2017 Playoffs

[wally_wabash]

D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway. 

[jamtod]

D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.

Is there any chance that they put some weight on the 2016 H2H with Linfield beating Hardin-Simmons in Texas? It seems odd and I wouldn't have thought the prior year results would impact this situation, but something is definitely amiss unless it is how you say it should be. I guess we'll see who ends up hosting between St Thomas and Berry if both win and that will give us some indication.

[MonroviaCat]

D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.

While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.? 

[jamtod]

D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.

While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

The question arises if the NCAA has historically treated all regions as being equal and awarded HFA to the higher ranked team, even in cross-regional comparisons.

[wally_wabash]

D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.

While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

To clarify what I was getting at, I was just saying that it appears odd that 2S would be behind 4W, not that it is inappropriate in this case.  You have to dig a little to see why that would happen.  I think they've got that right with Linfield hosting Hardin-Simmons. 

[MonroviaCat]

D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.

While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

To clarify what I was getting at, I was just saying that it appears odd that 2S would be behind 4W, not that it is inappropriate in this case.  You have to dig a little to see why that would happen.  I think they've got that right with Linfield hosting Hardin-Simmons.

gotcha..on a related note--the capsules have been updated with both HSU and Linfield now the "likely #3" in the MHB pod.  I'm assuming HSU will eventually be edited to "#4"

[jamtod]

D3FB posted their playoff capsules: http://d3football.com/playoffs/2017/bracket-mary-hardin-baylor

I don't understand their likely seeding of the MHB region at all. Linfield is the "likely #2 seed" when they're behind St. Thomas (likely #5) in the final regional rankings. Can anybody else make sense of this?

Yeah, that's strange to me also.  It looks like they're saying Berry is ranked higher than UST, but that doesn't seem to explain the Linfield/UST thing.  If you really think that Berry > UST, then the order has to be 2-Berry, 3-HSU, 4-UST, 5-Linfield, but we know that can't be because the committee believes Linfield > HSU.  Unless Linfield is hosting HSU for non-criteria reasons (which seems incredibly unlikely). 

I think it should be 2- UST, 3- Linfield, 4- HSU, 5- Berry.  It gets really confusing because it seems weird that the #2 South team would be ranked behind the #3 AND #4 West team, but I'm not sure how else to read that.  Ultimately the "seeds" in that particular corner of the bracket aren't relevant since they can't really pair according to seed anyway.

While I agree that it would make no sense for Linfield to be #2 over St. Thomas I don't get why I keep seeing people confused by the #2 S team being ranked behind a #3 or #4 West team.  Not all regions are created equally and if you put HSU and Linfield in the same region wouldn't Linfield be ranked above HSU based on SOS, RRO, etc.?

To clarify what I was getting at, I was just saying that it appears odd that 2S would be behind 4W, not that it is inappropriate in this case.  You have to dig a little to see why that would happen.  I think they've got that right with Linfield hosting Hardin-Simmons.

gotcha..on a related note--the capsules have been updated with both HSU and Linfield now the "likely #3" in the MHB pod.  I'm assuming HSU will eventually be edited to "#4"

It also now shows St Thomas as the likely #3. And if you look at the last Top 25 ranking for Linfield it shows 2016, so these appear to be a work in progress/editing.

[@d3jason]

They've met 3 times before though it's been a while and didn't work out to W&L's advantage:
Washington & Jefferson (0 - 3)   
Nov. 18, 1916   Richmond   L   6   10
Nov. 29, 1917   Richmond   L   0   12
Oct. 6, 1923   W&J   L   0   1
Compliments of W&L's sports information site. Little confused on the last score however.

W&J shows the 1917 game as 14-0.

W&L forfeited the 1923 game in Washington, PA because W&J's quarterback, Dr. Charles Pruner West, was black and W&J refused to bench him.
FTR: W&J doesn't list that game in its records at all, at least not the ones I have been able to find.[/b]

Interestingly enough, this past Saturday, the Rose Bowl Committee was on hand to recognize Dr. West and announced that he would be inducted into the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame December 30th.  Dr. West was a member of the W&J team that played California to a 0-0 tie in the 1921 Rose Bowl, the only scoreless tie in the history of the Grand-daddy of them all.  W&J played 11 men the entire game, including West.

Another tidbit on that season---on the train to Pasadena, West was forced to ride in the "colored" car.  His teammates chose to also ride with their "teammate, quarterback, leader and friend."

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2011/09/08/W-J-honors-early-black-football-star/stories/201109080225

+K for the history. I'm glad W&L lists that game and counts it against our record. I wish they had an explanation in the records why it was a forfeited game. W&L is increasingly facing it's less than stellar racial past. Keeping this information front and center would be a good reminder of where we've been.

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

[Bob.Gregg]

jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

[jknezek]

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.

[jknezek]

jknezek, WashJeff does not count that game as a win.
According to Athletics Department, NCAA rules say it is a no-contest (game never started--we've seen that a couple times the last two years).

That's ok. I'm quite happy with W&L scoring that one a loss. I looked through the student newspaper articles of the time and found about what you would expect from the W&L side. Definitely a loss for humanity, happy for it to be a loss for the school.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

Will 2017 be the year when the "best" team from the East holds the opponent the ends its season to under 55 points?

2016 #12 Alfred gave up 70 to MUC
2015 #6 Wesley gave up 55 to MUC
2014 #7 Wesley gave up 70 to MUC
2013 #7 Wesley gave up 62 to MUC

The last competitive final score when the best from the East didn't give up 50 or more points was in 2012 when #6 Wesley lost 32-20 to #2 MHB (granted in 2013 they lost 62-59 to MUC in a wild game).

2011 #3 Wesley lost 28-21 to #2 MUC.

Given that the "best" from the East is going to play a beat up MHB/Hardin Simmons/Linfield/St Thomas it would seem to be their best chance.  Normally they face a well rested MUC to end their season.

[edward de vere]

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.

Of course, then you go to Washington.  Doesn't have ALL the same issues as Lee but certainly a slave owner to his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/historic-alexandria-church-decides-to-remove-plaques-honoring-washington-lee/2017/10/28/97cb4cbc-bc1b-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

[jknezek]

 Do you think they will drop Lee at any point?

There is a whole lot of alumni opposition to that move. But W&L has made moves in the past that were incredibly unpopular with the alumni such as going coed and removing the Confederate Flag from the main floor of Lee Chapel. Certainly I don't think it will happen any time soon. I even go back and forth on the idea and I understand the problem it causes. W&L is the least diverse of the top liberal arts schools in this country, and it's not even close. And that affects the rankings and, if you buy into diversity as a benefit as I do, it affects the quality of the experience. As a small example, there are 2, count them 2, black football players. Last year there was 1. It's a huge image problem.

On the other hand, the side Lee chose in the Civil War had little to do with the benefits he brought to the school after the war. He instituted the single sanction honor code, the speaking tradition, he built Lee House, started the first Journalism school in the South, defined a W&L Gentleman (yes, it's a thing and yes it predates our coed integration by over 100 years!), and it's possible he saved a school that was teetering on the brink after losing so many students to the war itself. Did he support some bad things while at W&L as well? Certainly in the context of today he did when looking at the historical record. Though the school had racial issues before his Presidency as well including owning slaves.

W&L's racial past is checkered. The name Lee attached to the school is both a source of pride and a millstone around its neck. I am capable of appreciating Lee's contributions to the school while still understanding he fought on the morally wrong side of a war. But that kind of complexity is not so easy to explain to people all around.

I do not know if Lee's name will always adorn the school, nor do I know if I want it to. But I suspect it will not be going anywhere any time soon.

Of course, then you go to Washington.  Doesn't have ALL the same issues as Lee but certainly a slave owner to his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/historic-alexandria-church-decides-to-remove-plaques-honoring-washington-lee/2017/10/28/97cb4cbc-bc1b-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

I'm willing to draw the line at someone who was following the norms of the day, as badly as we view them through modern eyes, versus someone who was willing to fight a war to keep those norms in place after a significant part of the world and his own country decided it was no longer acceptable. There is a difference. Washington, Jefferson, the Founding Fathers in general, existed in a time when slavery was barely questioned. Lee... well Lee was in charge of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands to preserve an institution that was no longer acceptable in his own time. It's a little different. Though I have no doubt the pendulum will continue swinging too far today and only hope some rationality will return at some point.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

What no one realizes is dropping it to just Washington isn't that smart... there is already a Washington College and a Washington University (of St. Louis; WashU).

Things seem so simple, yet they aren't. Not to mention the fact that Lee, when not a military officer, lead the now W&L in a very substantial way in its history.