If you're not able to watch on ESPNews, we're posting the bracket at the very moment we're allowed by the NCAA and ESPN. Give us your snap reactions below, or on the Daily Dose (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2009/11/15/playoff-bracket-released/). Follow @D3football and @D3Keith for analysis, and we'll have a podcast, team-by-team capsules and Around the Nation's annual Surprises and Disappointments playoff predictions column later in the week.
Enjoy.
http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/footballbracket2009.pdf
Is Central or Linfield the #2 in the SJU bracket?
Central has a difficult draw in MHB. When ONU didn't make the field, that threw out the Nathcon champ going "west." Should be fun in the SJU bracket. What will UWW put up on Lakeland-60?
The SJU Bracket has 4 undefeated teams, and a total of 4 losses, by far the toughest bracket if this is the determining factor. And that's with UWW moved to their own bracket.
Posted earlier but timed out and lost it.
Looks like from bracket placement that Lin is the No. 2, but I'll have to have Pat confirm. I love that you guys see no seeds and that makes it incomplete.
West bracket is by far the strongest, but they rank the No. 1 seeds at the top of each bracket, then put the bracket headed by the 1 vs. the one headed by the 4 and the 2 vs. 3.
I think the best interpretation, based on the fact that the MUC bracket appears to be playing the Wesley bracket, is that the Purple Raiders were the 1 and Wesley the 4.
But I guess UWW could be the 1 and SJU the 4 and it would produce the same pairings.
Some of my earlier reactions:
QuoteD3Keith Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pm e
My quick reactions are
1. Wow, W&J in and ONU/St. Norbert left on the table. ... now they finally have to play Mount Union. Could be fun.
2. Backwards planning ... two flights guaranteed in second round, Hunt/Miss winner at Wesley/NCWC and Lin/CLU vs. UMHB/Central. Maybe also HSC/JHU winner vs. Thomas More/DePauw. A fourth if Maine Maritime wins, but that's nobody's fault.
3. UMHB at Central looks like GOTFR (game of the first round) and that bracket with SJU, Linfield, Central and UMHB is ouch.
Add North Central and Otterbein to the left-off list
I think the Pool C's are pretty good. Would've been tough to put in a 2 loss and bump out two 1 loss teams. St N - tough break.
St John bracket - could be brutal.
Should be fun to watch!
Quote from: K-Mack on November 15, 2009, 03:50:43 PM
Add North Central and Otterbein to the left-off list
LOL WITH you, K-Mack.
ncc, onu, ott ,wheaton, can probaly beat 75% of teams in the field .
Quote from: hornet on November 15, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
ncc, onu, ott ,wheaton, can probaly beat 75% of teams in the field .
Hornet,
Most years I'd agree that Wheaton could beat 75% of the teams in the field. This year I don't think you can say that... Wheaton couldn't even beat 60% of the teams in their conference. They lost 3 of the last 4 games of the season to finish 7-3.
Quote from: Mugsy on November 15, 2009, 04:55:01 PM
Quote from: hornet on November 15, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
ncc, onu, ott ,wheaton, can probaly beat 75% of teams in the field .
Hornet,
Most years I'd agree that Wheaton could beat 75% of the teams in the field. This year I don't think you can say that... Wheaton couldn't even beat 60% of the teams in their conference. They lost 3 of the last 4 games of the season to finish 7-3.
And the teams that got in beat 90% to 100% of the teams they played
Quote from: hornet on November 15, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
ncc, onu, ott ,wheaton, can probaly beat 75% of teams in the field .
NIT?
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 15, 2009, 05:01:56 PM
Quote from: Mugsy on November 15, 2009, 04:55:01 PM
Quote from: hornet on November 15, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
ncc, onu, ott ,wheaton, can probaly beat 75% of teams in the field .
Hornet,
Most years I'd agree that Wheaton could beat 75% of the teams in the field. This year I don't think you can say that... Wheaton couldn't even beat 60% of the teams in their conference. They lost 3 of the last 4 games of the season to finish 7-3.
And the teams that got in beat 90% to 100% of the teams they played
Well, except for about a third of the AQs. ;)
I DO wish the committee didn't have such a virtually total "one-loss in, two-losses out" mentality. There are a number of published primary criteria, with no indication of relative importance. But clearly, regional winning % was the ONLY real criterion. There are several 2-loss teams (and some 3-loss teams) that you would have to spot me MORE than 20 points before I would take W & J. And that is on
their field!
Disclosure: W&J has done very poorly against the ASC and Trinity, and NCWC upset them as a #8 seed.
That being said, it seems that the Presidents get more than enough love from everyone.
AD Joy Solomen did not elaborate on W&J over ONU, but my impression is that the second OAC loss negated a strong Pool C portfolio for ONU, almost as if they fell from the #2 or #3 Pool C bid to "left on the board" with that second loss.
I don't think that we will be able to discern how strong W&J is on the MUC outcome.
I listened to the Joy Solomen intvw and a few observations:
-"we put the best 32 teams in the tournament"-Joy Solomen
-Pat Coleman grilled her hard on WJ v SNC. Pat did a great job and I'm not sure Dr S had a good answer. Actually seemed like Pat was more informed on the numbers. Dr S basically sadi it was a tough call but they all felt like WJ was the better choice. Her main argument was their closer loss to TMC vs SNC's wider loss to a lower ranked team (regionally). She obviously is not educated on the Pat C phrase "it's not who you lost to..."
-SHe basically said if there would have been an undefeated east team they would have made them a top seed.
-The ONU issue didn't seem to take much time to debate
-The national committee was on their call from 10pm Saturday til 4.15am
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2009, 01:53:26 AM
...the Joy Solomen intvw...
Dr S basically sadi it was a tough call but they all felt like WJ was the better choice....
Interestingly enough, THAT is the very thing that K-Mack seemed to lobby for on the Pool C board yesterday, in the hours ahead of the announcment--allowing the committee to use some leeway to select who they felt "best belongs in the field"...
Now, that they've done that, and said so, all of a sudden it becomes a travesty.
I'll give Pat credit, he asked the tough question, he was persistent and prepared. Not that I expected anything less.
It's a questionable call, but I can definitely see some logic in putting WJ in. However, the best solution for St. Norbert's, ONU, North Central and others is to win the game. That's why you play. ;)
I agree, I would have loved to see St. Norbert make the field but if you can't win your conference championship you have a weak argument that you should be national champion. If you don't win every game you can't complain if you don't make the field. Pool C's are primarily there to level off the bracket and give a few lucky teams a second chance. Don't like the fate Pool C gives you then avoid it all together and take the Pool A bid.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 10:50:05 AM
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2009, 01:53:26 AM
...the Joy Solomen intvw...
Dr S basically sadi it was a tough call but they all felt like WJ was the better choice....
Interestingly enough, THAT is the very thing that K-Mack seemed to lobby for on the Pool C board yesterday, in the hours ahead of the announcment--allowing the committee to use some leeway to select who they felt "best belongs in the field"...
Now, that they've done that, and said so, all of a sudden it becomes a travesty.
I'll give Pat credit, he asked the tough question, he was persistent and prepared. Not that I expected anything less.
Actually, I was asking
you how
you felt about that idea ... I can't remember if I got an answer or not, but let's just say I wasn't asking that question randomly.
Also, I'm very clearly on record taking issue with W&J's choice of non-conference opposition, so please don't try to portray it like we've flip-flopped because we didn't get the result we wanted. I never thought W&J was one of the six best at-large teams, even though I was allowing for the possibility that they would get in.
However, I'll entertain the implication that I argued for the committee to have this leeway, even though I think you're actually speaking generally and not just to me (but you put my name in it, so I get to play devil's advocate again). If your point is that people are unhappy because they used the available means and still came out with the "wrong" team, I don't understand why you would expect people to be happy with that.
I see what you're saying, that people only like the process when it produces the result they want ... but
of course they care more about the result than the process. That's your point?
If the IRS came up with a way to use its best judgement to give you a fatter tax refund, and then you got a smaller one ...
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 10:50:05 AM
Now, that they've done that, and said so, all of a sudden it becomes a travesty.
They did it the past two years, as well, but they went out of their way to pick teams with strong schedules. I think the issue with W&J's selection is the message it sends to coaches: Schedule cupcakes so you don't dare lose a second game.
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2009, 11:53:07 AM
It's a questionable call, but I can definitely see some logic in putting WJ in. However, the best solution for St. Norbert's, ONU, North Central and others is to win the game. That's why you play. ;)
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on November 16, 2009, 01:19:40 PM
I agree, I would have loved to see St. Norbert make the field but if you can't win your conference championship you have a weak argument that you should be national champion. If you don't win every game you can't complain if you don't make the field. Pool C's are primarily there to level off the bracket and give a few lucky teams a second chance. Don't like the fate Pool C gives you then avoid it all together and take the Pool A bid.
Oh yeah, there are definitely arguments for W&J, especially if St. Norbert is the only other team that you're honestly comparing them to. I make at least two of these arguments for W&J in the first 15-20 minutes of the podcast.
(The PAC is stronger than the MWC, the MOV of the one loss is closer, W&J went deep into the playoff field last season and deserved a measure of respect because of it.)
In past years, I've been in the tank for 9-1 teams who lose by a touchdown to their (undefeated) conference champion. Cortland State went 9-1 one year with an OT loss to Rowan, and I think Franklin went 9-1 that same year with a seven or eight-point loss to MSJ ... it was a particularly deep field that year.
That's sort of the point, on one hand, that everything's relative to the strength of the at-large field. And the makeup of the committee, which began to favor SOS the past two years, but now seems to be back on regional win pct. only.
On the other, it's really the fallout from this that bothers me. What's the incentive for North Central to take a game against Ohio Northern when they could have just scheduled some patsy from Illinois, went 9-1 and gotten in? It's like an endorsement of weak scheduling as an insurance plan against not winning your AQ.
Which brings me to your points, hickory ... Losing once, especially to a really good team in a close game, does not necessarily mean a team is not playoff worthy or championship worthy. PLU won in 1999 after losing to Willamette (they avenged the loss in the first round). UMHB finished second to HSU in '04 and very nearly beat Linfield in the Stagg Bowl. Mount Union lost to ONU in '05, and ONU managed not to win the conference or get in, and MUC won the title; but the Purple Raiders had lost a conference game by a TD and could've been one of those teams. I actually researched this earlier this year, and about half the champions going back to the mid-80s had a loss or a tie on their record.
So I think the first part of your statement
Quoteif you can't win your conference championship you have a weak argument that you should be national champion. If you don't win every game you can't complain if you don't make the field.
is fairly untrue, but the second part is as true as can be.
As long as there is fair access, that each team had a chance and knew what its chance was, then after that it's a complete and total crapshoot.
With one loss only, especially to the conf. champ (which by the way was how Coe, STU, UMHB, Bash and Albright got in), you probably should get in most years. But with 23 Pool A conferences and only six bids, there are going to be years where there are more than six conferences with a worthy second team. You
Once you get to loss No. 2, it's a definite that nothing is guaranteed. ONU finishes the game against OTT, it's in easy, etc. ... Willamette doesn't lose to a middling Concordia-Moorhead in its opener, it's in. Redlands finishes against Oxy, it's in.
But all the above is subscribing to the "who you lost to and how" theory. Going by that, W&J's tight loss to Thomas More puts it in better shape than Coe (L 24-6 Central) or Albright (drubbed by Del Val). (UMHB, STU and Bash all lost by an FG, and UMHB to a team that lost another D3 game)
However, if you go by the "it's who you beat" theory, then ONU, North Central and Otterbein have better cases than W&J, Coe and UMHB, quite frankly.
(maybe should've broken this into several posts; maybe I'll rewrite for ATN :) )
K-Mack, in direct answer--I'd be all for a strictly by-the-numbers selection process, as long as it was totally cut & dried. Agree to the formula, publish it, and stick to it without variation.
But THAT is where I think the committee gets called into question--they publish criteria, then, I believe W&J is a perfect example, they don't follow it...
I have repeatedly said that W&J doesn't make the grade based on the stated criteria for selection, and I don't believe the Chair of the Committee changed anybody's mind on that topic. I do not believe W&J was one of the six-best Pool C candidates based on the guidelines.
Pat, the AA selection PROCESS is what sends that message out, not their specific selection of W&J. Allowing the HUMAN ELEMENT to trump the specific data is the problem, not who the team IN or OUT was specifically.
Will W&J's addition of Del.Vall. next year be sufficient? Or do the Presidents have to add either Mount or UMHB for their other non-conference date?
Of course, should we expect Marietta to be booted from their conference 'cause a win over them means nothing, and a loss is a death knell...
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:27:40 PMWill W&J's addition of Del.Vall. next year be sufficient? Or do the Presidents have to add either Mount or UMHB for their other non-conference date?
I was looking for a place to squeeze this in on the podcast, but it never came. The MAC-PAC challenge means this will be somewhat moot next season.
I thought W&J would get Albright though ... the No. 2s match up? I know it's 9 teams vs. 8 teams, which PAC team is not in the challenge? Thomas More? That makes sense travel wise ... so you bump W&J up to the 1?
K-Mack, I believe TMC was never included in the process (travel).
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 16, 2009, 03:27:40 PM
K-Mack, in direct answer--I'd be all for a strictly by-the-numbers selection process, as long as it was totally cut & dried. Agree to the formula, publish it, and stick to it without variation.
But THAT is where I think the committee gets called into question--they publish criteria, then, I believe W&J is a perfect example, they don't follow it...
I have repeatedly said that W&J doesn't make the grade based on the stated criteria for selection, and I don't believe the Chair of the Committee changed anybody's mind on that topic. I do not believe W&J was one of the six-best Pool C candidates based on the guidelines.
Pat, the AA selection PROCESS is what sends that message out, not their specific selection of W&J. Allowing the HUMAN ELEMENT to trump the specific data is the problem, not who the team IN or OUT was specifically.
Will W&J's addition of Del.Vall. next year be sufficient? Or do the Presidents have to add either Mount or UMHB for their other non-conference date?
Of course, should we expect Marietta to be booted from their conference 'cause a win over them means nothing, and a loss is a death knell...
You're still not addressing what IMO is the key issue - they have a list of primary criteria, but do not state how they are to be weighed. It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that this year ONE criterion overrode all the other criteria - winning %. If ANY one-loss team is automatically preferred to ANY two-loss team (to the point that the two-loss teams will not even be considered), say so. Don't pretend that there are five primary criteria, if there is really only one and the rest are
de facto secondary criteria.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 16, 2009, 03:19:46 PM
But all the above is subscribing to the "who you lost to and how" theory. Going by that, W&J's tight loss to Thomas More puts it in better shape than Coe (L 24-6 Central) or Albright (drubbed by Del Val). (UMHB, STU and Bash all lost by an FG, and UMHB to a team that lost another D3 game)
However, if you go by the "it's who you beat" theory, then ONU, North Central and Otterbein have better cases than W&J, Coe and UMHB, quite frankly.
If you're putting things into perspective here's some info to consider about the UMHB loss.
MC was coming off a bye week and had 2 weeks to prepare a defensive scheme.
Quincy Daniels was out because of his knee, RB #2 was knocked out of the game (and for the season) early in the third, Mayes came in during the 3rd and went for 113 yds.
A freshman started the game @ QB and played like a freshman. He pitched on the option once during the game ( and that pitch was to a guy 7yds behind the LOS with the D on top of him). The MC announcers commented on the MC feed the only option he seemed to have was whether to run or whether to throw.
Truthfully, the game plan and the UMHB team that played every other game this season were very different from what took the field that day, and it had as much to do with personnel as with MC, and it took a late interception thrown by a stone-cold qb to set up a field goal to put MC up with seconds left in the game. Both defenses that day played amazing football: Shaffer was held to 18 - 40 for 194 yds and MC kept UMHB under 300yds of rushing on the day (only 2 other teams can say that this season, and only then because the breaks were put on in blowouts).
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2009, 03:39:41 PM
You're still not addressing what IMO is the key issue - they have a list of primary criteria, but do not state how they are to be weighed. It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that this year ONE criterion overrode all the other criteria - winning %. If ANY one-loss team is automatically preferred to ANY two-loss team (to the point that the two-loss teams will not even be considered), say so. Don't pretend that there are five primary criteria, if there is really only one and the rest are de facto secondary criteria.
No one has mentioned one other one-loss team in all this: SJFC. If the primary criteria really are *primary*, then what of SJFC? A 6-1 team in their region, they have the second best opponent's winning pct among all 1 loss teams (.613), and the third best opp-opp winning pct among all 1 loss teams (.568). SJFC falls apart on most of the secondary criteria, and I don't know of any fans who expected them to contend for pool C, but looking at the published criteria, one would think they're in the mix.
So in practice, were the criteria: overall winning %, regional winning %, and then a series of secondary (or tertiary) criteria?
If there are published criteria, they should match actual practice.
You're ignoring the team's own winning % (6-1), which is inferior to all others here (except maybe Wesley through no fault of their own). It's not just one loss, but team's winning %, people are just referring to one loss assuming you're talking about 8-1 or 9-1. If you're only 6-1, then of course the committee will have to look at other criteria for your candidacy and two OOC losses, of to a 5-5 team ends the discussion immediately.
Quote from: euleria on November 16, 2009, 05:28:45 PM
No one has mentioned one other one-loss team in all this: SJFC.
I did, euleria, Saturday, November 14, 2009, 10:34:19 pm POOL C thread...
I did, however, come quickly to the same conclusion as pumkinattack, along with most other people in this discussion, including the AA committee.
I'm trying to understand the distinction between "primary criteria" and "secondary criteria".
If SJFC is out because of their in-region winning pct (6-1) is too low, then no two loss team would be considered either.
If SJFC is out because of their 2 out-of-region losses, then that suggests that overall winning percentage is being used as a primary criterion, not a secondary one.
The primary criteria, all based on in-region record and the record of ones in-region opponents and opponents' opponents, appear to favor SJFC over any of the "two loss in region" teams. And with the exception of in-region winning percentage, SJFC comes out ahead of most of the other one-loss teams under consideration.
Leading back to: does in-region winning pct trump the other primary criteria, or is overall winning pct being used as a primary criterion instead of a secondary criterion?
I'm not advocating for SJFC as a pool C team, but I think their example might shed light on how the criteria were applied to other teams with a less tenuous claim to being on the bubble.
As was stated, there are five primary criterion, all of which can be weighed, apparently, at the discretion of the committee.
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
It's entirely possibly SJF was ahead of ONU on the bubble, since we don't know, but I'm presuming that ONU had a results vs. regionally ranked teams. NCC is probably rated higher than Springfield or IC. Also, As Dr. Salomon stated, they look at losses and, while (just using ONU for comparison) the loss to Otterbein is bad, their other loss is to in-region #1 (MUC) vs. SJF's loss to in-region 2-4 (not sure where they landed, but it is below DelVal, for sure). So there's room within the criteria and thought process as explained to move ONU ahead of SJF even before getting to SJF in the primary criteria if they desired.
I just think they didn't question the quality of W&J's schedule, saw the one loss by a TD to the conference champ and the recent history of W&J winning (sometimes) enough to not embarrass the committee in the playoffs and gave them the benefit of the doubt. As Keith stated, they had a weak SOS last year and made the final 8.
W&J has a weak SOS this year. If they make the final 8, perhaps the SOS will be completely removed from the criteria listing (not that it appears they follow that stuff anyway....)
I just have to share this:
Maybe it's me....maybe I'm too black & white.
I see criteria, then I see teams that can't really measure up get selected and I wonder how can this happen.
I serve on a board of a non-profit. I see guidelines, bylaws, then I see those guidelines/bylaws being ignored and I wonder how can this happen.
I question and I get blank stares, the deer-in-headlights look.
Pat questioned the committee chair and we seemed to get the audio equivalent of Bambi-in-the-highbeams....
And I wonder, is it me? Is it JUST me?....FWIW
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 17, 2009, 11:15:37 AM
I just think they didn't question the quality of W&J's schedule, saw the one loss by a TD to the conference champ and the recent history of W&J winning (sometimes) enough to not embarrass the committee in the playoffs and gave them the benefit of the doubt. As Keith stated, they had a weak SOS last year and made the final 8.
If the committee was concerned about selecting W&J and then having that selection get a result that makes the selection look brilliant, they probably shouldn't have sent them to Alliance (and they didn't have to).
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 17, 2009, 01:06:08 PM
I just have to share this:
Maybe it's me....maybe I'm too black & white.
I see criteria, then I see teams that can't really measure up get selected and I wonder how can this happen.
I serve on a board of a non-profit. I see guidelines, bylaws, then I see those guidelines/bylaws being ignored and I wonder how can this happen.
I question and I get blank stares, the deer-in-headlights look.
Pat questioned the committee chair and we seemed to get the audio equivalent of Bambi-in-the-highbeams....
And I wonder, is it me? Is it JUST me?....FWIW
Conversely I worked for a large German bank and I've seen how rigid rules can inhibit the correct decision from being made to the detrmient of all stakeholders of this institution and the reality is that the more explicit the rule the easier to maniuplate.
It's really all about how much respnsibility to committee wants to take and transparency to allow for accountability. I'm all for the committe picking however they want to as long as they take full accountability and provide full tranparency as to the process. It's the mix of rules based and subjective with no accountability or transparency which is bothersome.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 17, 2009, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 17, 2009, 11:15:37 AM
I just think they didn't question the quality of W&J's schedule, saw the one loss by a TD to the conference champ and the recent history of W&J winning (sometimes) enough to not embarrass the committee in the playoffs and gave them the benefit of the doubt. As Keith stated, they had a weak SOS last year and made the final 8.
If the committee was concerned about selecting W&J and then having that selection get a result that makes the selection look brilliant, they probably shouldn't have sent them to Alliance (and they didn't have to).
I meant that more as a justification of the weak SOS not meaning that W&J isn't playoff worthy. MUC is crushing any of their first round opponents this year, as in most past years.
It dawned on me as I was filling out my bracket for the D3 pick'em 4 teams have been to the Stagg since 2004, 3 of them are on one side of the Bracket this year. ??? ??? ???
I can't get over this no seeds business. As read from the championship handbook pertaining to site selection:
Quote
The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.
The highest
seeded team...they have to have seeded the teams! It's right there in the handbook!
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2009, 04:18:20 PM
I can't get over this no seeds business. As read from the championship handbook pertaining to site selection:
Quote
The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.
The highest seeded team...they have to have seeded the teams! It's right there in the handbook!
With all the errors that are in the handbook each year, maybe they decided to ignore it altogether this year. :o
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2009, 04:18:20 PM
I can't get over this no seeds business. As read from the championship handbook pertaining to site selection:
Quote
The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.
The highest seeded team...they have to have seeded the teams! It's right there in the handbook!
The Handbook doesn't say they have to publish the seeds. The teams are seeded, we'll just never know for sure what they are. Moves like this make people not trust the NCAA Commitees, more than they may already.
Gasp ... that would mean they lied when they said there were no seeds.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2009, 05:32:08 PM
Gasp ... that would mean they lied when they said there were no seeds.
Quote from: Around the NationWhat I think this all means is that a pecking order exists, whether it's called seeding or not. That pecking order might not be the same order the teams would be in based solely on football-related factors. It also might mean that someone prominent did not file the paperwork to host, either accidentally or on purpose, and they do not want make an issue of it if the team doesn't advance anyway.
Yeah -- honestly, I didn't get that. Teams have forgotten to file before and it hasn't been swept under the rug. One year Western Connecticut forgot to file to host past round 2 and they were the No. 1 seed.
I specifically mentioned that possibility to the NCAA person on the phone as something that has happened in the past and that D-III fans understand. Perhaps they underestimate D-III fans' savvy.
I'm digging how on the Scoreboard there are about 13 different ways that the playoff games are listed in the "Game Links" notation. Did individual schools insert those or did you guys just decide to mess with us?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 19, 2009, 05:32:08 PM
Gasp ... that would mean they lied when they said there were no seeds.
No. no. no... That can't possibly be right! ::)
Quotethat would mean they lied misspoke when they said there were no seeds.
UMHB Purple Crusaders 42 Central 40
Mount Union Purple Raiders 55, Washington and Jefferson 0
Linfield Purple Wildcats 38 Cal Lutheran 17
UW-Whitewater Purple Warhawks 70, Lakeland 7
St Thomas Purple Tommies 43, Monmouth 21
Purple is the color of royalty. And MUC, UWW, UMHB, and Linfield are as close as you can get to D3 football royalty. Also, maybe coincidence and maybe not, but purple is the color of a nice bruise. So win or lose I think everyone ended a little purple on the day.
Three undefeated teams fell in the SJU (West) Bracket. AS has been noted previously that bracket was STACKED!!
Quote from: retagent on November 22, 2009, 10:50:23 AM
Three undefeated teams fell in the SJU (West) Bracket. AS has been noted previously that bracket was STACKED!!
In one aspect, the nature of the west bracket is that a team almost needs to go undefeated to earn the Pool A..
| Conference | # of teams | # of Conf. games | Pool A bid | Record |
| IIAC | 9 | 8 | Central | 10-0 |
| MIAC | 9 | 8 | SJU | 10-0 |
| Midwest | 10 | 9 | Monmouth | 10-0 |
| Northwest | 7 | 6 | Linfield | 9-0 |
| SCIAC | 7 | 6 | Cal Lutheran | 8-1 |
| WIAC | 8 | 7 | UW-Whitewater | 10-0 |
Quote from: maripp2002 on November 22, 2009, 12:12:28 AM
Purple is the color of royalty. And MUC, UWW, UMHB, and Linfield are as close as you can get to D3 football royalty. Also, maybe coincidence and maybe not, but purple is the color of a nice bruise. So win or lose I think everyone ended a little purple on the day.
Isn't Linfield's colors Blue and Red - not Purple?
Quote from: voice on November 22, 2009, 05:00:59 PM
Quote from: maripp2002 on November 22, 2009, 12:12:28 AM
Purple is the color of royalty. And MUC, UWW, UMHB, and Linfield are as close as you can get to D3 football royalty. Also, maybe coincidence and maybe not, but purple is the color of a nice bruise. So win or lose I think everyone ended a little purple on the day.
Isn't Linfield's colors Blue and Red - not Purple?
Officially cardinal and purple (http://www.d3football.com/school/LINF/2009) :)
Quote from: D O.C. on November 20, 2009, 02:25:22 PM
Quotethat would mean they lied misspoke when they said there were no seeds.
Perhaps they just misremembered! :D
Not sure the best home for this discussion, but the playoff thread seems about as good as any.
Anyway, ain't this a crock of you-know-what: www.playoffproblem.com
I suppose the BCS believes that the best defense is a good offense. ::)
Quote from: Ryan Tipps on November 25, 2009, 03:30:56 PM
Not sure the best home for this discussion, but the playoff thread seems about as good as any.
Anyway, ain't this a crock of you-know-what: www.playoffproblem.com
I suppose the BCS believes that the best defense is a good offense. ::)
Stupid is as stupid does..................
Quote from: HScoach on November 25, 2009, 07:10:09 PM
Quote from: Ryan Tipps on November 25, 2009, 03:30:56 PM
Not sure the best home for this discussion, but the playoff thread seems about as good as any.
Anyway, ain't this a crock of you-know-what: www.playoffproblem.com
I suppose the BCS believes that the best defense is a good offense. ::)
Stupid is as stupid does..................
Maybe someday the NCAA will be able to figure out the details for March Madness. It hasn't worked out very well. ::)
Quote from: HScoach on November 25, 2009, 07:10:09 PM
Quote from: Ryan Tipps on November 25, 2009, 03:30:56 PM
Not sure the best home for this discussion, but the playoff thread seems about as good as any.
Anyway, ain't this a crock of you-know-what: www.playoffproblem.com
I suppose the BCS believes that the best defense is a good offense. ::)
Stupid is as stupid does..................
For a real laugh, click on the link to "The BCS is a friend to the Mountain West Conference."
How well the various rankings predicted the playoffs. Posted now because I will likely lose interest shortly after the Stagg Bowl.
Year d3football.com AFCA NCAA
2009 22-8* 21-9* 21-9*
2008 21-10 20-11 18-13
2007 26-5 26-5 23-8
2006 25-6 24-7 25-6
*The two polls both chose MUC for the championship. Adjust records accordingly next Saturday. I don't believe the NCAA announced an overall #1 seed this year.
That is a very good record as far as I can tell with D3football hold the advantage every year.
How do all of you see the next 25 poll? this is how I see it...
1. MUC (or UWW if they win) 15-0
2. UWW (or MUC if UWW wins) 14-1
3. Linfield (or Wesley if Mount wins 17+) 12-1
4. Wesley (or Linfield if Mount wins by 17+) 13-1
5. St Thomas 11-2
6. MHB 10-2
7. Central 10-1
8. Wittenberg 12-1
9. St Johns 10-1
10. Monmouth 10-1
11. Johns Hopkins 10-3
12. Coe 10-2
13. Thomas More 11-1
14. IWU 10-2
15. ONU 8-2
16. North Central 8-2
17. Mississippi College 9-3
18. Wabash 9-2
19. Cal Lutheran 8-2
20. Trine 10-2
21. CWRU 10-1
22. Albright 11-2
23. Del Valley 10-2
24. Montclair State 10-2
25. Hampden-Sydney 10-1