Looks to me like we need a dedicated home for our thoughts on the 32 teams who are in the show.
I'll start you all off with a question:
Alma maters and personal allegiances aside, if you could go to one of the 16 games this week, which one would you go to?
I asked myself that same question with a D3 corporate card in hand, looking for a game that would be competitive (sorry alma mater) and would offer me a chance to see two teams I would be eager to see.
Ruling out a flight to Oregon or Texas on a 1-day weekend, I narrowed my choices down to three games where I thought I couldn't determine the winner. Toss-ups if you will:
Lycoming at Hobart
Wabash at Case Western Reserve
Franklin at Otterbein
I chose the latter, because of the opportunity to see two top-notch quarterbacks and offenses, and to gauge whether those teams are capable of pushing North Central for a final four spot.
Lots of other great games too ... Wheaton at Trine could be good. Wesley at Muhlenberg, I've just seen both those teams at least twice in the past two years.
Anyway, your thoughts?
I understand that we are getting Frank Rossi to come to Belton, TX. :)
I appreciate D3football.com (and the generous budget that the subscription sales revenue from KICKOFF 2008 has provided) making it possible to do some things like this.
Naturally, this installment of the "Texas Sub-bracket" is what has the excitement down here.
The QBs in Cleveland aren't be too shabby either.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 18, 2008, 10:30:15 PM
I understand that we are getting Frank Rossi to come to Belton, TX. :)
I appreciate D3football.com (and the generous budget that the subscription sales revenue from KICKOFF 2008 has provided) making it possible to do some things like this.
Naturally, this installment of the "Texas Sub-bracket" is what has the excitement down here.
Indeed. And when I asked Frank if he was available to travel this week, it was with NCAA travel theories in mind. Frank has to fly no matter where he goes, so I might as well send him to Texas.
As crappy as the pairing is for that game, I wouldn't send Frank to Texas for Mary Hardin-Baylor/Wes... well, I might at that, actually, but probably not. :)
Frank, the red carpet should be out! :)
Quote from: cwru70 on November 18, 2008, 10:43:02 PM
The QBs in Cleveland aren't be too shabby either.
We were already staffing that, HSU-UMHB and North Central-Thomas More, among others, so I was advised to choose another game.
Makes me wish I was anywhere near A D-3 school this weekend!
Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2008, 12:13:20 AM
Makes me wish I was anywhere near A D-3 school this weekend!
I think this is my favorite week of the year.
Imagine someday if all 16 of the games were televised ... watchable online somehow ... archived.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2008, 02:43:58 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2008, 12:13:20 AM
Makes me wish I was anywhere near A D-3 school this weekend!
I think this is my favorite week of the year.
Imagine someday if all 16 of the games were televised ... watchable online somehow ... archived.
"D3 TICKET ... in HD!" Just $39.95. Have your credit cards available. ;)
I'd actually like to be in Salem (Oregon) for Oxy at Willa.
Should be a great game - plus, it would be warmer. That would actually fit for Hardin-Simmons at MHB - which would be my second choice.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2008, 08:22:34 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2008, 02:43:58 AM
Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2008, 12:13:20 AM
Makes me wish I was anywhere near A D-3 school this weekend!
I think this is my favorite week of the year.
Imagine someday if all 16 of the games were televised ... watchable online somehow ... archived.
"D3 TICKET ... in HD!" Just $39.95. Have your credit cards available. ;)
I think I would pay that!
I'm still ticked the NCAA has Willmetta & Oxy playing in the first round taking away Oxy's home field advantage at a 2 seed. I was looking forward to catching some DIII playoffs b/c Oxy is about 30 minutes or so from me.
Quote from: dc_has_been on November 19, 2008, 09:38:06 AM
I'm still ticked the NCAA has Willmetta & Oxy playing in the first round taking away Oxy's home field advantage at a 2 seed. I was looking forward to catching some DIII playoffs b/c Oxy is about 30 minutes or so from me.
Welcome to the world of the geographically isolated. It happens in Texas all the time (tho maybe not as badly as Oxy has it this year). We've certainly seen two top-five [national] teams play in the first round before, this year not only is it two top-ten teams and the #1/#3 seeds but also a conference rematch in the first round.
Too bad T. Boone Pickens doesn't like D3 football, with what he's thrown at Ok State the last few years you could fund fair D3 playoffs for eternity with plenty left over.
I would really like to see how Otterbeins D tries to take care of that great QB from Franklin.
Pres. Obama wants to fix DI, maybe being an Oxy alums he will fix D3 next. LOL
Quote from: cwru70 on November 19, 2008, 10:15:09 AM
Pres. Obama wants to fix DI, maybe being an Oxy alums he will fix D3 next. LOL
Until very recently, he hasn't shown to be free-flowing with his cash. Doubt you'll see a check to the AA to cover flights for Oxy, or anyone else coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I can't believe 6% of people thought Mount Union would be the high seed most likely to lose this weekend (Courtesy of the front page survey that Pat just posted)
Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2008, 12:13:36 PM
I can't believe 6% of people thought Mount Union would be the high seed most likely to lose this weekend (Courtesy of the front page survey that Pat just posted)
I think they're just hoping. ;)
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 19, 2008, 12:14:25 PM
Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2008, 12:13:36 PM
I can't believe 6% of people thought Mount Union would be the high seed most likely to lose this weekend (Courtesy of the front page survey that Pat just posted)
I think they're just hoping. ;)
Actually, if this was about "hoping" it would approximate 98% (unanimous outside Alliance....)
Besides Wesley/Muhlenberg, which I will be broadcasting. I think LaGrange/Millsaps. Two great stories there. Or UMHB and Hardin-Simmons... Now I can't decide.... :-\
President Obama isn't an Occidental alum. He started his undergraduate work there but graduated from Columbia.
dc - Look at it this way. If things go as you hope, Oxy will have two home games if they can TCB at Willamette. This is the same number of home games they would have had if the top two seeds would have won their first two games. And, with the added bonus of seeing the West Region final at Oxy. Of course this is all hypothetical, but I'm just trying to snap you out of your whine. I'll send you some Wisconsin cheese if you want. Of course, all of the above is theorhetical. Bottom line is, you still have to win four to get to Salem, and you can't duck winning teams at this time of year.
Quote from: gordonmann on November 19, 2008, 12:52:42 PM
President Obama isn't an Occidental alum. He started his undergraduate work there but graduated from Columbia.
He is not an Oxy graduate,
but he is an alumnus: "a man or boy who is a former student of a school, college or university"
The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1988 ed.)I am making the trip to Oxy v. Willamette and I think it would be my first choice regardless. If, however, I had to take my alma mater out of the mix, I'd probably opt for the UWW v. St. Johns match.
retagent- I'll take some cheese for sure & I also do know you have to win to get to Salem. I just don't know how confident I am in Oxy beating a very good Willamette. If Oxy does "TCB" then I will be enjoying a round two game instead of sitting at my computer listening to all the games.
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on November 19, 2008, 02:42:34 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on November 19, 2008, 12:52:42 PM
President Obama isn't an Occidental alum. He started his undergraduate work there but graduated from Columbia.
He is not an Oxy graduate, but he is an alumnus: "a man or boy who is a former student of a school, college or university" The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1988 ed.)
I am making the trip to Oxy v. Willamette and I think it would be my first choice regardless. If, however, I had to take my alma mater out of the mix, I'd probably opt for the UWW v. St. Johns match.
Oxy has a definition of Alumnus which the college recognizes, outside of the dictionary version. I think it is completion of 10 credits, maybe 12, which is the equivalent of Fresh. year plus one trimester of Soph.
In comparison Graduate requires 35 (I think, it's been a few decades).
I am hoping for a win and rd2 home game against SJU to relive the glorious '85 playoff in which Pat Guthrie called his own number, unbeknownst to the coaching staff and entire O-line who blocked the other direction, with a naked bootleg for the victory clinching TD untouched.
No Tooth
It's not Pat
(But I know how to reach him if you are looking)
Quote from: Conrad on November 19, 2008, 12:34:00 PM
Besides Wesley/Muhlenberg, which I will be broadcasting.
If the broadcasting booth is heater..I would like to join you..if not I'll freeze like the rest of the fans :D :D :D
Not really just going to enjoy the game
Quote from: Conrad on November 19, 2008, 12:34:00 PM
Besides Wesley/Muhlenberg, which I will be broadcasting.
If Muhlenberg wins you can tell everyone on the air that I said I was an idiot for picking the wrong team. ;)
Quote from: retagent on November 19, 2008, 02:22:24 PM
dc - Look at it this way. If things go as you hope, Oxy will have two home games if they can TCB at Willamette.
Had to Google that one. Never seen it acronymized before.
*makes up words*
Quote from: K-Mack on November 20, 2008, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 19, 2008, 02:22:24 PM
dc - Look at it this way. If things go as you hope, Oxy will have two home games if they can TCB at Willamette.
Had to Google that one. Never seen it acronymized before.
*makes up words*
Wouldn't expect a 'kid' like you to know it! :D
I hadn't seen the acronym in probably 25 years, but it's been on several boards the last couple of weeks - must be a comeback. ;)
[OMG, does that mean bell-bottoms might come back, too?! :o]
Quote from: K-Mack on November 20, 2008, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 19, 2008, 02:22:24 PM
dc - Look at it this way. If things go as you hope, Oxy will have two home games if they can TCB at Willamette.
Had to Google that one. Never seen it acronymized before.
Quote
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care, TCB
Sockittomesockittomesockittomesockittome
Sockittomesockittomesockittomesockittome
OxyBob
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2008, 08:20:47 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 20, 2008, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 19, 2008, 02:22:24 PM
dc - Look at it this way. If things go as you hope, Oxy will have two home games if they can TCB at Willamette.
Had to Google that one. Never seen it acronymized before.
*makes up words*
Wouldn't expect a 'kid' like you to know it! :D
I hadn't seen the acronym in probably 25 years, but it's been on several boards the last couple of weeks - must be a comeback. ;)
[OMG, does that mean bell-bottoms might come back, too?! :o]
ROFL WTF NSFW FWIW!
K-Mack I'm sure you've heard Aretha's verion of Respect. Just before the sock-it-to-me s, she sings TCB!
Leisure suits, blue swede high heels and Disco... Shoot me now :-X
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 20, 2008, 09:11:43 PM
Leisure suits, blue swede high heels and Disco... Shoot me now :-X
For those not old enough or too old to know, he didn't mean blue suede. He meant Blue Swede.
Quote from: cwru70 on November 20, 2008, 09:17:35 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 20, 2008, 09:11:43 PM
Leisure suits, blue swede high heels and Disco... Shoot me now :-X
For those not old enough or too old to know, he didn't mean blue suede. He meant Blue Swede.
Glad it wasn't really blue suede - I didn't remember the 50s already coming back in the 70s! :D
Quote from: cwru70 on November 20, 2008, 09:10:02 PM
K-Mack I'm sure you've heard Aretha's verion of Respect. Just before the sock-it-to-me s, she sings TCB!
Wait, she says TCB? I didn't know that.
OogaShakaBob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo-qweh7nbQ&feature=related)
Gas was 25 cent a gallon ,until the embagro :(
If you didn't smoke(cigarettes) ;) you were in the minority.
And teh yuppie movement was afoot ;D
Well Excuuuuuuuuse me!
I still didn't have a clue what you guys were talking about so I decided to TCB on my own and look it up in Wikipedia:
QuoteTCB, an often quoted (or misquoted) lyric from the Aretha Franklin song "Respect"
QuoteFranklin's version of the song contains the famous lines (as printed in the lyrics included in the 1985 compilation album Atlantic Soul Classics):
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care ... TCB
The last line is often misquoted as "Take out, TCP", or something similar, and indeed most published music sheets which include the lyrics have this incorrect line in them. "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" and "T-C-B" are not present in Redding's original song, but were included in some of his later performances with the Bar-Kays.
"TCB" is an abbreviation that was commonly used in the 1960s and 1970s, meaning Taking Care (of) Business, and it was particularly widely used in African-American culture. However, it was somewhat less well-known outside of that culture, yielding a possible explanation as to why it was not recognized by those who transcribed Franklin's words for music sheets.
TCB......................
And workin overtime.
Quote from: TigerOldSchool on November 21, 2008, 02:23:49 PM
TCB......................
And workin overtime.
Nice BTO reference. TGP however is more fond of the Elvis TCB in a Flash moniker:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tcb.artiecollection.com%2Fimages%2FSSTCBNECKLACE.jpg&hash=0064a47b45ba244601d176657fbb41767d7aff19)
When did this devolve to the "I love the 70's" thread?
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2008, 09:23:37 PM
Glad it wasn't really blue suede - I didn't remember the 50s already coming back in the 70s! :D
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sitcomsonline.com%2Fphotos%2Fhappydaysonlinecast.jpg&hash=577505eeec6bfd6e88a623ff250c6b91e4c439f0)
Oh really? ;)
OMG...I actually had blue suede shoes, and white bucks.
Quote from: OxyBob on November 20, 2008, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 20, 2008, 09:10:02 PM
K-Mack I'm sure you've heard Aretha's verion of Respect. Just before the sock-it-to-me s, she sings TCB!
Wait, she says TCB? I didn't know that.
OogaShakaBob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo-qweh7nbQ&feature=related)
I thought he meant on the album, she sings a version of "takin care of business!"
And to think we could be discussing football! pssht.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 21, 2008, 10:11:10 PM
Quote from: OxyBob on November 20, 2008, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 20, 2008, 09:10:02 PM
K-Mack I'm sure you've heard Aretha's verion of Respect. Just before the sock-it-to-me s, she sings TCB!
Wait, she says TCB? I didn't know that.
OogaShakaBob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo-qweh7nbQ&feature=related)
I thought he meant on the album, she sings a version of "takin care of business!"
And to think we could be discussing football! pssht.
Aretha Franklin 1967 Respect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kkgQHcdlZU)
Or listening to good music while we wait for Saturday! :)
ahhhhhhhhhhh the 70"s ... mesh tear away jerseys, high top spikes, when it snowed on the field is WASN'T plowed, and everyone had long hair.
Are those good or bad memories?
I am just glad I remember the 70's at all ;D
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 21, 2008, 10:58:36 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 21, 2008, 10:11:10 PM
Quote from: OxyBob on November 20, 2008, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 20, 2008, 09:10:02 PM
K-Mack I'm sure you've heard Aretha's verion of Respect. Just before the sock-it-to-me s, she sings TCB!
Wait, she says TCB? I didn't know that.
OogaShakaBob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo-qweh7nbQ&feature=related)
I thought he meant on the album, she sings a version of "takin care of business!"
And to think we could be discussing football! pssht.
Aretha Franklin 1967 Respect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kkgQHcdlZU)
Or listening to good music while we wait for Saturday! :)
You do realize I was kidding, right?
Black grandparents = The whole Atlantic R&B and Motown catalogs accompanied every holiday function ever.
Do not get me started on Sam Cooke, The Four Tops et. al.
Listening to the bass accompaniment by the Motown studio musicians...
Wonderful! :)
I admit, I never knew what "TCB" meant in that song either.
And, my Mom's side of the family liked that music a lot too. :)
Ralph, how's the weather in Texas? I don't suppose Columbus is going to be toasty tomorrow. Will check in from on-site :)
As the saying goes - 'if you remember the 60s, you weren't IN the 60s'. ;)
(BTW, the '60s' were actually about 1965 to 1975.)
I had a reason for starting this post, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. ;D
[But I vaguely recall I lived thru the 60s.]
I had platforms shoes (and boots); I had a Nehru jacket; I had leisure suits; I had hair halfway down my back; I even had white bucks; but I NEVER had blue suede shoes! :o
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2008, 12:54:12 AM
Listening to the bass accompaniment by the Motown studio musicians...
Wonderful! :)
But the one constant in Motown songs is the tambourine. Have you seen the documentary "Standing in the Shadows" that features the house band the Funk Brothers?
Well off to cold and snow Cleveland!
kmack,
it should be good football weather today in belton. its 43 in abilene right now, i'd expect 60's by game time in belton and sunny. wish i was going
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 22, 2008, 01:39:39 AM
As the saying goes - 'if you remember the 60s, you weren't IN the 60s'. ;)
(BTW, the '60s' were actually about 1965 to 1975.)
I had a reason for starting this post, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. ;D
[But I vaguely recall I lived thru the 60s.]
I had platforms shoes (and boots); I had a Nehru jacket (and turtle necks); I had leisure suits; I had hair halfway down my back (over my ears and my collar) ; I even had white bucks; but I NEVER had blue suede shoes! (and even some blue suede Hush Puppies). :o
I hadI consider the 1960's beginning with the Beatles on Ed Sullivan in Feb 1964. :)
KZPS Lone Star 92.5 FM (http://www.kzps.com/main.html) here in Dallas uses the tag line...
"Songs you can't forget from times you can't remember." :D
Football in less than 2 hours...
I loved Motown, but I REALLY loved the STAX Memphis sound. Booker T, Isaac Hayes (RIP) Otis Redding............................
+1 for the Sam Cooke reference. He was the man!
The 70's is also when DIV III was formed.. 1973
I hope wdel has the Beavers run in the hi-lights this week.. It was a memorable fun thing to watch from a fans perspective,probably not so much from a coaches view. He took the ball to the left sideline for about seven yards, was boxed in on and reversed course, went fifteen to twenty yards backwords avoiding three or four would be tacklers, went completely to the other sideline and was forced out of bounds after about a 12 yard gain. The play was brought back for a holding call that happened at the end of the run..
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 22, 2008, 01:39:39 AM
As the saying goes - 'if you remember the 60s, you weren't IN the 60s'. ;)
(BTW, the '60s' were actually about 1965 to 1975.)
I had a reason for starting this post, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. ;D
[But I vaguely recall I lived thru the 60s.]
I had platforms shoes (and boots); I had a Nehru jacket; I had leisure suits; I had hair halfway down my back; I even had white bucks; but I NEVER had blue suede shoes! :o
I still have hair halfway down my back. My high school years were "That 70's Show". I do get occasional flashbacks to then.
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 24, 2008, 03:41:12 PM
I still have hair halfway down my back. My high school years were "That 70's Show". I do get occasional flashbacks to then.
Wait, when you say you have hair halfway down your back, do you mean...
long hair:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1182%2F1399579210_bd315273b6.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=e554f19660b5a55eafe73b0a35d0d992683f8fa4)
or hair down your back:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kimberly-edwards.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2FBackHair.jpg&hash=942d1b94edac3f03973057d749ac80cd859dbcfd)
:D :D :D
puh-LEASE!
Quote from: Ryan Tipps on November 24, 2008, 06:58:14 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 24, 2008, 03:41:12 PM
I still have hair halfway down my back. My high school years were "That 70's Show". I do get occasional flashbacks to then.
Wait, when you say you have hair halfway down your back, do you mean...
long hair:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1182%2F1399579210_bd315273b6.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=e554f19660b5a55eafe73b0a35d0d992683f8fa4)
or hair down your back:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kimberly-edwards.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2FBackHair.jpg&hash=942d1b94edac3f03973057d749ac80cd859dbcfd)
:D :D :D
Ahhahahaha
Wait isn't one growing down and one growing up :o
Both ;D
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi265.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii216%2Frichard0304%2F1358892.jpg&hash=67853bde30d92cbdaf7e0b301d5e010ec6d1fa9a)
Quote from: janesvilleflash on November 24, 2008, 08:19:16 PM
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi265.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii216%2Frichard0304%2F1358892.jpg&hash=67853bde30d92cbdaf7e0b301d5e010ec6d1fa9a)
I think that is on the legal game list in Pa.. And you don't need a special tag..
LOL!!!! :D
-Ski
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 24, 2008, 07:35:39 PM
puh-LEASE!
How about the same, except in classic "W&J"?
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn3.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AyJhXXikCoDwJ%3A%3Aeveryoneelse.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Ffighting-back-hair.jpg&hash=bb06f1428c7b4d4be4338846b468591c98b3dd4a)
Go Presidents! :D
Match-ups between Pool C and Pool A conference members:
| Conference | Teams "C" /"A""...................... | Round of Outcome/Potential Match-up |
| ASC | HSU/UMHB | Round #1 UMHB 38-35 |
| CCIW | Wheaton IL/North Central | Regional Finals |
| NEFC | Curry/Plymouth St | Regional Semi-finals |
| OAC | Otterbein/MUC | Semifinals |
| Pres AC | W&J/Thomas More | Stagg Bowl |
| WIAC | UWW/UWSP | Regional Finals |
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 28, 2008, 02:05:48 PM
Match-ups between Pool C and Pool A conference members:
| Conference | Teams "C" /"A""...................... | Round of Outcome/Potential Match-up |
| ASC | HSU/UMHB | Round #1 UMHB 38-35 |
| CCIW | Wheaton IL/North Central | Regional Finals |
| NEFC | Curry/Plymouth St | Regional Semi-finals |
| OAC | Otterbein/MUC | Semifinals |
| Pres AC | W&J/Thomas More | Stagg Bowl |
| WIAC | UWW/UWSP | Regional Finals |
Nice chart, but the CCIW is the only one with two teams alive still.
I've been thinking of something similar this week:
Pool C teams who have outlasted the Pool A conf. champ that defeated them in the regular season:
W&J > Thomas More
UWW > UWSP
Curry > Plymouth State
UMHB >> HSU (beat them again)
North Central ? Wheaton
Mount Union won in the reg. sea. and outlasted Otterbein
Interesting to see the Cs were 4-2 this week. Second chances are often appreciated.
The Bs were 1-2.
So wow, three No. 1 seeds go down today.
We've got two No. 5s hosting, three still alive, along with two No. 7s.
Not that our poll necessarily agreed with having, say, Whitewater that low, but still a nice accomplishment to go to Oregon and win on the road.
Franklin, W&J big wins ... Wartburg the last-second upset.
Also Wheaton last team in, W&J on the bubble ... Wartburg needed help to clinch in Pool A ... and they all put up two wins and move to the Round of Eight.
Good stuff.
I think Mount Union is also going to be playing a team now that can match up physically. Cortland will probably still have to play its best game ... but they're both coming in way hot, as are Wheaton and Franklin.
Let's see
E: No. 3 Cortland at No. 1 Mount Union
N: No. 7 Wheaton at No. 5 Franklin
W: No. 7 Wartburg at No. 5 UW-Whitewater
S: No. 5 W&J at No. 2 UMHB
And of course, a familiar trio hanging around.
For NC, was Fanthorpe hurt and replaced by Kniss? Looked like he came out on a 3rd down, Kniss was sacked, Fanthorpe played the next series, then Kniss finished the game. I'm guessing injury.
Can we make a statement that parity has arrived in D-III? In some ways it's true; but we still have MUC, UMHB, and UW-W hosting regional finals.
Something I've been keeping track of the last couple years...using the seeds and polls to make playoff "predictions:"
2006
NCAA 25-6
D3Football 25-6
AFCA 24-7
2007
NCAA 23-8
D3Football 26-5
AFCA 26-5
so far in 2008
NCAA 13-11
D3Football 15-9
AFCA 15-9
+k...AFCA doing better than I would have guessed.
Quote from: altor on November 29, 2008, 08:21:14 PM
Can we make a statement that parity has arrived in D-III? In some ways it's true; but we still have MUC, UMHB, and UW-W hosting regional finals.
Something I've been keeping track of the last couple years...using the seeds and polls to make playoff "predictions:"
2006
NCAA 25-6
D3Football 25-6
AFCA 24-7
2007
NCAA 23-8
D3Football 26-5
AFCA 26-5
so far in 2008
NCAA 13-11
D3Football 15-9
AFCA 15-9
Appreciate the math, but you do make a point about the Big Three.
And also we're halfway through the '08 postseason, it might be too early to say parity.
If the final four is Cortland State, Franklin, Wartburg and W&J, then I'm rockin and rollin with the parity claim.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 28, 2008, 10:32:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 28, 2008, 02:05:48 PM
Match-ups between Pool C and Pool A conference members:
| Conference | Teams "C" /"A""...................... | Round of Outcome/Potential Match-up |
| ASC | HSU/UMHB | Round #1 UMHB 38-35 |
| CCIW | Wheaton IL/North Central | Regional Finals |
| NEFC | Curry/Plymouth St | Regional Semi-finals |
| OAC | Otterbein/MUC | Semifinals |
| Pres AC | W&J/Thomas More | Stagg Bowl |
| WIAC | UWW/UWSP | Regional Finals |
Nice chart, but the CCIW is the only one with two teams alive still.
I've been thinking of something similar this week:
Pool C teams who have outlasted the Pool A conf. champ that defeated them in the regular season:
W&J > Thomas More
UWW > UWSP
Curry > Plymouth State
UMHB >> HSU (beat them again)
North Central ? Wheaton
Mount Union won in the reg. sea. and outlasted Otterbein
Interesting to see the Cs were 4-2 this week. Second chances are often appreciated.
The Bs were 1-2.
Cs 3-1 this week (lost only Curry) and add another C outlasting its confernence champ in Wheaton/North Central.
Just making sure I'm right on this (putting something out here will find out if it's wrong):
#5 W&J/#2 UMHB winner hosts one semifinal
#1 Mount/#3 SUNY-Cortland winner host the other.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on December 04, 2008, 04:15:52 PM
Just making sure I'm right on this (putting something out here will find out if it's wrong):
#5 W&J/#2 UMHB winner hosts one semifinal
#1 Mount/#3 SUNY-Cortland winner host the other.
Correct. The East and South are hosting the semi's regardless of the winners on Saturday.
Quote from: hscoach on December 04, 2008, 04:24:52 PM
Correct. The East and South are hosting the semi's regardless of the winners on Saturday.
Well, it's only "regardless of the winners" because of the regional rankings of the teams involved. At least as I understand it.
Higher-ranked teams would host. If same ranking, East hosts North. South hosts West.
Right. I didn't mean to imply that it didn't matter every year. It just worked out that the East and South were the higher seeded regions and each have higher ranked teams left. Sorry for the confusion.
Is that "technically true"?
My understanding with the seedings is that the "regions" are/were a farce. Basically the MUC bracket would host one and the Millsaps Bracket hosts the other.
No regions - just brackets. Right?
Now that 3 of the 4 number 1 seeds lost in Round 2 this year, is it fair to state that next season, there should be no talk of the East not getting its own number 1 seed? It seems the majority opinion has been that only an undefeated East team would deserve a Number 1, otherwise, MUC gets imported. Well Cortland is still playing at 11-1, and I think would be a favorite to go to the final 4 against anyone other than MUC, had MUC not been imported. Anyone of the other 3 number 1's apparently did not deserve the number 1 anymore than a one loss Cortland team did, and that should be remembered next year.
Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 05, 2008, 04:31:01 PM
Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.
Actually, with Willamette as #1 and UWW as #5, they still would have played in round 2.
Or are you suggesting they would have beaten UWW if their round 1 opponent was Aurora rather than Oxy?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 05, 2008, 04:31:01 PM
Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.
ok, fair enough perhaps, but what about my question in general? Should there be a blanket presumption next year that all undefeated teams outside the East are more deserving of a #1 seed over a 9-1 East Region team who perhaps lost only to another 9-1 team?
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 05, 2008, 04:32:58 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 05, 2008, 04:31:01 PM
Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.
Actually, with Willamette as #1 and UWW as #5, they still would have played in round 2.
Or are you suggesting they would have beaten UWW if their round 1 opponent was Aurora rather than Oxy?
No, I'm suggesting that the seedings do not reflect the strength of teams in the bracket. Hence "properly seeded."
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 05, 2008, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 05, 2008, 04:32:58 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 05, 2008, 04:31:01 PM
Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.
Actually, with Willamette as #1 and UWW as #5, they still would have played in round 2.
Or are you suggesting they would have beaten UWW if their round 1 opponent was Aurora rather than Oxy?
No, I'm suggesting that the seedings do not reflect the strength of teams in the bracket. Hence "properly seeded."
Gotcha. I focussed only on the geographically-determined match-ups (though the seeds DID probably follow the d3 criteria).
If only considering one, regional winning percentage, then yes. :)
Quote from: SJFF82 on December 05, 2008, 04:00:46 PM
Now that 3 of the 4 number 1 seeds lost in Round 2 this year, is it fair to state that next season, there should be no talk of the East not getting its own number 1 seed? It seems the majority opinion has been that only an undefeated East team would deserve a Number 1, otherwise, MUC gets imported. Well Cortland is still playing at 11-1, and I think would be a favorite to go to the final 4 against anyone other than MUC, had MUC not been imported. Anyone of the other 3 number 1's apparently did not deserve the number 1 anymore than a one loss Cortland team did, and that should be remembered next year.
First off, how long you last in the playoffs isn't really germane to where you should have been seeded, since the committee can't work with with future information to determine seedings.
In the case of Millsaps, North Central and Willamette, they were all properly seeded based on what they did in the regular season, they just lost.
Even if length of stay in the postseason were the sole determinant to judge how strong a team is/was, there are a couple flaws with using that argument to bolster Cortland State. 1) It's kind of hard to use how far you got as a measure when teams are still playing. If Cortland goes on and wins it all, then yeah, hindsight would say they were as good as the other one seeds. But what if Franklin keeps on winning, might say it about them too.
2) Going through Plymouth State and Curry is not the same as having to play Muhlenberg and UHMB, or beating Aurora and Monmouth is not the same beating Oxy and losing to UW-W. All the teams still playing beat good teams and accomplished something no doubt, but I don't think the eight teams alive are necessarily the 8 best teams in the country, and even if they were, it wouldn't necessarily be because they are the last eight standing.
To the crux of your question though, it's not really fair to state that, no.
It's also not an East Region issue solely, since it was discussed that North Central, for instance, could have moved into the No. 1 slot in the West Region if that had been necessary.
The committee is not really charged with building one bracket for each of the four regions; they are charged with building four brackets with as few airplane flights in the first round as possible. It is wise, in that case, to build around the four teams most deserving of a top seed, and whenever possible, use geography to aid that cause.
I don't really see it as the East getting jobbed out of having a No. 1 seed in its own region like you seem to, because there are no regional birthrights to top seeds. They are earned just like every other slot in the field.
Obviously by nature of the AQs and such the field is going to be fairly well balanced with teams from the four regions. I think Cortland would have been a deserving No. 1 seed this season based on the schedule it played, but don't get undefeated confused as the sole determinant. Things worked out rather cleanly, but they could've been ugly.
Say in the case RPI was undefeated in the East playing mighty Endicott for its non-conference game while Mount Union, Willamette, North Central, Wabash, Case Western, Occidental, Trine, Monmouth, et. al. were all unbeaten too. And Cortland had lost to Ithaca just the same.
I wouldn't have had a problem with teams like Wabash, Case, Trine, Monmouth or RPI etc. getting bypassed for top seeds in favor of Willamette, North Central, Millsaps and Mount Union each having brackets built around them instead of making RPI a top seed and North Central or Willamette a No. 2 just to say an East team was a No. 1.
So I think it's perfectly logical to discuss this next year and into the future with the idea of seeding the brackets as best we can without breaking the flight rules.
Whether the committee will continue to make more than one team from the same region No. 1 seeds when they construct the not-officially-regional brackets is not something I can predict.
Quote from: SJFF82 on December 05, 2008, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 05, 2008, 04:31:01 PM
Not sure that's the best way to describe what happened in the West, where the top seed had to face the two other top teams in the bracket in the first two rounds. If that bracket had been properly seeded and matched up, they would still be playing, I feel confident.
ok, fair enough perhaps, but what about my question in general? Should there be a blanket presumption next year that all undefeated teams outside the East are more deserving of a #1 seed over a 9-1 East Region team who perhaps lost only to another 9-1 team?
I understand what you're trying to ask. It's not a matter of East Region strength though.
It's a matter of a 10-0 team that stacks up well on the criteria being more deserving than any 9-1 team that stacks up similarly, and I don't think you're going to disagree with that.
What if the roles were reversed?
Let's say Montclair State, Delaware Valley and St. John Fisher all go undefeated (yes, pretend they beat MUC, or use Ithaca in this example) and no team in the South Region that plays similarly tough schedules goes unbeaten.
Would you contend that St. John Fisher should be the No. 3 seed in the East just so a 9-1 Bridgewater team can lord over the "South bracket?"
Wouldn't it be better to give MSU and SJF seeds no lower than No. 2 if they were both deserving, and build another bracket around Del Val?
In this year's playoffs and post-season Top 25, I don't want fans to forget Hardin-Simmons. They lost on the road to UMHB by 2 (20-18) in the regular season and by a FG in the last seconds on the road in the first round of the playoffs (38-35). How much is home field advantage worth? 3 points?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 06, 2008, 04:55:35 AMIn this year's playoffs and post-season Top 25, I don't want fans to forget Hardin-Simmons. They lost on the road to UMHB by 2 (20-18) in the regular season and by a FG in the last seconds on the road in the first round of the playoffs (38-35). How much is home field advantage worth? 3 points?
It's the voters' duty to look at the playoffs beyond what round you were eliminated in for all teams, not just Texas ones :)
Other examples of teams that should come in pretty high despite going out early would be Willamette, depending on how far UWW goes, and ... maybe Trine ends up looking pretty good with a win against Franklin and a 14-0 loss to Wheaton. Cortland and Hobart played pretty good halves against MUC and could ride that for some votes if no one beats them.
I agree...
Willamette should ride UWW coattails if UWW runs the table. Trine brought some respect to the MIAA.
Two great posts that I have seen are:
USee who remembered the Week #7 Top 25 (http://www.d3football.com/top25/2008/week-7)
and the UMHB fan who wanted to thank UW-SP for giving UMHB Home Field Advantage in this game! :)
The playoff teams I have seen live this year I would rank them:
Franklin
North Central
Trine
Wabash
I think Trine had the best defense of any of these teams but probably the second worst offense. Trine was a deserving playoff rep and much better than any MIAA rep I have seen in quite some time. they could beat many teams in the playoff field IMO.
Keith, I think the basis for the frustration shared by my Eastern friend at Fisher is not so much based on who is/is not undefeated going into the playoffs, but the unfair expectations which seem to be placed upon the East to prove itself as worthy.
It seems to me the committee is placing Mount Union in the East because they don't feel a single team in the East is capable of being a Final 4 competitor. And that the only way for us to "prove ourselves" is to beat Mount Union. Well, Mount Union has lost only 5 games since 1996. So from where I stand, the entire nation has to prove itself if one is measured against Mount Union's greatness. Who in the Northern Region stacks up against Mount? Nobody.
I've studied D3 nationally for 2 decades. I have immense respect for Western Region, which produces numerous strong teams between the WIAC representatives, St. John's, Linfield, etc. If there is a region where top seeds should be distributed elsewhere, it is the West. Any Western champion can play with Mount Union which was clear in last year's championship game.
In the South, you have UMHB and Hardin-Simmons. As has been proven in the playoffs, the quality drops off significantly thereafter not withstanding the occasional Wesley or W&J run. UMHB and HSU are special. Nobody else strikes me as superior to Cortland, Ithaca, Rowan, Fisher, etc.
In the North, you have Mount Union. What else do you have that is any better than the best of the East, or the best of the South after UMHB and Hardin-Simmons? Nothing, as far as I can tell. This year's undefeated top seeds didn't hold up come playoff time.
If the nation is waiting for the East to beat Mount Union to prove it can support a bracket, it is going to be waiting a long time. Put Mount in the North, and the same argument can be made. When is the last time Mount was beaten in the North bracket? The early 90s?
Quote from: K-Mack on December 06, 2008, 01:23:52 AM
First off, how long you last in the playoffs isn't really germane to where you should have been seeded, since the committee can't work with with future information to determine seedings.
Actually it is. It shows the committee overrated the top Northern seeds and the need to export Mount Union. The committee should have a better idea of who is/isn't likely to win games. Otherwise their only requirement is to sort teams by record which could be done by a trained monkey.
Many of you have seen this, but I will share it for the rest of you. Have a good week. :D
QuoteBCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WAR II
US Ranked 4th
After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.
"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."
Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."
German Chancellor Adolph Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."
The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."
Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 08, 2008, 03:18:42 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on December 06, 2008, 01:23:52 AM
First off, how long you last in the playoffs isn't really germane to where you should have been seeded, since the committee can't work with with future information to determine seedings.
Actually it is. It shows the committee overrated the top Northern seeds and the need to export Mount Union. The committee should have a better idea of who is/isn't likely to win games. Otherwise their only requirement is to sort teams by record which could be done by a trained monkey.
Not sure how you can say the committee overrated the top Northern seeds. As Keith mentioned, the seedings are based on the results of the regular season. In the regular season, NCC (#1 seed) beat Wheaton(#7 seed) at Wheaton by 23 points. Trine (#2 seed) beat Franklin (#5 seed). Since NCC smoked Wheaton and Trine beat Franklin, that would make the case against your argument that the committee did have a good idea of who was more likely to win games and justifies the seedings for the region. The fact that Wheaton and Franklin played for the North Region championship doesn't mean the committee got the seedings wrong, it means that both of these teams got hot and played their best football at the right time of the year.
I don't think there is anything unfair about MUC being exported to the East the past couple of years. In 2007, MUC moving east did no favors to the other North region teams as UWW was moved into the North. In 2008, you had no teams in the East that were undefeated. Show me the case that says any of the one loss teams were more deserving of a #1 seed than NCC. Putting MUC in any of the regions will make the rest of the teams in that region look weaker. However, In 02, 05, and 06, MUC's toughest challenges in their championship runs came from teams in the North Region (Wheaton in 02 and Capital in 05 and 06). In 02, MUC played John Carroll in the semis, and won 57 - 19. JCU was exported to the East region as a #7 seed and won the region. So I don't think it's realistic to say that there are no other teams in the North region that are better than the best of the East. I think the playoffs in these years prove that's true.
As a fan of a North Region team, I certainly understand your frustration in having MUC moved to the east the past two years. However, IMO, I just don't think the facts support some of the comments made in your posts.
The John Carroll export was a one time deal. If you want to bring that up, then you might also want to consider Ithaca's 1988 and 1991 D3 championships where they destroyed every team in their path...except for Eastern teams which gave them strong games.
John Carroll needed OT to beat Brockport, which was down to its 4th string quarterback. To say John Carroll convincingly emerged from the Eastern Region bracket is a little bit of a stretch.
Outside of Mount Union, the North region has one meaningful win over the East in 2 decades. And that game was in OT.
As far as which teams in the East deserved to be ranked higher than teams in the North...we'll answer that question this weekend. If Wheaton gets blown off the field by Mount Union like they usually do, you'll have your answer. Because for 2 consecutive seasons, the only teams besides UWW to give Mount Union a run are Ithaca and Cortland.
I stand by what I wrote, that the North bracket did not have a strong enough #1 or #2 to justify its bracket. That went away when Mount Union moved East. If they had moved a Western team into the North bracket again, I'd have no argument with Mount moving East. NC and Trine did not hold up to playoff scrutiny.
Sounds logical, but wouldn't you be getting into flying teams?
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 08, 2008, 07:45:29 PM
The John Carroll export was a one time deal. If you want to bring that up, then you might also want to consider Ithaca's 1988 and 1991 D3 championships where they destroyed every team in their path...except for Eastern teams which gave them strong games.
John Carroll needed OT to beat Brockport, which was down to its 4th string quarterback. To say John Carroll convincingly emerged from the Eastern Region bracket is a little bit of a stretch.
And JCU's quarterback was on one knee, with a team playing its third consecutive road game, total of 16 hours each direction spread over three weeks. Those are fairly relevant "yeah buts" too.
The committee has a difficult job determining the best 32 teams then trying to create the most competitive match-ups to create a tournament format to determine a true champion on the field. "what-ifs" and "coulda beens" are always going to exist. All a team can do is beat the teams they are matched against and take care of their business.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 08, 2008, 07:45:29 PM
The John Carroll export was a one time deal. If you want to bring that up, then you might also want to consider Ithaca's 1988 and 1991 D3 championships where they destroyed every team in their path...except for Eastern teams which gave them strong games.
John Carroll needed OT to beat Brockport, which was down to its 4th string quarterback. To say John Carroll convincingly emerged from the Eastern Region bracket is a little bit of a stretch.
Outside of Mount Union, the North region has one meaningful win over the East in 2 decades. And that game was in OT.
As far as which teams in the East deserved to be ranked higher than teams in the North...we'll answer that question this weekend. If Wheaton gets blown off the field by Mount Union like they usually do, you'll have your answer. Because for 2 consecutive seasons, the only teams besides UWW to give Mount Union a run are Ithaca and Cortland.
I stand by what I wrote, that the North bracket did not have a strong enough #1 or #2 to justify its bracket. That went away when Mount Union moved East. If they had moved a Western team into the North bracket again, I'd have no argument with Mount moving East. NC and Trine did not hold up to playoff scrutiny.
There are no facts to base this opinion on. Are you saying that Ithaca, who lost to Mt Union 42-18 and Cortland, who lost 41-14, gave Mt Union a game and no one from the North did?? So if Wheaton loses this weekend 42-7 (which could happen) does that mean the east dominates the North?? Are you serious? You have to do better than that.
The East and the North don't get to play each other much aside from Mt Union (and they crush you just like they crush the North teams). So how many Stagg bowls has the east won? I'll answer...it's 6 since 1973. The West has 8 and the North has 21. Oh but wait....Mt Union is in the North. OK, pull out their 9 wins. Its still 12 North Championships to 8 west and the east is third at 6 (I gave the south 1 w West Georgia). 8 different North teams have won the Stagg, 6 different west teams and 3 different East teams.
I won't speculate on the strength of the North vs the East with a lack of hard data but I have a hard time saying the seedings aren't fair when Mt Union is playing teams that are geographically closer to them than any CCIW team. Its also hard to follow your argument when you selectively use different time frames from 2 decades to 2 years. I think you have to look at the whole thing. Mt Union has been the story for the last 15 years and the East has had as much of a chance as any team to change that and they haven't. If you want to go back further than that the history books don't get much better for the East vs North story.
Widener 1977 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1977.htm) One of two teams from the "South" Region.
Widener 1981 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1981.htm) One of two teams from the "South" Region.
West Georgia 1982 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1982.htm) which beat the old Bishop College, from here in Dallas.
I think that you must give the South Region three crowns.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 08, 2008, 11:38:36 PM
Widener 1977 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1977.htm) One of two teams from the "South" Region.
Widener 1981 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1981.htm) One of two teams from the "South" Region.
West Georgia 1982 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1982.htm) which beat the old Bishop College, from here in Dallas.
I think that you must give the South Region three crowns.
Sorry Ralph. I checked the current regions and Widener is listed as an East team. I didn't know they were South at one point. I am happy to give the South credit. This makes my North v East argument stronger as it takes 2 of the 6 away and gives the East 4 Staggs among only 2 teams.
Quote from: USee on December 08, 2008, 11:54:08 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 08, 2008, 11:38:36 PM
Widener 1977 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1977.htm) One of two teams from the "South" Region.
Widener 1981 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1981.htm) One of two teams from the "South" Region.
West Georgia 1982 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/1982.htm) which beat the old Bishop College, from here in Dallas.
I think that you must give the South Region three crowns.
Sorry Ralph. I checked the current regions and Widener is listed as an East team. I didn't know they were South at one point. I am happy to give the South credit. This makes my North v East argument stronger as it takes 2 of the 6 away and gives the East 4 Staggs among only 2 teams.
No, thank you. +1!
I hadn't given it any thought until you started counting by regions. :)
Knowing the migration of schools from the NAIA to D3, I looked at who was selected to participate in those playoffs.
The MAC was moved to the East Evaluation Region in 2004.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 08, 2008, 02:59:40 AMKeith, I think the basis for the frustration shared by my Eastern friend at Fisher is not so much based on who is/is not undefeated going into the playoffs, but the unfair expectations which seem to be placed upon the East to prove itself as worthy.
It seems to me the committee is placing Mount Union in the East because they don't feel a single team in the East is capable of being a Final 4 competitor.
Stop right there.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
Its not about East strength or Mount Union or Final Fours.
It's about giving No. 1 seeds to the best teams possible.
If the four top teams in the playoffs were Willamette, UW-W, Occidental and Mary Hardin-Baylor, obviously they couldn't build an Eastern bracket around one of them, and somebody would be stuck being a No. 2 seed even if their resume seemed to reflect them as a No. 1. But given the opportunity to do so and -- this is key -- with the lack of a similarly deserving team providing another option -- they had to build the bracket this way, out of fairness to the entire field.
Think of it as the committee picking four deserving No. 1 seeds and then drawing 500-mile circles around them to make sure they can all bus in the first round.
(where is the link to that map?)
Maybe I should stop typing, as people seem to be getting more confused.
No region is "entitled" to a No. 1 seed.
You have to get your mind off of "East" brackets if you want to properly understand the way the committee is operating.
But if you want to play that game, who in the East deserved a No. 1 seed this year more than the four teams who got them? Should 10-0 North Central should have been a No. 2 seed so a team with a loss could be a No. 1? Millsaps? Willamette?
Like I said, if an NJAC and MAC team were each 10-0 and no south region team had a comparable resume, the same logic would lead to a "South" bracket built around one of them.
The way to "prove yourself" is to compile a resume worthy of a No. 1 seed, which your very own Cortland State seemed slated to do until Cortaca, and then a bracket is built around them.
BL: They win that game, this discussion isn't taking place.
Quote from: Augie6 on December 08, 2008, 01:30:41 PM
I don't think there is anything unfair about MUC being exported to the East the past couple of years.
Me neither. Well said. And if we were to be really precise about this, technically Mount Union was never "exported" to the "East Bracket." Rather, East Region playoff qualifiers have been "imported" into the "Mount Union Bracket" the past two years.
I blame myself for mis-describing it.
Link to D3 Football Map (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=5805.0)
Quote from: K-Mack on December 09, 2008, 01:05:28 AM
Quote from: Augie6 on December 08, 2008, 01:30:41 PM
I don't think there is anything unfair about MUC being exported to the East the past couple of years.
Me neither. Well said. And if we were to be really precise about this, technically Mount Union was never "exported" to the "East Bracket." Rather, East Region playoff qualifiers have been "imported" into the "Mount Union Bracket" the past two years.
I blame myself for mis-describing it.
This site began calling the brackets by the #1 seed in
2004 (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/04/capsules.htm).
Keith, No I don't think North Central deserved a #1 seed because they weren't even close to being one of the Top 4 teams in the country. I'd have a hard time arguing for them to have been better than Top 10. Massey's computer ratings puts them at #8, Laz at #9. I don't swear by those numbers, but they seem pretty realistic to me.
I think maybe we are failing to see each other's points. I have no problem with MUC being in the East, if a top WIAC team or another relevant power within 500 miles is imported to give the North a legitimate contender to match up with MUC in the semifinals. What we have right now is pretty par for the course. UMHB vs UWW in a titanic showdown, MUC vs Wheaton in a mismatch.
USee - Some of the North teams you are counting for championships aren't even D3 anymore, particularly Dayton. And when was the last time Wittenberg was a serious contender for a national championship? Also, Widener's championships should be considered because they are currently considered Eastern.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 09, 2008, 02:31:52 AM
Keith, No I don't think North Central deserved a #1 seed because they weren't even close to being one of the Top 4 teams in the country. I'd have a hard time arguing for them to have been better than Top 10. Massey's computer ratings puts them at #8, Laz at #9. I don't swear by those numbers, but they seem pretty realistic to me.
I think maybe we are failing to see each other's points. I have no problem with MUC being in the East, if a top WIAC team or another relevant power within 500 miles is imported to give the North a legitimate contender to match up with MUC in the semifinals. What we have right now is pretty par for the course. UMHB vs UWW in a titanic showdown, MUC vs Wheaton in a mismatch.
USee - Some of the North teams you are counting for championships aren't even D3 anymore, particularly Dayton. And when was the last time Wittenberg was a serious contender for a national championship? Also, Widener's championships should be considered because they are currently considered Eastern.
Your logic is burdensome to follow. You say don't count Dayton but count Widener; Wittenberg's success is too old but Ithaca's is usable; look back 2 decades for North but not more than 2 yrs for the East. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Perhaps it would be better to approach this from what you CAN prove than what you disagree with. I havn't seen anything close to a rational argument for what you are trying to say. Heck, I don't even know what you ARE trying to say.
For the record I think Keith is dead on right about the committee and they got it right this year too. If an east team wanted to be a #1 there is an easy solution, win your games.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 09, 2008, 02:31:52 AM
Keith, No I don't think North Central deserved a #1 seed because they weren't even close to being one of the Top 4 teams in the country. I'd have a hard time arguing for them to have been better than Top 10. Massey's computer ratings puts them at #8, Laz at #9. I don't swear by those numbers, but they seem pretty realistic to me.
At the end of the regular season, if North Central wasn't #4 in the country, then who was? And you can't use playoff results to make your point. The playoff seeds are based on the regular season. As such, no East team had a resume worth a #1 and North Central did. You also have to factor in that NCC plays in a pretty good conference. It isn't like they went 10-0 in the MWC. They had as good a resume as Millsaps.
OK, so let's assume NCC wasn't worthy. So who in the East was worthy that should have kept Mount in the North? Ithaca? Cortland? Each had a loss with the Cortland one being a blowout in week 10. Not a great resume for earning a #1 seed.
Everyone keeps using hindsight of the actual playoff outcomes to prove that NCC wasn't worthy, but I'll turn that around and prove the same thing about the East's powers.
Ithaca lost to Curry in Round 1.
Cortland's only playoff wins were against Plymouth State and Curry. Hardly a tough run to the regional finals.
Now how is that greatly different than what has transpired in the North?
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 09, 2008, 02:31:52 AM
USee - Some of the North teams you are counting for championships aren't even D3 anymore, particularly Dayton. And when was the last time Wittenberg was a serious contender for a national championship? Also, Widener's championships should be considered because they are currently considered Eastern.
The last time Witt was a beast was back before they left the OAC for easier, greener pastures in the NCAC.
And how does Dayton moving to 1-AA eliminate them from being part of the historical database?
If you want to talk about ONLY the last 2 seasons, then you're right. The North has been down. Expand the discussion to the last 5-10 years, and you're wrong.
If the benchmark in this discussion in how someone matches up to Mount Union, then let's take a walk down memory lane:
1993: Mount's toughest games were 2nd round vs Albion (north) and Rowan (east). Albion had a 16-14 lead on Mount late in the 3rd quarter before losing 30-16 and Rowan had a 24-21 lead heading into the 4th before losing 34-24.
1994: Mount lost to Baldwin Wallace in the regular season 23-10, beat #1 ranked Allegheny (north) on the road in the 1st round and lost at eventual National Champion Albion (north) 34-33 in the 2nd round. Didn't play an east team.
1995: Mount's toughest game was a 20-17 loss to eventual National Champion UW-LaCrosse (west) in the semi-finals. Next toughest was 41-37 win over Marietta. Didn't play an east team.
1996: Mount's toughest game was a 31-26 win over Allegheny (north) in 1st round. Next best game was a 39-21 win over La Crosse (west) in the semi-finals. Stagg was a 56-24 win over Rowan (east).
1997: Mount's toughest game was a 34-30 win over Allegheny (north) where MUC intercepted a pass deep in their territory in the final seconds. Only other team to stay within 30+ all season was Ohio Northern in losing 38-14. Semi's were 54-7 over Simpson (west) and 61-12 over Lycoming (south). Didn't play an east team.
1998: easily Mount's toughest season. 3 come from behind wins in regular season over Ohio Northern (42-37), John Carroll (21-14) and Baldwin Wallace (30-21). Playoff wins over Albion (north) 21-19 where Albion missed at 34 yd FG to win it on the last play, 21-19 over Wittenberg (north), 34-29 win over Trinity (south). Easiest playoff win was 44-24 win over Rowan in the Stagg.
1999: Mount's toughest game was a 24-17 OT loss to Rowan in the semi-finals. Mount also went 3 OT's with John Carroll in the regular season winning 57-51. 1st round was a good one too as Augustana (north) rushed for 398 yards and controlled the clock for 48+ minutes.
2000: Mount's toughest game was 10-7 Stagg win over St. John's (west). Next toughest would be 41-31 win over John Carroll in week 3 and 32-15 win over Wittenberg (north) in round 2. Semi-finals were a white-washing of Widener (south) 70-30. Didn't play an east team.
2001: Mount's toughest game was a 33-30 win over John Carroll in week 3 where Mount had to convert 4th & long to keep the game winning drive alive that ultimately ended with a TD with 26 seconds left. Next toughest was 30-27 Stagg win over Bridgewater (south) when Mount took a 17 point lead into the 4th and hung on. Didn't play an east team.
2002: Mount's toughest game was 28-21 win at Baldwin Wallace in week 2. Next toughest was 38-22 win at Capital in week 7 and 35-16 win at John Carroll in week 6. Best playoff game was 42-21 win over Wheaton (north). Stagg was a 48-7 win over Trinity (south). Didn't play a true east team, but beat John Carroll in semi's 57-19 after JCU won the east region.
2003: only close game all season was a 24-6 loss to St John's (west) in the Stagg. Next toughest was week 6 win over John Carroll 34-16. Didn't play an east team.
2004: toughest game was 34-31 loss to Mary Hardin Baylor (south) in the semi-finals. Next toughest was 24-7 win over Baldwin Wallace in week 8. Didn't play an east team.
2005: toughest game was 34-31 win over Capital (OAC runner-up) in round 3. Next toughest was 21-14 loss to Ohio Northern in week 7. Semi-finals were 19-7 win over Rowan. Stagg was 35-28 win over Whitewater where WWW scored with 0:02 left to pull within 7.
2006: toughest game was 17-14 win over Capital (OAC runner-up) in round 3. Next toughest was 35-16 win over Whitewater in Stagg. 3rd toughest was 26-14 win over St John Fisher (east) in semi-finals where Kmic ran for 371 yards.
2007: only game not a 3 TD blowout was 31-21 loss to Whitewater in Stagg. Beat Ithaca 42-18, New Jersey 59-7 and SJF 52-10 from the east and Bethel (west) 62-14 in the playoffs.
2008: Cortland (east) was best team Mount has played to date, but MUC still has Wheaton (north) and Whitewater(west)/Mary Hardin Baylor (south) to go so, but I'd bet my left nut that either WWW or MHB is much better than Cortland. Wheaton? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll find out on Saturday. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that Mount somehow finds a way to survive this week and plays in the Stagg.
So, Mount has played at least one eastern region team in seven previous seasons (93, 96, 98, 99, 05, 06, 07 and 08) and only the 93 and 99 Rowan teams rank amongst the best teams that Mount faced those seasons. In fact, the OAC runner-up has provided almost as much a challenge for Mount in the playoffs as the east has.
I'm not saying the East is an overly weak region, but all this talk the that the North isn't anything but Mount and the East is better than the North w/o Mount is crazy. IMO, both regions are about the same, but the North has MUC which makes the rest of them look worse winning percentage-wise, but makes the region look tougher overall nationally.
HSC,
great recap (although painful). 2 notes of no relevance: 1999 you say no east team but lost to Rowan and in 1995 Wheaton played at MUC and that game was 14-7 in the 4th quarter where Wheaton failed to score for the 4th time in the MUC red zone and Mount blew it open by soring 3x in the 4th on WR screens. Also, Carthage had 4 lead changes in their 2004 battle with Mount and it was 24-20 with 10 minutes to play before MUC scored 2x to win 38-20.
All good stuff
Quote from: hscoach on December 09, 2008, 09:22:44 AM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 09, 2008, 02:31:52 AM
Keith, No I don't think North Central deserved a #1 seed because they weren't even close to being one of the Top 4 teams in the country. I'd have a hard time arguing for them to have been better than Top 10. Massey's computer ratings puts them at #8, Laz at #9. I don't swear by those numbers, but they seem pretty realistic to me.
At the end of the regular season, if North Central wasn't #4 in the country, then who was? And you can't use playoff results to make your point. The playoff seeds are based on the regular season. As such, no East team had a resume worth a #1 and North Central did. You also have to factor in that NCC plays in a pretty good conference. It isn't like they went 10-0 in the MWC. They had as good a resume as Millsaps.
OK, so let's assume NCC wasn't worthy. So who in the East was worthy that should have kept Mount in the North? Ithaca? Cortland? Each had a loss with the Cortland one being a blowout in week 10. Not a great resume for earning a #1 seed.
Everyone keeps using hindsight of the actual playoff outcomes to prove that NCC wasn't worthy, but I'll turn that around and prove the same thing about the East's powers.
Ithaca lost to Curry in Round 1.
Cortland's only playoff wins were against Plymouth State and Curry. Hardly a tough run to the regional finals.
Now how is that greatly different than what has transpired in the North?
HSC and USee,
Great info in your posts. Couldn't agree more.
DP,
Just trying to understand how you can say with such certainty that NCC wasn't a top 4 team in the country. Have you actually seen NCC play this year or are you basing your opinion solely on some computer rankings? If you are basing your opinion on computer rankings, how many DIII teams have you actually seen this year that would give you a basis to determine that those rankings "seem pretty realistic"? NCC was the undefeated champion of the CCIW, a conference that has represented itself well over the years on a national basis and regularly gets two teams into the NCAA playoffs. During the regular season, they decisively beat a Wheaton team on the road, who, at the time, was ranked in the top 5 in the country (and now Wheaton is one of the four teams still standing in the playoffs). Let's also not forget that the CCIW had some other pretty good teams this year (Augie 7-3, Elmhurst 7-3 and IWU, who finished 5th in the conf, at 6-4). Sounds like some pretty good competition to justify a high national ranking, doesn't it?
Without seeing CS, Ithaca or any East region team play this year, I couldn't say if they would beat an NCC or Wheaton. My guess is that those games would be pretty close. But your opinion that there are no strong north teams outside of MUC that are deserving of a high national ranking just doesn't hold up to the facts that HSC and USee have detailed.
Not being a Wheaton backer does not prevent me from pointing out to DanP that in 2003 MUC vs SJU was also a mismatch. ;)
Great summary hscoach...
Historical context for the 2002 MUC Trinity Stagg Bowl...
The Trinity starting QB was suspended from the Stagg Bowl because of disciplinary matters related to a celebratory party on the Riverwalk.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 09, 2008, 10:07:26 AM
Great summary hscoach...
Historical context for the 2002 MUC Trinity Stagg Bowl...
The Trinity starting QB was suspended from the Stagg Bowl because of disciplinary matters related to a celebratory party on the Riverwalk.
Correct. But unless Roy could have played defense too, it wouldn't have mattered. Trinity had no answer for Dan Pugh and the Mount running game.
Quote from: hscoach on December 09, 2008, 10:38:12 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 09, 2008, 10:07:26 AM
Great summary hscoach...
Historical context for the 2002 MUC Trinity Stagg Bowl...
The Trinity starting QB was suspended from the Stagg Bowl because of disciplinary matters related to a celebratory party on the Riverwalk.
Correct. But unless Roy could have played defense too, it wouldn't have mattered. Trinity had no answer for Dan Pugh and the Mount running game.
Yes, that was the thinking down here in Texas was that Trinity would have to outscore MUC to beat them. We were hoping that TU could keep it close. (The weather was very windy that day!)
Quote from: USee on December 09, 2008, 09:18:37 AM
Perhaps it would be better to approach this from what you CAN prove than what you disagree with. I havn't seen anything close to a rational argument for what you are trying to say. Heck, I don't even know what you ARE trying to say.
I'm not sure why you are taking so much offense to my posts USee. No need to start calling me irrational and turn this into something personal.
I have noticed that anytime anyone (not just me) suggests there is very little difference in overall quality between the North and the East once Mount Union is subtracted from the conversation, quite a backlash ensues. Perhaps the onus should be on those who constantly drag down the East to prove their points, rather than survive on their own opinions.
So I'll try to write this as clearly as I can so you can finally understand my posts. The committee clearly screwed up with their selections for top seeds in the North, because they all lost. And because they all lost, there is no longer a suitable opponent capable of giving Mount Union a decent game in the semifinals. In fact there was never a suitable potential semifinal opponent in the North bracket once Mount Union was exported. If North Central or Trine was the real deal, they'd still be playing. A Western or Southern power (within the 500 mile radius) should have been exported to the North to make up for the loss of Mount Union.
Quote from: K-Mack on December 09, 2008, 12:57:10 AM
The way to "prove yourself" is to compile a resume worthy of a No. 1 seed, which your very own Cortland State seemed slated to do until Cortaca, and then a bracket is built around them.
BL: They win that game, this discussion isn't taking place.
You are certainly correct in that the committee would have built a bracket around Cortland or Ithaca had they been undefeated. I don't disagree with you - we both know what the committee would have done.
I don't agree with the committee's logic of basing it all on who is undefeated, and who isn't, to determine seeding and who gets moved from bracket to bracket. 10 games simply isn't statistically significant enough to draw such far reaching conclusions. People get way too caught up with who is 9-1 vs who is 10-0. The difference between a .300 hitter and a .200 hitter over 10 At-bats is whether or not a bloop hit drops in or gets caught.
Mount Union obviously is tons better than anyone in the North and East brackets, so whether you keep them home or move them East, it is still their bracket unless the world gets shocked. Whichever bracket you don't move them to is left with a big hole. Which is why I argue that UWW or someone should have been moved into the North bracket to even things out. Isn't the idea to try to get the perceived 4 strongest teams into a position to win a bracket and advance to the semi's? (not withstanding H-S or Trinity playing UMHB in the first round in recent years)
I'm not sure why everybody thinks I am arguing for Cortland to have had their own bracket. I never once argued that. Even if they were 10-0, they weren't one of the Top 4 teams in the country.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 10, 2008, 06:08:13 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on December 09, 2008, 12:57:10 AM
The way to "prove yourself" is to compile a resume worthy of a No. 1 seed, which your very own Cortland State seemed slated to do until Cortaca, and then a bracket is built around them.
BL: They win that game, this discussion isn't taking place.
You are certainly correct in that the committee would have built a bracket around Cortland or Ithaca had they been undefeated. I don't disagree with you - we both know what the committee would have done.
I don't agree with the committee's logic of basing it all on who is undefeated, and who isn't, to determine seeding and who gets moved from bracket to bracket. 10 games simply isn't statistically significant enough to draw such far reaching conclusions. People get way too caught up with who is 9-1 vs who is 10-0. The difference between a .300 hitter and a .200 hitter over 10 At-bats is whether or not a bloop hit drops in or gets caught.
Mount Union obviously is tons better than anyone in the North and East brackets, so whether you keep them home or move them East, it is still their bracket unless the world gets shocked. Whichever bracket you don't move them to is left with a big hole. Which is why I argue that UWW or someone should have been moved into the North bracket to even things out. Isn't the idea to try to get the perceived 4 strongest teams into a position to win a bracket and advance to the semi's? (not withstanding H-S or Trinity playing UMHB in the first round in recent years)
I'm not sure why everybody thinks I am arguing for Cortland to have had their own bracket. I never once argued that. Even if they were 10-0, they weren't one of the Top 4 teams in the country.
Accurate assessment...
This is D-III, and our student-athletes are not flying around the country to fulfill a perfect #1-#32 #16-#17, etc. bracket.
I think that seemingly everyone else was objecting to the fact that the East region did not have its own team as the #1 seed.
Does this seem to hold over from the days, especially in basketball where every region got 8 bids, regardless of size?
As for Cortland, had those players won the NJAC, and beaten Ithaca, and gone 10-0 doing that, I could not have asked those players to accomplish more with the schedule they were given. They may not have been one of the four best teams in the country when the playoffs worked themselves out, but they had given evidence worthy of being the #1 seed.
Thanks for the feedback Ralph.
It doesn't have to be a perfect Top 4 of course. I'd be happy with a #5-#6 leading a bracket, which I don't think we got this season.
An interesting conundrum - what does the committee do next season if Curry is undefeated? I think the odds favor that they will be undefeated given their competition level. They have wins over Hartwick and Ithaca in back to back playoffs. Do they get a #1 seed and keep Mount Union in the North? That would be a wild decision if it happened, and I don't think it would do much good for the perception of Eastern football.
I agree with you Dan, for years everyone said the East was Rowan and no one else. Now the East is well balanced region. The addition of the MAC to the East region did help a lot. But the East has several good teams and it could be argued that the best team year in, year out in the East is now Hobart.
Take Mount away and the East and North are fairly equal regions. The OAC usually does have two or three strong teams besides Mount. I think minus Mount the top five from the East and the North are fairly equal over the last several years. Perhaps I am wrong but that is my opinion.
I also think Dan is correct, once the East was made to come to the "Mount" UWW should have been moved to the North as not the number 1 but possibly the number 2 seed.
I'm a bit less knowledgeable on the playoffs than many here, but one thing I wondered about from this thread is that while I understand they aren't regional brackets, given a 9 or 10 game schedule (as Dan pointed out is not statistically that valuable), it seems that the system discourages out of conference inter-regional play since they don't count for the playoff profile. Doesn't Wesley and Salisbury end up with 3 or 4 regional games each year so a loss drastically reduces their regional W/L %?
If this is correct, then the brackets are based on "top" teams, but the measurement seems flawed since the regular season is at least 70% in region and more likely 90% - 100% in region. I don't know if Cortland or Ithaca is as good, better or worse than NCC, but there's no way to know in this system. Taken to its extreme, one region could, particularly the south based on the 500 mile rule, have the top 8 teams in the country and only have one in the final four.
Its still better than the BCS, but the travel rule clearly means that seedings and brackets are never fair and hindsight from the playoffs still doesn't tell anyone anything beyond the top three or so teams in the country.
DP,
You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how? I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII. UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW. However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West. UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location. Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected. They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007. The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year). But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed. You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span). But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season. All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance. If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you. However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong. The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.
Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals. If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs? Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument.
Remember, Whitewater ws the fifth seed in its bracket. Monmouth was the highest seeded team in that bracket east of the Mississippi at three. Would (not should) Whitewater have been seeded higher than third in any other bracket?
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 10, 2008, 08:24:55 AM
Thanks for the feedback Ralph.
It doesn't have to be a perfect Top 4 of course. I'd be happy with a #5-#6 leading a bracket, which I don't think we got this season.
An interesting conundrum - what does the committee do next season if Curry is undefeated? I think the odds favor that they will be undefeated given their competition level. They have wins over Hartwick and Ithaca in back to back playoffs. Do they get a #1 seed and keep Mount Union in the North? That would be a wild decision if it happened, and I don't think it would do much good for the perception of Eastern football.
Good morning, Dan!
I am happy with the dichotomy of seeding the teams by the criteria in the Handbook and then letting the teams figure who wins the championship on the field.
I really like the way that D3 has strengthened the conferences. Some conferences are stronger in respective sports, and so the Pool A will be seeded differently in various sports. In any case, I want to honor the conference champions. That is a special goal for which 210+ of the 239-odd teams can strive. (The consolidation into conferences by adding affiliates, and what the E8 does to keep the Pool A bid, is another discussion)
I take some of the wisdom that was used in the old 48-team basketball bracket for "away-home-bye* into the 8-team bracket. Who has demonstrated in the regular season that they deserve three home games? Who has demonstrated that they deserve the host 2 home games? One home game? For seeds, 5-8, how do we match these teams most equitably with the acknowledgment of distance, conference, seed?
As an outsider, I thought that the E8's getting two Pool C bids in 2007 to the exclusion of the Northwest Conference
champion getting even a Pool C bid, i.e., not even being the 9th best at large team in the country, was "East Coast Bias"! ;) It worked the other way this year. In fact, Pool C was so balanced that 1-loss Curry and 2-loss Wheaton earned Pool C's by the criteria. (Curry and Wheaton have justified the decision that they committee made.)
Take home from this year is that there were plenty of qualified teams (Salisbury (9-2) being one of them) that lost a game that they should not have lost. :)
* Who deserves the bye? Who deserves a home game? Who should be happy just to be in the playoffs that we can send on the road for the first game?
Quote from: Augie6 on December 10, 2008, 10:52:37 AM
DP,
You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how? I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII. UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW. However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West. UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location. Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected. They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007. The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year). But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed. You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span). But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season. All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance. If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you. However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong. The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.
Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals. If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs? Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument.
Just to be argumentative, UMHB was/is undefeated in D3 for the season.
Quote from: Toby Taff on December 10, 2008, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: Augie6 on December 10, 2008, 10:52:37 AM
DP,
You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how? I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII. UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW. However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West. UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location. Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected. They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007. The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year). But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed. You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span). But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season. All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance. If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you. However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong. The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.
Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals. If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs? Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument.
Just to be argumentative, UMHB was/is undefeated in D3 for the season.
Yes, but the team that beat UMHB (Southern Oregon) lost to Williamette (a #1 seed in the playoffs) and Linfield (who didn't make the playoffs) and was 3-7 overall. Based on this, I think the selection committee was justified in making Millsaps the #1 seed and UMHB #2.
Quote from: Augie6 on December 10, 2008, 10:52:37 AM
DP,
You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how? I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII. UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW. However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West. UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location. Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected. They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007. The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year). But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed. You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span). But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season. All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance. If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you. However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong. The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.
Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals. If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs? Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument.
It doesn't change your point, but to clarify -- Willamette made the D3 playoffs in '99 and '04.
Quote from: Augie6 on December 10, 2008, 02:32:52 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on December 10, 2008, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: Augie6 on December 10, 2008, 10:52:37 AM
DP,
You say the committee screwed up, but can you explain to me how? I agree with you that, for the past few seasons, MUC and UWW have been head and shoulders above the rest of DIII. UMHB has been very good, but not at the same level of MUC and UWW. However, UWW was not going to get a one seed, as they weren't even the AQ from the WIAC, so there is no reason to move them from their normal spot in the West. UMHB also had a loss and was not going to be moved based on their location. Williamette received the #1 seed, but I certainly don't see their program having a better resume than any of the other #1 seeds that the committee selected. They had a great year in 2008, but this is their first time in playoffs since 1997 and they were coming off a 4-6 record in 2007. The same can be said of Millsaps (a playoff appearance in 2006 and this year). But I don't see you complaining about either of these teams receiving a number one seed. You focus solely on NCC, who, IMO, over the past few seasons, has a much better resume than either of these two #1 seeds (4 straight NCAA playoff appearances, 3 playoff wins in that span). But the bottom line is their performance in the 2008 regular season. All 3 teams were worthy of (and deserved) a #1 seed based on their performance. If you want to make a statement that UWW and UMHB are 2 of the top 4 teams in Division III this year, I think most people would agree with you. However, saying the NCAA selection committee "screwed up" is just wrong. The selections and seeding are based on their 2008 results and both UWW and UMHB had blemishes in 2008.
Your posts simply make you sound bitter that MUC was moved to the east, thereby, preventing any "east" team from making it to the semi-finals. If MUC hadn't been moved and stayed in the North, does that mean we would have the four best teams still playing in the playoffs? Based on the east's performance in the playoffs over the past 20 years that has been discussed in previous post's, I certainly don't think there is any factual basis for that argument.
Just to be argumentative, UMHB was/is undefeated in D3 for the season.
Yes, but the team that beat UMHB (Southern Oregon) lost to Williamette (a #1 seed in the playoffs) and Linfield (who didn't make the playoffs) and was 3-7 overall. Based on this, I think the selection committee was justified in making Millsaps the #1 seed and UMHB #2.
you are correct, but the UMHB team that lost was totally busted up and playing thousands of miles from home. The RB's that played in that game included a freshman from the JV team, a sophomore LB that was moved to RB to help out and the starting FB. I watched the game online and it was one of the worst games I ever saw the Cru play. Saenz just doesn't miss his pitchman and pitch the ball into the end zone. it happened that day. Don't get me wrong SOU played well, and they played better as the momentum kept building, but that game took the perfect storm scenario for that result.
My point was only that the loss was not a d3 loss. Would a lone loss to a d1aa by a point disqualify a d3 with an otherwise perfect record from being a number 1? I understand that Millsaps earned the #1 seed, but I'd bet that a score between UMHB and Millsaps would be more like Wesley or W&J vs UMHB than it would be HSU vs UMHB ( I also think that if Millsaps had played the Cru or the Cowboys in the first round it would have been a very short post-season for the majors)
Quote from: Toby Taff on December 10, 2008, 02:59:45 PM
you are correct, but the UMHB team that lost was totally busted up and playing thousands of miles from home. The RB's that played in that game included a freshman from the JV team, a sophomore LB that was moved to RB to help out and the starting FB. I watched the game online and it was one of the worst games I ever saw the Cru play. Saenz just doesn't miss his pitchman and pitch the ball into the end zone. it happened that day. Don't get me wrong SOU played well, and they played better as the momentum kept building, but that game took the perfect storm scenario for that result.
Toby,
I would love to blame Linfield's loss to HSU this year on the fact that Linfield had to travel thousands of miles away from home, didn't get into their hotel until after midnight, had the games moved up 3 hours to 4pm because of a hurricane, lost their star running back on the second play, and lost their "would have been a star" QB early in the 3rd quarter, and that our corner slipped on a knee on that 3 and 15 on the Cowboys last drive when they pulled out the game.......but I don't think the committee cared what excuses I came up with.
Quote from: wildcat11 on December 10, 2008, 03:09:28 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on December 10, 2008, 02:59:45 PM
you are correct, but the UMHB team that lost was totally busted up and playing thousands of miles from home. The RB's that played in that game included a freshman from the JV team, a sophomore LB that was moved to RB to help out and the starting FB. I watched the game online and it was one of the worst games I ever saw the Cru play. Saenz just doesn't miss his pitchman and pitch the ball into the end zone. it happened that day. Don't get me wrong SOU played well, and they played better as the momentum kept building, but that game took the perfect storm scenario for that result.
Toby,
I would love to blame Linfield's loss to HSU this year on the fact that Linfield had to travel thousands of miles away from home, didn't get into their hotel until after midnight, had the games moved up 3 hours to 4pm because of a hurricane, lost their star running back on the second play, and lost their "would have been a star" QB early in the 3rd quarter, and that our corner slipped on a knee on that 3 and 15 on the Cowboys last drive when they pulled out the game.......but I don't think the committee cared what excuses I came up with.
Regardless of the reasons, they lost to a team that was beaten by two other D3 teams. As WC11 points out, the committee is not really going to care why. The whole point of this discussion was whether the selection committee got the seedings right or not. Does that mean the four best teams got the four #1 seeds? Based on a #1, #2, #5 and #7 seed still standing in the playoffs, I would say probably not. Some of that is due to travel/geography and some of it is due to teams stubbing their toe in the regular season. If UMHB and UWW don't lose, they are #1 seeds in the playoffs. But they did lose and that's why they weren't seeded #1. Although I don't think they were the top 4 teams in the country, I do think that the four teams chosen as #1 seeds for the playoffs were valid selections based on the performances of all the teams during the 2008 regular season. IMO, the selection committee got it right.
That being said, it really doesn't matter where a team is seeded and in what region. As the saying goes, "to be the best, you need to beat the best." So if every team in the playoffs has the goal of a national championship, you are going have to beat the best teams at some point along that road. Most people will not remember (or care) if a particular team loses in the second round of the playoffs as opposed to the third round. They will remember who holds up the walnut and bronze at the end of the Stagg Bowl.
I think that the committee had to drop into the secondary criteria to seed the brackets, when they were confronted with several undefeated (in D3) teams, such as Millsaps vs UMHB. In some aspects, I think the move by MUC to the East was to honor the number of undefeated teams in the North Region. Fortunately for someone, DePauw's win over Wabash in the Monon Bell game gave someone a home game that they were not going to get.
Quote from: Augie6 on December 10, 2008, 03:40:01 PM
...
That being said, it really doesn't matter where a team is seeded and in what region. As the saying goes, "to be the best, you need to beat the best." So if every team in the playoffs has the goal of a national championship, you are going have to beat the best teams at some point along that road. Most people will not remember (or care) if a particular team loses in the second round of the playoffs as opposed to the third round. They will remember who holds up the walnut and bronze at the end of the Stagg Bowl.
We then must look more carefully at the playoff records by conferences with more scrutiny than might be considered.
Playoff history (http://www.d3football.com/faq.php?answer&category=Playoffs&id=39)
Texas Sub-bracket in Post #29 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=5306.29) and "Bracketgate"!
Augie6 and Ryan,
I did start all this off by saying "just to be argumentative." When UMHB lost I was pretty sure that would be a problem at some point but honestly, I said before the game if they were going to lose one that would be the one to lose. My concern was more that the Cru came out on the other side healthy because at that point RB's were dropping like flies. I didn't/don't have a problem with the seedings. My only gripe is with the 1st round pairings, but that was no surprise to anyone.
Quote from: Toby Taff on December 10, 2008, 05:10:24 PM
Augie6 and Ryan,
I did start all this off by saying "just to be argumentative." When UMHB lost I was pretty sure that would be a problem at some point but honestly, I said before the game if they were going to lose one that would be the one to lose. My concern was more that the Cru came out on the other side healthy because at that point RB's were dropping like flies. I didn't/don't have a problem with the seedings. My only gripe is with the 1st round pairings, but that was no surprise to anyone.
TT,
No problem, I was just being argumentative back... :) :) Can't disagree with your gripe about the first round match-up, but that's the world we live in in D3.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 10, 2008, 05:35:24 AM
Quote from: USee on December 09, 2008, 09:18:37 AM
Perhaps it would be better to approach this from what you CAN prove than what you disagree with. I havn't seen anything close to a rational argument for what you are trying to say. Heck, I don't even know what you ARE trying to say.
I'm not sure why you are taking so much offense to my posts USee. No need to start calling me irrational and turn this into something personal.
I have noticed that anytime anyone (not just me) suggests there is very little difference in overall quality between the North and the East once Mount Union is subtracted from the conversation, quite a backlash ensues. Perhaps the onus should be on those who constantly drag down the East to prove their points, rather than survive on their own opinions.
So I'll try to write this as clearly as I can so you can finally understand my posts. The committee clearly screwed up with their selections for top seeds in the North, because they all lost. And because they all lost, there is no longer a suitable opponent capable of giving Mount Union a decent game in the semifinals. In fact there was never a suitable potential semifinal opponent in the North bracket once Mount Union was exported. If North Central or Trine was the real deal, they'd still be playing. A Western or Southern power (within the 500 mile radius) should have been exported to the North to make up for the loss of Mount Union.
Its certainly not personal for me. I said your argument was irrational, not you.
And when you say there isn't a suitable semifinal opponent you are in fact saying something negative about the North and Wheaton. The Thunder won the North bracket and earned their trip to Alliance and I wonder where you will be if they play Mt Union closer than your team did? I don't know if they will but you have repeatedly put down Wheaton and the North teams. North Central is a very deserving North #1 because they won all their games in a tough conference and Cortland/Ithaca couldn't. Simple as that. I don't have a problem with your opinion but in football there is a big difference between 9-1 and 10-0 besides the fact its 10% better. You mention Milsaps could play MUC close?? why is that? they lost to WJ. based on your criteria the committee got that wrong too?
Dan,
What I object to in your argument is that you have gone out of your way to mock NCC as unworthy. (I'm not an NCC guy [as an IWU fan I don't even like 'em much ;)], but I AM a CCIW guy!) You point to Massey and Laz having them only 8 and 9, respectively, and have said several times they are not even CLOSE to being top 4. Computer rankings may be tolerably good with a 25-game bball schedule; with a 10-game fball schedule (which includes virtually NO cross-regional games), they are basically useless. You ARE, however, dissing the d3football.com poll, which had NCC at #2 entering the playoffs.
Whether you accept them or not, by the d3 criteria NCC was worthy of a #1 seed; no East Region team was. Furthermore, by those who understand the criteria, all four #1s were predicted by nearly every observer who made a prediction. Some of the seedings were borderline silly (Trine as a 2, UWW as a 5, etc.), but they were also almost inevitable by the criteria.
Mr Ypsi,
I understand the committee's criteria, I just don't agree with it. I too predicted NCC would get the #1 seed, so none of this was lost on me. And you should know that I am not saying the CCIW is an inferior conference. My gut feeling is it ranks very favorably with respect to the MAC, NJAC and E8. The playoff history backs it up.
What I am saying is there seems to be a movement (and maybe I am wrong about this) to divide up the super powers as much as the 500 mile criteria will allow. The West always produces a plethora of super powers, so whether you are a UWW or Williamette guy (or Linfield and SJ in past years), you know the West is going to give you a helluva survivor.
In the South, you had super power UMHB, along with very fast mover Millsaps and a Hardin-Simmons team which played UMHB to two close finishes on the road.
In the East, you had no super power. So Mount Union was inserted. Fine, problem solved.
In the North you had no super power, period. That doesn't mean NCC isn't a great team, or that Wheaton isn't better than the East's best. But do you honestly rank NCC, Wheaton, and Trine on the same level as UWW, UMHB, and MUC? I know you don't.
Obviously the committee was more focused on who was undefeated, and less focused on who were the true strongest programs in the country. I understand that. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
My argument is not a knock against the North. You DO have a super power - Mount Union. But they aren't in your bracket anymore.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 11, 2008, 12:48:58 AM
Mr Ypsi,
I understand the committee's criteria, I just don't agree with it. I too predicted NCC would get the #1 seed, so none of this was lost on me. And you should know that I am not saying the CCIW is an inferior conference. My gut feeling is it ranks very favorably with respect to the MAC, NJAC and E8. The playoff history backs it up.
What I am saying is there seems to be a movement (and maybe I am wrong about this) to divide up the super powers as much as the 500 mile criteria will allow. The West always produces a plethora of super powers, so whether you are a UWW or Williamette guy (or Linfield and SJ in past years), you know the West is going to give you a helluva survivor.
In the South, you had super power UMHB, along with very fast mover Millsaps and a Hardin-Simmons team which played UMHB to two close finishes on the road.
In the East, you had no super power. So Mount Union was inserted. Fine, problem solved.
In the North you had no super power, period. That doesn't mean NCC isn't a great team, or that Wheaton isn't better than the East's best. But do you honestly rank NCC, Wheaton, and Trine on the same level as UWW, UMHB, and MUC? I know you don't.
Obviously the committee was more focused on who was undefeated, and less focused on who were the true strongest programs in the country. I understand that. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
My argument is not a knock against the North. You DO have a super power - Mount Union. But they aren't in your bracket anymore.
I definitely think NCC and Wheaton can compete with UMHB and UWW. I actually think cortland can too. I don't think this years version of either of those teams is as good as past seasons. NCC played UWW last year and it was a game into the end of the 3rd qtr when UWW pulled away. this years NCC team was considerably better than the team that lost at UWW last year so yes they could compete with any of the teams you mentioned. They lost to a Franklin team that spanked OAC #2 Otterbein (whose only loss was to MUC) at Otterbein. Wheaton then beat a very good Franklin team with arguably the nations best qb on the road. I saw Trine, Franklin, and NCC play this year and I can tell you they are as good as most playoff teams. I have been to Whitewater and seen them play St Johns and Wesley in the playoffs. I have been to Alliance and seen 5 MUC National championship teams. I watched the STJF/Ithaca game this year. I have a pretty good feel for the relative strength of the regions. I also trust Pat and Keith who have seen a lot of D3 ball and my thoughts are in line with theirs as well as many other long time D3 posters/fans.
Before anyone looks down their nose too long at the NCC loss to Franklin, I think it's worth noting a post from Pat on the east region playoff thread:
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 10, 2008, 09:43:37 AM
I don't know why you would want the committee to be wary of North Central coming into the playoffs, though. They were the champion of a strong conference and they were undefeated. That's exactly the same resume that Cortland would've had if they had beaten Ithaca.
North Central was leading Franklin when NCC's starting quarterback got hurt. Any playoff team outside of Alliance is going to struggle against top competition when that happens. He didn't leave the game for good at that time but you have to wonder what might've been. The backup went 7-for-17 with two interceptions.
Augie6/USee-
My apologies to both of you. I did not intend for the debate to become personal. I also did not intend to disparage Wheaton/NCC, and my argument should have been worded more diplomatically.
There is a very good post on the Eastern Region board from Gordon Mann where he aligns teams by "power Tiers." He elucidated far more clearly the point I was trying to get across, and it appears to have been well received. It's definitely worth reading. I may have him compose my points from now on.
Good luck to Wheaton with The Mount.
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 12, 2008, 12:43:39 AM
Augie6/USee-
My apologies to both of you. I did not intend for the debate to become personal. I also did not intend to disparage Wheaton/NCC, and my argument should have been worded more diplomatically.
There is a very good post on the Eastern Region board from Gordon Mann where he aligns teams by "power Tiers." He elucidated far more clearly the point I was trying to get across, and it appears to have been well received. It's definitely worth reading. I may have him compose my points from now on.
Good luck to Wheaton with The Mount.
No worries. I like a good debate. I have great respect for the east (even through my north biased glasses). I read Gordon's post and I think he is on to something.
I'll go get Augie 6 out of the clinic today and show him the post. ;D
Quote from: USee on December 12, 2008, 09:04:34 AM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 12, 2008, 12:43:39 AM
Augie6/USee-
My apologies to both of you. I did not intend for the debate to become personal. I also did not intend to disparage Wheaton/NCC, and my argument should have been worded more diplomatically.
There is a very good post on the Eastern Region board from Gordon Mann where he aligns teams by "power Tiers." He elucidated far more clearly the point I was trying to get across, and it appears to have been well received. It's definitely worth reading. I may have him compose my points from now on.
Good luck to Wheaton with The Mount.
No worries. I like a good debate. I have great respect for the east (even through my north biased glasses). I read Gordon's post and I think he is on to something.
I'll go get Augie 6 out of the clinic today and show him the post. ;D
Actually, the doctors feel like I'm pretty screwed up and want to keep me under observation for a few more days. ;D
DP,
My apologies as well, if my argument got a little too personal. I read Gordon Mann's post and think he did an excellent job with his power tiers. And, for the record, I don't think the best of the north (other than MUC) is better than the best of the east. I think they would be pretty comparable and the games would be good ones to watch. I think USee and I got a little defensive because we perceived our conference was not being shown much respect. Hopefully, someday, playoffs teams from either the east or north will figure out MUC and we'll be able to see some of those match-ups.
You guys need a group hug! ;D
What a pity the NCAA won't allow split kickoffs for the semis like they do for the former DIAA. What possible reason could there be for not allowing the UMHB-UWW kickoff at 3pm EST (2 local)? The stadium has lights so daylight wouldn't be an issue. They've had a twilight-night Stagg Bowl and next week a brunch game. The NCAA really does suffer from intra-rectal-cranium.
Quote from: Augie6 on December 12, 2008, 10:14:14 AM
I read Gordon Mann's post and think he did an excellent job with his power tiers.
Although, based on the way the UWW/UMHB game is going right now, I'm not sure you can put UMHB in that Tier I level. Maybe they can be Tier I-A.
The front page talks about purple for the last three years.
In 2004 Linfield, (Cardinal and Purple) beat UMHB (Purple, Gold and White).
The last year that the Stagg was purple-free was 1999 with PLU and Rowan.
This post may be seen most on this board.
HSU alumnus and former head coach, and College (1951), Pro (1963) HOFamer Sammy Baugh died Wednesday.
Click here (http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/dec/17/nfl-record-setter-baugh-dies/)
Baugh played QB, Punter and DB for the Reskins.
In 1943 Baugh led the NFLin yds passing 1754, punting 45.9 yds and defensive interceptions 11!
His percentage completion in the NFL in 1945 was 70.33%! (70.33%! That accuracy is unfathomable!
Wisconsin-Whitewater 26
Mount Union 31
Final
Mount Union wins the 2008 D-III national title.
Quote from: TigerStripe on December 27, 2008, 12:33:21 AM
Wisconsin-Whitewater 26
Mount Union 31
Final
Mount Union wins the 2008 D-III national title.
Huh, I hadn't heard that. Thanks for sharing TigerStripe! ???