Author Topic: Pool C - 2017  (Read 23640 times)

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Karma: +779/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #330 on: November 28, 2017, 06:50:49 pm »
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.

Heading into the 4th quarter W&L trailed UMU 14-0 after two quick scores in the first quarter but the Generals had outgained them and had a massive TOP advantage. But that game wasn't in doubt. As for NCC/UWP... well sure, NCC just lost to UMU who lost in the Stagg. But UWP wasn't on the same field that day. They were buried, monkey stomped, dismantled. It wasn't competitive. So by your rules, they really shouldn't have been in the tournament, right? Couldn't actually compete with the best. And if they shouldn't have been in, then how could a team they beat be in? Your rule creates bad logic all the way around.

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Karma: +779/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #331 on: November 28, 2017, 06:56:03 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.

Oh the advantage isn't the crowd or really the field, it's the travel. Getting up at 6 a.m. for a 4 hour bus ride and a noon start game does no one any favors when they go to compete. Leaving the day before for an even longer bus ride, fast food on the road, and a hotel bed, disrupting the Friday practice schedule does no favors either. DIII teams don't travel like D1 teams. While a short hop conference may not be so bad, an hour or two on the bus isn't a big deal, you start touting 3 and 4 hour pre-game rides or 5 -10 hours the day before, and yes 500 miles on a bus is every bit of 10 hours or more, and it does have an effect.

There is nothing like waking up at your usual time, eating a nice breakfast, wandering leisurely over to the field house and prepping for the game. And that doesn't even factor in places like Huntingdon in Montgomery AL, where the visiting locker room has no AC and is too small for the whole team to dress at once. Halftime is usually done on buses so you can at least get some AC, one bus for offense, one for defense. Try getting dressed in 90 degrees and 70% humidity. You are getting dehydrated before your cleats are on...
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 07:04:56 pm by jknezek »

Offline tf37

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #332 on: November 28, 2017, 10:11:11 pm »
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

Wally,

I respect your viewpoint and I am actually a big fan of the AQ system.  But your last point seems a bit off looking at last years results.  UMHB's last three opponents were all Pool C teams, granted UMU and UWO are not your typical Pool C teams.  But looking back those were much closer games than their first two rounds against AQ teams.

Plus, using your logic, someone could argue that we shouldn't include at least a third of the AQs as well, because they haven't changed the end game either.

Offline emma17

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3767
  • Karma: +721/-526
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #333 on: November 28, 2017, 11:24:44 pm »
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.




Offline USee

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Karma: +465/-239
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #334 on: November 29, 2017, 12:52:29 am »
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.
"Yards are Yards"

Offline USee

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Karma: +465/-239
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #335 on: November 29, 2017, 01:28:02 am »
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.

IWU had a dominant defense that was fast and physical and an average offense that had a gunslinging QB who had no fear of anyone. The weather in that game was a blinding snowstorm with ice on the field in the second half. Those conditions took away IWU's greatest strength as their defensive speed was neutralized and their QB couldn't throw it or run it in that weather. Worst case scenario for IWU. That said, I was impressed with Case Western and think many, including me, under rated them this year.

As for Wheaton, I don't think they should have made the playoffs because of their two losses. I do think it says a lot about the program that they went through some tough times, lost 2 very close and controversial games and then had the first half delay against NCC. They responded to all of that with what was a dominant second half against a legit top 10 team. Many teams would have folded after the dark loss @Millikin. One sign of a great team is how they respond to adversity. This team responded well.

From my perspective, though the criteria say they shouldn't get in and I am fine with that, I will say it was the deepest, fastest and most talented Wheaton team I have seen in 30+ years. If they had made it in, I would not have bet against them.
"Yards are Yards"

Offline wally_wabash

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10267
  • Karma: +1803/-1129
    • View Profile
    • Wally on the Twitter
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #336 on: November 29, 2017, 08:40:23 am »
I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

Wally,

I respect your viewpoint and I am actually a big fan of the AQ system.  But your last point seems a bit off looking at last years results.  UMHB's last three opponents were all Pool C teams, granted UMU and UWO are not your typical Pool C teams.  But looking back those were much closer games than their first two rounds against AQ teams.

Plus, using your logic, someone could argue that we shouldn't include at least a third of the AQs as well, because they haven't changed the end game either.

Appreciate the perspective, although I think you've misread- or at least misinterpreted- my post.  I'm certainly not advocating for less automatic qualifiers and more 2nd/3rd place teams in the tournament.  I think adding more at-large teams at the expense of auto qualifiers is a bad idea.  I think there's useful debate to be had about how to better select the at-large teams even though I'm not sure they selection committees are routinely getting that wrong even with with limited criteria and data that they have to work with. 
"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 Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28161
  • Karma: +1755/-378
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #337 on: November 29, 2017, 09:58:32 am »
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.
You will have the right circumstances for a 2-loss Auburn to be in the field.

The losses include these:  a 14-6 opening week loss at current #1 Clemson, holding Clemson to the lowest point total of the season. The next lowest score by Clemson was a 27-24 loss at Syracuse (a truly ugly Clemson loss); a 27-23 loss to third place SEC West LSU, when LSU scored 13 points in the 4th quarter.

Imagine this scenario for Auburn to win the national championship.

They will have beaten arch-rival Georgia (think Ohio State Michigan or Oklahoma Texas rival) twice, #5 Alabama, and will have won then 2 more games. Who knows! If Wisconsin stumbles, is 11-1 Alabama better than 11-2 Ohio State?  Auburn might have to beat Clemson again, if Clemson beats Miami this weekend. For that matter, Auburn might have to beat Alabama in the championship series again.

Offline pumkinattack

  • All-Region
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
  • Karma: +235/-59
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #338 on: November 29, 2017, 10:04:27 am »
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Karma: +779/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #339 on: November 29, 2017, 10:06:50 am »
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.
You will have the right circumstances for a 2-loss Auburn to be in the field.

The losses include these:  a 14-6 opening week loss at current #1 Clemson, holding Clemson to the lowest point total of the season. The next lowest score by Clemson was a 27-24 loss at Syracuse (a truly ugly Clemson loss); a 27-23 loss to third place SEC West LSU, when LSU scored 13 points in the 4th quarter.

Imagine this scenario for Auburn to win the national championship.

They will have beaten arch-rival Georgia (think Ohio State Michigan or Oklahoma Texas rival) twice, #5 Alabama, and will have won then 2 more games. Who knows! If Wisconsin stumbles, is 11-1 Alabama better than 11-2 Ohio State?  Auburn might have to beat Clemson again, if Clemson beats Miami this weekend. For that matter, Auburn might have to beat Alabama in the championship series again.

And the CFP works a lot differently from DIII. There are 4 spots spread among 5 conferences and the special child Notre Dame. The Group of 5 are never getting one of those spots. In DIII, there are roughly 5 spots for 25 conference runner ups. The numbers are just immensely different and it's a terrible comparison.

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Karma: +779/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #340 on: November 29, 2017, 10:12:12 am »
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.

Auburn - GA is a well known rivalry game. It's the "Deep South's Oldest Rivalry". They have played with only 3 exceptions every year since 1898. Auburn and Alabama took decades off from each other and it took a legislative requirement to get them to play again. UGA-Gtech is definitely an in-state rivalry, but from Georgia's point of view it is nowhere near as significant as Auburn.

While I agree the Iron Bowl is probably bigger these days, Auburn and Georgia are an officially designated rivalry games by the SEC and Malzahn having gone 0-6 prior to this year against Georgia and Alabama was often cited as the reason he would be fired coming into the season. He's pretty safe now of course, but either way, Auburn-Georgia is a huge rivalry.

Offline CRUnk01

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 617
  • Karma: +118/-1
  • For 'ole UMHB!
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #341 on: November 29, 2017, 10:49:48 am »
Ah.  Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.  Former Georgia Tech student (undergrad) checking in.  UGA is definitely their biggest rivalry game, but most dawg fans I know pretend like it's not a big deal.  Their sights are set on SECSECSEC rivals like Florida and, yes, Auburn.  It always throws them for a loop when Tech pulls out a W.  Those are fun years.   ;)
ASC Football Champs 2002-03, 2005-2018 | 2016 D-III National Champions

2016 National Confidence Playoff Pick 'Em Champion
2017 ASC Pick 'Em Co-Champion

Offline Ralph Turner

  • Hall of Fame
  • All-American
  • ********
  • Posts: 28161
  • Karma: +1755/-378
  • Hall of Famer
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #342 on: November 29, 2017, 10:57:33 am »
Auburn and UGA are arch rivals?  Rest of resume point I take but it's definitely and 100% UGA-Ga Tech and, as is more commonly known, Auburn-Alabama.  The Tech-UGA game definitely has yhebold school you'll be working for us one day mentality, which in Atlanta is more true than not, and in alabama, well I don't know what graduates of either of those schools go on to do.
Yes, the "War Eagle" tradition is said to have begun with the 1892 Auburn Georgia game.

http://www.auburn.edu/main/welcome/traditions.html

and is the oldest rivalry in the South (as jknezek notes above).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South%27s_Oldest_Rivalry

The series going into the SEC Championship game is UGA 57 wins, Auburn 56 wins, with 8 ties.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 11:00:06 am by Ralph Turner »

Offline smedindy

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 10081
  • Karma: +1096/-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 #343 on: November 29, 2017, 01:29:51 pm »
There are five Pool C spots available only to teams that have blemishes on their record, which means anybody can find reasons why those teams canít win the Stagg. 
Without any proof at all, Iím a firm believer a Pool C team, even w 2 losses, can win the Stagg. It just requires the right circumstances.

Well the BCS believes that with 2-loss Auburn currently in the 4 team field. Don't think a 2 loss team has ever won the D1 Football national championship. Never is a tough bar to hold on to.

For many years it was a 'mythical' championship anyway. And the BCS doesn't exist anymore. It's now the College Football Playoff - which, well, there are many problems with that name.

Offline jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Karma: +779/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Pool C - 2017
« Reply #344 on: November 29, 2017, 01:43:37 pm »
Should be called the PFP -- The Power Five Playoffs. Or maybe the FBS Invitational Tournament.