Author Topic: Pool C - 2017  (Read 25316 times)

Offline AO

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3590
  • Karma: +1673/-1508
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #315 on: November 28, 2017, 01:53:37 pm »
Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific.  I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have.
I'm guessing if we threw Hansen ratings into the criteria that Wheaton would have gotten picked.  Any criteria that doesn't use margin of victory will always be based upon who you happened to schedule (or how good the rest of your conference is) rather than how you actually performed in those games.

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28309
  • Karma: +1776/-380
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #316 on: November 28, 2017, 02:14:43 pm »
Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific. I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have.
I really like the benefit and the latitude that "once-ranked-always-ranked" gives the Committees.
We aren't ranking teams until after the 9th week. The large number of conference games in so many conferences limits the possibilities for Regionally ranked opponents to play.

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3819
  • Karma: +727/-527
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #317 on: November 28, 2017, 02:24:09 pm »
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.     

Offline AO

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3590
  • Karma: +1673/-1508
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #318 on: November 28, 2017, 02:37:58 pm »
Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific. I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have.
I really like the benefit and the latitude that "once-ranked-always-ranked" gives the Committees.
We aren't ranking teams until after the 9th week. The large number of conference games in so many conferences limits the possibilities for Regionally ranked opponents to play.
It's pretty silly to give extra credit for beating a team that dropped to 12th in the region after losing a tough game and not giving credit for beating a team that lost to a tough opponent earlier in the season and rose to 12th by the end of the season.

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4844
  • Karma: +781/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #319 on: November 28, 2017, 02:57:08 pm »
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.

Offline smedindy

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10111
  • Karma: +1097/-902
  • ĎHeliotrope, Hell!í orated he: ĎWe want blood!í
    • View Profile
    • Music reviews for one and all, or me at least.
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #320 on: November 28, 2017, 02:58:41 pm »
The fact of the matter is that Wheaton lost twice, and finished third in their conference. DPU and Wabash lost twice and finished tied for second. No one is screaming for those two to get into the playoffs. Lake Forest finished 8-2. No one is screaming for them.

I'd say that Concordia - Moorhead may be a better team than Wheaton. So this Wheaton focus puzzles me. CM beat UWW for cripes sake. I know Wheaton rolled North Central, but that was just a weird game, as we know.

Lose twice, you're at the mercy of other teams also falling on their sword.


Offline wally_wabash

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10350
  • Karma: +1823/-1142
    • View Profile
    • Wally on the Twitter
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #321 on: November 28, 2017, 03:36:31 pm »
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

ďThe O line has proven they can block some of the best in the conference and I can't wait to see what they do on Saturday." Matt Hunt, DePauw Quarterback, Sacked 5 times in the 121st Monon Bell Classic

Offline Bombers798891

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4429
  • Karma: +544/-125
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #322 on: November 28, 2017, 03:38:08 pm »

My stance here is that I don't think there's a crisis until the UMAC champ is legitimately pushing out a team that can win five games in this tournament. 

Right, but again, that's your definition of watering down the tournament.

But even taking your interpretation, the problem is, you're still costing that team their shot at a championship. Saying after the fact "Hey, thanks for being the canary in the coal mine" is going to be a small consolation

Offline HScoach

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4499
  • Karma: +1386/-570
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #323 on: November 28, 2017, 04:18:06 pm »
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in.

Going into the playoffs I would have put more credit in Wheaton's basket simply because of the reputation of the CCIW.  However after IWU getting dominated in Round 1, by Case no less, I have trouble thinking Wheaton was anything more than a  good team.   Not a great team that unfortunately dropped a couple games to stellar competition.   It might not be fair, but the weather delay of the NCC game puts an asterisk beside that W in my opinion.
I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3819
  • Karma: +727/-527
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #324 on: November 28, 2017, 04:59:26 pm »
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.

One problem with your question is that it assumes the best non AQ teams have always been invited to the playoffs- they haven't. UWO in 2014 is a perfect example. They didn't even get on the ol' board, yet their only D3 loss was to defending champion UWW. They went 8-2 in 2013, losing to UWW and UWP by a combined total of 4 points- didn't make the playoffs. That's a team that reached the semis in 2012, the quarters in 2015 and the Stagg in 2016. Really, we don't think that team had a shot at knocking off a top 5 team in 2013 and 2014?
 


Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3819
  • Karma: +727/-527
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #325 on: November 28, 2017, 05:05:24 pm »
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in.

Of course every team is capable of playing an excellent half of football, but every team has a ceiling on how excellent that can look.
The two most dominant halves of football I've seen this year, and probably in many years, was UWO vs. NCC last Saturday and Wheaton vs. NCC a few weeks back. People can call it the weather game and whatever else, it doesn't change the level of execution Wheaton demonstrated. Only a highly skilled team can execute at the level it did in that second half. Wheaton's losses came during a very trying time as we all know, by a total of 8 points, including a debatable game winning TD catch. Imo they had what it took to compete with the best.

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4844
  • Karma: +781/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #326 on: November 28, 2017, 05:35:45 pm »
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.

One problem with your question is that it assumes the best non AQ teams have always been invited to the playoffs- they haven't. UWO in 2014 is a perfect example. They didn't even get on the ol' board, yet their only D3 loss was to defending champion UWW. They went 8-2 in 2013, losing to UWW and UWP by a combined total of 4 points- didn't make the playoffs. That's a team that reached the semis in 2012, the quarters in 2015 and the Stagg in 2016. Really, we don't think that team had a shot at knocking off a top 5 team in 2013 and 2014?
 

Well in 2014 they lost by 17 at home to UWW, so I'm not real concerned there. Especially since they were down 24-0 at the end of the 3rd. Doesn't seem real competitive. Could they have won a few tournament games? Absolutely. The National Title? Doesn't seem likely.

As for 2013, you've got something of a case there. They were leading late in both games. But then Platteville kind of hurts doesn't it? Especially since UWP basically got hammered to pieces in round 2 in what wasn't even a competitive game. So no. UWO lost both those games at home. Going on the road to a Top 5 team? I don't think they win games on the road they couldn't win at home.

So yeah, thinking the answer still just doesn't hold water. Teams that win the Stagg don't lose twice at home.

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3819
  • Karma: +727/-527
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #327 on: November 28, 2017, 05:45:58 pm »
It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didnít qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance Iíd pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, Iím not arguing for UWW.
Iíd much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didnít watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they werenít a threat.

I'm curious as to why.  What's in the fabric of Wheaton's 8-2 season that makes them a better option than any of the other Pool C teams? 

FWIW I'm in agreement (I think) that Wheaton is better than 4/5 of the Pool Cs (can't scrub away that h2h loss to IWU), but being better doesn't mean you earned your way in.

Going into the playoffs I would have put more credit in Wheaton's basket simply because of the reputation of the CCIW.  However after IWU getting dominated in Round 1, by Case no less, I have trouble thinking Wheaton was anything more than a  good team.   Not a great team that unfortunately dropped a couple games to stellar competition.   It might not be fair, but the weather delay of the NCC game puts an asterisk beside that W in my opinion.

I have no explanation for IWU.
I commented on the weather delay game, but repeat, a team can't do what it's not capable of doing. Wheaton was dominant over NCC.
2016 quarterfinal game at UMHB. With 2:27 left in 3rd quarter, UMHB 24- Wheaton 16. 334 yards for UMHB, 306 for Wheaton. I believe Wheaton returned most of that team.

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3819
  • Karma: +727/-527
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #328 on: November 28, 2017, 06:13:59 pm »
jknezek,
I understand your point was specific to the last Pool C team to get in or the first left out not being a threat to win it all.
I just don't buy that theory because I don't believe the regional committees necessarily rank based on likely outcome between the teams in their region. Too often, they rank based on wins and losses. Wheaton wasn't on the board but I believe entirely they could give any team a true test. I believe great teams can develop over the course of the season and they can have strange blips as well.   

Can you find me the last team to win a Stagg Bowl with 2 losses? The kinds of teams that win Stagg Bowls just don't do that. One loss? Very, very rarely. Let's put it this way, since 1993, the Stagg Bowl winner has lost a game in the regular season exactly 3 times. UWW lost to St. Cloud State in 2007, which obviously wasn't a DIII opponent, and UMU lost to ONU in 2005 and Pac Lu lost to Willamette in 1999.

So, in the last 24 years, the Stagg Bowl winners have gone 343-3 in those winning seasons. Total losses to DIII opponents? 2. You are telling me a 2 loss team was really a contender for the Stagg? Sorry, logic isn't buying what you are selling, and neither is history. Stagg winners are dominant. They have to be to run the gauntlet.

One problem with your question is that it assumes the best non AQ teams have always been invited to the playoffs- they haven't. UWO in 2014 is a perfect example. They didn't even get on the ol' board, yet their only D3 loss was to defending champion UWW. They went 8-2 in 2013, losing to UWW and UWP by a combined total of 4 points- didn't make the playoffs. That's a team that reached the semis in 2012, the quarters in 2015 and the Stagg in 2016. Really, we don't think that team had a shot at knocking off a top 5 team in 2013 and 2014?
 

Well in 2014 they lost by 17 at home to UWW, so I'm not real concerned there. Especially since they were down 24-0 at the end of the 3rd. Doesn't seem real competitive. Could they have won a few tournament games? Absolutely. The National Title? Doesn't seem likely.

As for 2013, you've got something of a case there. They were leading late in both games. But then Platteville kind of hurts doesn't it? Especially since UWP basically got hammered to pieces in round 2 in what wasn't even a competitive game. So no. UWO lost both those games at home. Going on the road to a Top 5 team? I don't think they win games on the road they couldn't win at home.

So yeah, thinking the answer still just doesn't hold water. Teams that win the Stagg don't lose twice at home.

You come up with some unique rules. I'll counter your rule with my rule, it doesn't matter where a team loses its two games, it's about one question: Did they provide proof they can compete with the best?
UWW-UWO: 263 yards for UWO, 297 for UWW. UWW jumped out w/ 2 quick scores, creating the optical illusion of comfort. I was there, nothing comfortable about it.
UWW scored 24 on UWO, while scoring 43 (and 552 yards) on Mt in the Stagg. A good/great defense keeps a team in the game.
At the end of the day, that's what I'd like the Pool C selection to focus on, selecting teams that have the best chance of keeping the game close enough to be in position to win in the end. 
UWP lost to NCC, which was basically a Stagg Bowl team in 2013.

Offline HScoach

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4499
  • Karma: +1386/-570
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #329 on: November 28, 2017, 06:26:36 pm »
^  at the D3 level I don't think home field means anything more than you get to play in the geographical local (i.e. WEATHER) that you're used to playing in.   Maybe some travel disadvantage due to time lost sitting on your butt in a bus.   During the post season I can see a big advantage for a northern team hosting someone that isn't used to single digit temps, or MHB being used to the Texas winds whereas their opponent is a passing team.   But during the regular season I think it's highly overrated.  D1 and NFL is a different beast because of crowd noise.
I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.