, that would affect Benedictine.  If you win a conference (with an AQ) but have 3+ D3 losses - you are evaluated against the other at-large (Pool C) teams for that bid.  I know that not everyone supports the idea (and I understand why).  And of course a 4th loss policy is easier to take than a 3rd loss one.
Pool C 2004 Stagg Bowl UMHB.

Quote
2004 UMHB -- (13-2) ...[w]as a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3 Pool C bids.  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.

And yes, 1999 Pac Lutheran, a Pool C pick to Willamette probably being a Pool B, that first year.

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28612
  • Karma: +1796/-385
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #968 on: November 22, 2014, 05:19:42 pm »
We have had several pages of debate since I posted this.  We are at 24-2-6 for this year. We will probably be 26-0-6 in 2015.  The MASCAC and the SAA take away the Pool B bids.  (I count only 5 potential Pool B teams in 2015, the SCAC-4 and Maranatha Baptist.)

In 2016 & 2017, I believe that the ASC-6 plus the SAA-4 and Maranatha Baptist will compete for 1 Pool B bid. (In the ASC, McMurry and Belhaven don't count. (Which active member will be fielding a team that year who is not in a conference?  Finlandia?)  That makes for 26-1-5.

In 2018, we are back to 27-0-5.

I agree with smedindy. Keep the current AQ system.

When I asked our posters where they thought another conference might arise for the AQ from 7 schools of same mission and vision.

Dave McHugh doubted the Capital AQ which leaves the current NJAC affiliation of the CAC football playing members.

The SCAC would take quite a bit of work to get the next 3 football playing members.

The 4 UAA schools have affiliated with the Pres AC and the SAA.

The Empire 8 has become a nice "Upstate New York" conference with its SUNYAC affiliates.

The UMAC and the SLIAC affiliates have settled on an arrangement, after the SLIAC failed its Pool A attempt.

The NESCAC will continue to play their own brand of ball.

I don't see where we have any change

The East Region football schools seem to have maximized their options in the MASCAC, the NEFC and the ECFC.

Thanks but I still see at least 5 Pool C bids for the rest of the decade.

Can anyone else seriously propose a Conference seeking AQ status in football?

Offline smedindy

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10197
  • Karma: +1099/-916
  • ‘Heliotrope, Hell!’ orated he: ‘We want blood!’
    • View Profile
    • Music reviews for one and all, or me at least.
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #969 on: November 22, 2014, 06:32:22 pm »
When the ASC loses it's grandfathered bid, it's 25-1-6 in 2016 and 2017, and 26-0-6 in 2018 right since it will be back to the SCAC + Maranatha. Is Finlandia joining the UMAC?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 06:38:03 pm by smedindy »

Offline art76

  • All-Region
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Karma: +364/-64
  • # yum update
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #970 on: November 22, 2014, 06:34:14 pm »
When the ASC loses it's grandfathered bid, it's 25-1-7 in 2016 and 2017, and 26-0-6 in 2018 right?

The math doesn't work - 25 + 1 + 7 = 33.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. - C.S. Lewis

Offline smedindy

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10197
  • Karma: +1099/-916
  • ‘Heliotrope, Hell!’ orated he: ‘We want blood!’
    • View Profile
    • Music reviews for one and all, or me at least.
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #971 on: November 22, 2014, 06:38:41 pm »
When the ASC loses it's grandfathered bid, it's 25-1-7 in 2016 and 2017, and 26-0-6 in 2018 right?

The math doesn't work - 25 + 1 + 7 = 33.

Derp, fixed.

I just couldn't get to 27 auto bids. The ASC loses one, then gets it back when McMurry and Bellhaven come fully on board.

Offline smedindy

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10197
  • Karma: +1099/-916
  • ‘Heliotrope, Hell!’ orated he: ‘We want blood!’
    • View Profile
    • Music reviews for one and all, or me at least.
Re: Pool C -- 2014
« Reply #972 on: November 30, 2014, 12:42:26 pm »
Wesley, championship contenders of course, carry Pool B's banner.

JCU carries the torch for "C" against Mt. Union.