Author Topic: Playoffs -- 2015  (Read 39150 times)

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28610
  • Karma: +1796/-385
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Playoffs -- 2015
« on: November 17, 2015, 02:42:43 am »
New thread for the 2015 Playoffs.

Offline D3MAFAN

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Karma: +74/-29
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2015, 09:14:37 am »
PLAYOFFS, PLAYOFFS, PLAYOFFS...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdUr5hF0yGc

Offline ExTartanPlayer

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2513
  • Karma: +502/-103
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2015, 09:27:22 am »
A few quick notes:

a) I think we all know that the playoff system has minimal suspense in the first round for most/all teams that are serious national title contenders.
b) I think we all know that the budget does some unfair things in the bracketing, and that "geography" can be blamed for a lot of stuff.
c) Some teams may have harder/easier paths because that was the best way to set up the bracket, but arguing about it does little good.

So let's maybe all put our swords away and keep the focus on the games.  Sure, the Albright/Norwich winner may be doomed next week when they head to Alliance, but let's give the kids their day in the sun, shall we?  So let's kick off the Playoffs thread with a few fun questions to stimulate the first-round discussion (there will be plenty of time to argue about who has the hardest quarterfinal when we actually get to the quarterfinals):

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

*I realize that "competitive" is a highly subjective word.  There are a couple of things that can make a game "competitive" - i.e. does the underdog lead the game beyond the first quarter?  Is the game within a score at halftime?  Does the underdog ever get the ball with a chance to tie the game in the fourth quarter?  I'm using a liberal definition here.  For example, if St. Lawrence is tied 14-14 at halftime with Mount before Mount pulls away and wins 49-14, I think we'd all agree that Mount wasn't really in any danger, but we'd also give St. Lawrence some serious props for doing something no one has done yet this season.  So be creative here.  Will there be any scores that make you look up at halftime and say "Wow, didn't expect that?"
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 09:30:30 am by ExTartanPlayer »

Offline Coolrey

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Karma: +17/-11
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2015, 09:28:13 am »
In comparing the D3 Football projected bracket with the actual, amazing that the projected bracket hit on only three first round match-ups.  I guess the UW-P, Guilford, Whitworth and ONU misses may have something to do with that.  However, just makes one wonder exactly what the NCAA committee considers vs. what the D3 guys do.  I know Wally seems to to have a grip on what goes on and has shed some light on the various considerations the committee takes into account, but it just seems strange that the actual pairings could be so far off of what was projected. 

Offline ExTartanPlayer

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2513
  • Karma: +502/-103
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2015, 09:30:23 am »
In comparing the D3 Football projected bracket with the actual, amazing that the projected bracket hit on only three first round match-ups.  I guess the UW-P, Guilford, Whitworth and ONU misses may have something to do with that.  However, just makes one wonder exactly what the NCAA committee considers vs. what the D3 guys do.  I know Wally seems to to have a grip on what goes on and has shed some light on the various considerations the committee takes into account, but it just seems strange that the actual pairings could be so far off of what was projected.

Ever read those NFL draft projections?  Even guys like Mel Kiper (whose entire job is scouting the draft!) rarely get more than a handful of the first-round picks totally correct - he usually knows which guys are going in the first round, but has a hard time pinning down exactly who is going to take who.  Same thing is in play here.  When one or two of the Pool C dominoes fall differently, it shifts the entire bracketology.

Offline ExTartanPlayer

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2513
  • Karma: +502/-103
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2015, 09:41:23 am »
1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

My own answers to these questions:

1) Couple of good choices here.  I'll go with Salisbury @ Cortland.  Other candidates include UMHB @ HSU, W&L @ Thomas More, maybe ONU @ Franklin.
2) UMHB/HSU seem like the prevailing wisdom here.  Besides that, it's hard to see Mount, UWO, UST, Linfield, et al being pushed in any of their games.
3) Framingham State @ Wesley.  I know that Wesley is a heavy favorite to win, but I could see this game having a lot of points on both sides (like 61-35 or something crazy).  I'll take this game and 100 total points.
4) This is a really tough category.  There aren't a lot of pure shutdown defenses any more (and I don't think any game features two of them).  The "lowest scoring game" might be something like 28-21 (since the few teams who could notch a shutout are likely to score big themselves in round 1).  So I'll take...Dubuque @ St. John's.  Total of 42 points.
5) St. Lawrence @ Mount Union.  I'll predict 67-0.  CSS @ UWO seems like another possibility.

Offline pg04

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 7488
  • Karma: +932/-344
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2015, 09:53:43 am »
Interesting questions, ETP!

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)

Showing my east region bias, but I think the Salisbury/Cortland matchup will be very interesting and close. (Edit: I guess I agree with ETP :) )

2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?

Not in the top 4 seeds. but I do think Johns Hopkins as a 2 seed could have a competitive game with Western New England. I am not sure this counts, as I don't think any of the #1 seeds or any of the other #2 seeds will be challenged.

3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

I'll take Hendrix/Huntingdon. Seems like something wild could happen there. 55-49 Huntingdon in overtimes, 104 total points.

Two other possibilities: Thomas More/Washington and Lee and Cortland/Salisbury


4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

This seems tough because so few teams play big time defense. I'm going to pick the Albright/Norwich game, because I don't think Norwich will score (similar logic could be used for MTU/STL, but I think Mount will score more). So I'll pick Albright 28-3, 31 total points.

5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

UW-Oshkosh 70 - St. Scholastica 7 (63 points)


Offline pg04

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 7488
  • Karma: +932/-344
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2015, 10:02:30 am »
I notice our answers are very similar but I swear I wrote mine before reading yours :P

Offline Pat Coleman

  • D3sports.com Guru
  • Administrator
  • All-American
  • *****
  • Posts: 38385
  • Karma: +4797/-2285
  • Check the front page or FAQs before you ask.
    • View Profile
    • D3sports.com
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 am »
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Let's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Offline SaintsFAN

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 6115
  • Karma: +825/-170
  • Ron Mexico
    • View Profile
    • Thomas More Football
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2015, 11:52:51 am »
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

That was and IS insane.  Dude's got issues.
AMC Champs: 1991-1992-1993-1994-1995
HCAC Champs: 2000, 2001
PAC Champs:  2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
Bridge Bowl Champs:  1990-1991-1992-1993-1994-1995-2002-2003-2006-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013 (SERIES OVER)
Undefeated: 1991, 1995, 2001, 2009, 2010, 2015
Instances where MSJ quit the Bridge Bowl:  2

Offline ExTartanPlayer

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2513
  • Karma: +502/-103
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2015, 11:55:14 am »
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

In a discussion sometime in the last year or two, the very reasonable hazzben made an outstanding point.  Someone had brought up the notion that the committee should be reading the stuff on here to help them sort through things (typical "can-you-believe-the-dumb-committee-did-this" post), and hazzben said something to the effect of "What we discuss on here is all well and good, but I don't want the committee reading fan's opinions at all when putting together the brackets."  He meant that with all respect to the fine work we do in combing the criteria and putting together a mock bracket - just was saying that the folks who are putting the real bracket together should not let anything said on D3boards or otherwise influence their decisions.  Even if we did something that looks "more right" to us (i.e. putting UWP ahead of Whitworth) than what they did.

I don't know if the chair was being tongue-in-cheek or was serious with that comment, but I did find it a little off-putting.  Why so worried about mock brackets?  Shouldn't you just be putting things together yourself?  Isn't the fact that people care enough to put together mock brackets a good thing?

Offline SaintsFAN

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 6115
  • Karma: +825/-170
  • Ron Mexico
    • View Profile
    • Thomas More Football
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2015, 11:57:56 am »
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.


And if that turns out to be the case, you should have Keith, Ryan and Adam Turer do a bracket next year and release them after the main one.  We'll show him! :)
AMC Champs: 1991-1992-1993-1994-1995
HCAC Champs: 2000, 2001
PAC Champs:  2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
Bridge Bowl Champs:  1990-1991-1992-1993-1994-1995-2002-2003-2006-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013 (SERIES OVER)
Undefeated: 1991, 1995, 2001, 2009, 2010, 2015
Instances where MSJ quit the Bridge Bowl:  2

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 5000
  • Karma: +827/-112
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2015, 11:59:45 am »
Someone stepped on his little empire and he didn't like it. Clearly not grasping reality. Mock brackets are pretty much a part of everything in college sports and the little Napoleon didn't want his spotlight questioned.

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3954
  • Karma: +749/-531
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2015, 12:01:08 pm »
Quote
1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

1.  Huntingdon/Hendrix
2.  UMHB and Wabash.  It wouldn't surprise me if UWW and Wheaton are challenged more than some may think.
3.  Huntingdon/Hendrix, Hendrix, 100 points
4.  St. John's/Dubuque, St. Johns, 28 points
5.  St. Thomas/La Verne, St. Thomas, 65 point mov.

Offline pg04

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 7488
  • Karma: +932/-344
    • View Profile
Re: Playoffs -- 2015
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2015, 12:01:55 pm »
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

This really irks me. They'd rather that D3 get no attention at all it seems than get criticism. What's the problem in predicting what will happen? Ugggggh.