Brackets just revealed on ESPNnews. View the 32-team field here (http://www.d3football.com/notables/2010/11/playoff-bracket-announced).
They skimmed through those more quickly than I've ever seen, so if you need some time to process it, that's what we're here for.
Instant reactions & analysis via the Daily Dose here (http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/14/2010-playoff-bracket-is-released/).
On Twitter, use hashtag #d3fb32 on tweets about the selection process and playoffs. We also have a blog post on the Daily Dose open for comments (http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/14/2010-playoff-bracket-is-released/).
If you prefer to react here on Post Patterns, the floor's yours.
Howz Whitewater a #2, that's what I'm amazed about! :o
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2010, 03:33:38 PM
Brackets just revealed on ESPNnews. View it here (http://www.d3football.com/notables/2010/11/playoff-bracket-announced).
They skimmed through those more quickly than I've ever seen, so if you need some time to process it, that's what we're here for.
Instant reactions via the Daily Dose here (http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/14/2010-playoff-bracket-is-released/).
On Twitter, use hashtag #d3fb32 on tweets about the selection process and playoffs. We also have a blog post on the Daily Dose open for comments (http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/14/2010-playoff-bracket-is-released/).
If you prefer to react here on Post Patterns, the floor's yours.
Very disappointing presentation by ESPN, only six minutes this year, and lack of variety on the video clips. The director and/or graphics person screwed up the bracket placement, and the anchor didn't seem to care about d3 football. In past years, ESPN made a greater effort, and the presentation was superior.
I can understand changing the West bracket to avoid a Wartburg-Coe match in the 1st round, but shouldn't Wartburg move up to a #2 and Coe down to #8 instead of the opposite?
Never expected Christopher Newport to be coming to Belton. Also, it seems odd to me that if UMHB and UWW were to meet in the semi's UWW would come to Belton.
As i've said elsewhere I'd be scared if I was North Central. Getting screwed out of a number one seed is going to light one big fire in the stomachs of UWW. They're going to be heading to NCC looking for blood!
Quote from: sflzman on November 14, 2010, 03:39:55 PM
Howz Whitewater a #2, that's what I'm amazed about! :o
Click the link to the Dose, there's an item, either No. 1 or No. 2 where I explain how that's possible. Also see No. 4, where it deals with SoS.
The takeaway though, is that Whitewater has the exact same look it would have if it switched seeds with North Central. Except I guess a home game in the quarterfinal round.
It plays at home, has to beat Franklin and then either DePauw or Trine, then would have to take a short trip to North Central where all UW-W's fans could make the drive & support them like it's a home game.
And if you want to, you can argue that all this does us tick UW-W off and makes them even more dangerous.
ESPN's effort mirrored that of the selection committee.
The anchor mentioned at least twice, that Wesley was the "overall #1 Seed." Is that correct?
Quote from: retagent on November 14, 2010, 04:10:05 PM
The anchor mentioned at least twice, that Wesley was the "overall #1 Seed." Is that correct?
Yes, the brackets are seeded: Wesley, St. Thomas, Mount Union, North Central.
SoS figures of the six monster 10-0 teams:
Wesley .608
St. Thomas .548
N. Central. .523
Mount Union .512
UMHB .502
UW-Whitewater .487
There's a correlation. And it works because if UW-W were to play UMHB, as noted above, the seeding of Wesley No. 1 overall means all the seeds in that bracket break all ties with seeds in the North Central bracket. (I think)
Quote from: oldtiger on November 14, 2010, 03:58:13 PMESPN's effort mirrored that of the selection committee.
I don't see how.
One did one of its best jobs in years, and the other did one of its worst.
They put the seed numbers on the bracket this year. I guess they got tired of all the complaints last year.
What a joke! No West Coast bias? Yeah right, SCIAC gets bent over again.
The single most surprising seed to me was DePauw #3 in the NCC bracket, over also 9-1 (but far more impressive) #4 ONU, undefeated #5 Witt (whose point differential against Wabash vis-a-vis DePauw was SIXTY-FOUR points, separated by only ONE week)), and undefeated #6 Trine.
Perhaps the selection committee didn't hear the Monon Bell result?! ::)
I wanna hear what UWW could of done differently this year to avoid a #2 seed.
I'm pretty surprised at how high DePauw is too. I feel Trine is a much better team and should take it to them with a Wabash or above like score. Good luck Thunder!
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 04:50:21 PM
I wanna hear what UWW could of done differently this year to avoid a #2 seed.
Have a higher SoS? ;D ;)
I realize that it is not UWW's fault that no OOC, in-region teams will schedule them. But St. Thomas and NCC ALSO went 10-0 - what more could THEY have done to get a #1 seeding?
Espn sucks.....time for the experts to take over,
Time for D3.com to do a live video stream program for all us on selection Sunday with call in capability....what would it take??
could be a great two hour show....
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2010, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 04:50:21 PM
I wanna hear what UWW could of done differently this year to avoid a #2 seed.
Have a higher SoS? ;D ;)
I realize that it is not UWW's fault that no OOC, in-region teams will schedule them. But St. Thomas and NCC ALSO went 10-0 - what more could THEY have done to get a #1 seeding?
STU: Irrelevant..they ARE a #1 seed
NCC: absolutely nothing.
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Whitewater has always had a poor SOS...why is this year different?
Pep was delighted to learn #6 seed Alfred will play #3 seed SUNY-Maritime...so delighted and thrilled that Pep failed to realize Alfred would HOST the Privateers (because SUNY-Maritime facilities are inadequate?).
Wow, it's Christmas in Mayberry! (Wondered why the Village had already placed the wreaths and bows on the lamp posts downtown).
02, I have no idea why 2010 is different (except that apparently they decided to follow the published criteria more closely than before; why now? Who knows.)
It is especially mystifying that they decided to do it the same year that the third regional rankings jumped UMU from #3 to #1 the same week that #2 NCC decisively beat #1 Wheaton. Trying to find logic in the NCAA leads to madness. ;)
Look upon it as a gift. UWW might have entered the playoffs a tad complacent and smug; now they enter p!ssed off - why are you complaining about that??!! :o ;D
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
Pep:
Good luck to your team. I hope they play at their highest level to support the guys on the field. Oh,
and good luck to your football team, too!
Plus K for good luck!!!
Can anyone explain why W&L is lower than HSC when W&L beat them soundly during the regular season?
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2010, 05:29:51 PM
02, I have no idea why 2010 is different (except that apparently they decided to follow the published criteria more closely than before; why now? Who knows.)
It is especially mystifying that they decided to do it the same year that the third regional rankings jumped UMU from #3 to #1 the same week that #2 NCC decisively beat #1 Wheaton. Trying to find logic in the NCAA leads to madness. ;)
Look upon it as a gift. UWW might have entered the playoffs a tad complacent and smug; now they enter p!ssed off - why are you complaining about that??!! :o ;D
I see your point...but I'd rather have the road to Salem go through UWW, than have bulletin board material posted up to get pissed off about.
Quote from: Titan Q on November 14, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
that's kind of my point...too much number crunching ...not enough objectivity. remind you of a certain ranking system in D1?
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 14, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
that's kind of my point...too much number crunching ...not enough objectivity. remind you of a certain ranking system in D1?
Again, you are misusing the term 'objectivity'. The B(C)S is 2/3 human polls, and therefore much more
subjective. We have a playoff (!), selected and seeded by KNOWN criteria. It is d3 which is too objective for your preference.
Subjectively virtually everyone (including me) believes UWW should be a #1 seed; the Warhawks fell short on the objective part.
I would prefer to have known algorithms than 'feel' about how teams perform, but the SOS isn't perfect.
Warhawks, win your games and there's nothing to complain about. Wabash didn't get in with the best SOS.
I think Wittenberg did something nefarious to the NCAA - like brought Natty Lite to the party and drank all of the Stella. DPU and Witt should be switched on that bracket.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 14, 2010, 04:17:29 PM
Quote from: oldtiger on November 14, 2010, 03:58:13 PMESPN's effort mirrored that of the selection committee.
I don't see how.
One did one of its best jobs in years, and the other did one of its worst.
Really? UW-W not a #1 seed? Depauw a #3 seed? These make sense to you?
We asked this question and several others to Dr. Solomen in our interview today that will appear on ITH around 8 PM ET. Tune into www.inthehuddLLe.com if you want to hear the perspective of the Chair of the Committee that made these picks.
If it wasn't completely obvious before, the committee's marching orders from the NCAA were to get new participants in Salem. Sending Mount and UWW on the road as much as possible is one of the only ways they might accomplish that. IMO, at the end of the day, Salem will be the same as it ever was - Mount/UWW, UWW/Mount anyway you want to look at it. Just gives more of the country an opportunity to see the Purple Powers up close and personal. Stagg Bowl 2010 - Mount will be in the black jerseys, UWW in white, if you're keeping score!! ;) You can take that one to the bank.
Quote from: Titan Q on November 14, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
"Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please....". ;D
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 14, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
that's kind of my point...too much number crunching ...not enough objectivity. remind you of a certain ranking system in D1?
I think you need to look up the definition of "objectivity"... ;)
Quote from: BoBo on November 14, 2010, 07:46:51 PM
If it wasn't completely obvious before, the committee's marching orders from the NCAA were to get new participants in Salem. Sending Mount and UWW on the road as much as possible is one of the only ways they might accomplish that. IMO, at the end of the day, Salem will be the same as it ever was - Mount/UWW, UWW/Mount anyway you want to look at it. Just gives more of the country an opportunity to see the Purple Powers up close and personal. Stagg Bowl 2010 - Mount will be in the black jerseys, UWW in white, if you're keeping score!! ;) You can take that one to the bank.
Well, I totally disagree with your first statement. There are no 'marching orders' - the committee this year didn't just automatically slot in "UWW" in a #1 seed. It is what it is. Win or go home. Period. Paragraph.
Winners don't complain where they play - they just win.
/I really hate seeding arguments
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 14, 2010, 04:50:29 PM
I'm pretty surprised at how high DePauw is too. I feel Trine is a much better team and should take it to them with a Wabash or above like score. Good luck Thunder!
:o :o :o
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2010, 07:59:07 PM
Quote from: BoBo on November 14, 2010, 07:46:51 PM
If it wasn't completely obvious before, the committee's marching orders from the NCAA were to get new participants in Salem. Sending Mount and UWW on the road as much as possible is one of the only ways they might accomplish that. IMO, at the end of the day, Salem will be the same as it ever was - Mount/UWW, UWW/Mount anyway you want to look at it. Just gives more of the country an opportunity to see the Purple Powers up close and personal. Stagg Bowl 2010 - Mount will be in the black jerseys, UWW in white, if you're keeping score!! ;) You can take that one to the bank.
Well, I totally disagree with your first statement. There are no 'marching orders' - the committee this year didn't just automatically slot in "UWW" in a #1 seed. It is what it is. Win or go home. Period. Paragraph.
Winners don't complain where they play - they just win.
/I really hate seeding arguments
Yah Smeds...and we all know UWW hasn't proven they are winners, hence their complaining. ::)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2010, 04:45:49 PM
The single most surprising seed to me was DePauw #3 in the NCC bracket, over also 9-1 (but far more impressive) #4 ONU, undefeated #5 Witt (whose point differential against Wabash vis-a-vis DePauw was SIXTY-FOUR points, separated by only ONE week)), and undefeated #6 Trine.
Perhaps the selection committee didn't hear the Monon Bell result?! ::)
SOS ratings:
DePauw:39th
ONU:147th
Witt:175
Trine:202
Perhaps the selection committee looked at the whole season and not just the Monon Bell game?!?!
Quote from: CardinalAlum on November 14, 2010, 07:56:16 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 14, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
"Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please....". ;D
Nice CardinalAlum +k!!
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2010, 07:59:07 PM
/I really hate seeding arguments
Yes, there were far fewer arguments when they didn't seed. ::)
I don't care what DePauw's SoS numbers say, there's no way a team that got beat 47-0 by the 2nd place team in the NCAC gets a #3 seed. I'd overlook a loss to a 2nd place WIAC, OAC or CCIW team, but a butt-kicking to a NCAC team is a bad, BAD loss.
I'm shocked by the number 1 seeds too, but understand exactly how the committee selected them. And honestly kind of like that they went outside the norm. Similar to the first year that they sent Mount to the east. They took a new approach to the bracket and didn't worry about the names of the schools.
I think it's a good sign that 99% of the pissing is about the seeds, not who made it. Regardless of the seedings, the most important thing is to make the field.
And for those saying the committee purposely set it up to avoid another UWW / MTU championship, I think that's way off base. If they were concerned about that, they'd have paired the East and North regions together in the Semi's.
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 14, 2010, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2010, 07:59:07 PM
Quote from: BoBo on November 14, 2010, 07:46:51 PM
If it wasn't completely obvious before, the committee's marching orders from the NCAA were to get new participants in Salem. Sending Mount and UWW on the road as much as possible is one of the only ways they might accomplish that. IMO, at the end of the day, Salem will be the same as it ever was - Mount/UWW, UWW/Mount anyway you want to look at it. Just gives more of the country an opportunity to see the Purple Powers up close and personal. Stagg Bowl 2010 - Mount will be in the black jerseys, UWW in white, if you're keeping score!! ;) You can take that one to the bank.
Well, I totally disagree with your first statement. There are no 'marching orders' - the committee this year didn't just automatically slot in "UWW" in a #1 seed. It is what it is. Win or go home. Period. Paragraph.
Winners don't complain where they play - they just win.
/I really hate seeding arguments
Yah Smeds...and we all know UWW hasn't proven they are winners, hence their complaining. ::)
Last year is not in the criteria. What have they done THIS year to deserve a #1 any more than what 10-0 St. Thomas or 10-0 NCC have done?
Like most on here, I was shocked that UWW did not get a #1, but by the criteria I wonder how you can be complaining so much? They got a gift! They might have come in somewhat smug and complacent, now they come in pissed off! ;D
Forgot to say that the real surprise in the #1 seeds is St Thomas getting the West and making Whitewater ship to the North. I'm comfortable with NCC getting a #1. And I think Mount and Wesley are slam dunks in the East and South. But the West is curious.
Quote from: CardinalAlum on November 14, 2010, 07:56:16 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 14, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
"Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please....". ;D
I kid you not - when I posted that I looked for that exact scene on Youtube.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2010, 08:50:10 PM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 14, 2010, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 14, 2010, 07:59:07 PM
Quote from: BoBo on November 14, 2010, 07:46:51 PM
If it wasn't completely obvious before, the committee's marching orders from the NCAA were to get new participants in Salem. Sending Mount and UWW on the road as much as possible is one of the only ways they might accomplish that. IMO, at the end of the day, Salem will be the same as it ever was - Mount/UWW, UWW/Mount anyway you want to look at it. Just gives more of the country an opportunity to see the Purple Powers up close and personal. Stagg Bowl 2010 - Mount will be in the black jerseys, UWW in white, if you're keeping score!! ;) You can take that one to the bank.
Well, I totally disagree with your first statement. There are no 'marching orders' - the committee this year didn't just automatically slot in "UWW" in a #1 seed. It is what it is. Win or go home. Period. Paragraph.
Winners don't complain where they play - they just win.
/I really hate seeding arguments
Yah Smeds...and we all know UWW hasn't proven they are winners, hence their complaining. ::)
Last year is not in the criteria. What have they done THIS year to deserve a #1 any more than what 10-0 St. Thomas or 10-0 NCC have done?
Like most on here, I was shocked that UWW did not get a #1, but by the criteria I wonder how you can be complaining so much? They got a gift! They might have come in somewhat smug and complacent, now they come in pissed off! ;D
B/c the criteria was the same as last year, and UWW and MUC still finished one and two overall in the playoffs. so you can forgive us UWW and MUC fans if were a little shocked on the committee's change of heart. Especially sense UWW and MUC had very similar seasons to last year.
The comittee avoids first round rematches if possible correct!!
In the scheme of things I don't think it matters much if CNU or Muhlenberg are 7th or 8th except maybe to their fans . The Mules SOS was twice as good as CNU's and their conference looks stronger. Just wondered what the comittees reasoning would be. I think the Mules fans will travel well to Wesley, 2 1/2 hr trip, so there should be a huge crowd for the game
The way I read the NCAA's selection/seeding rules, if Trine and DePauw had met in the regular season and Trine had won, the committee would still have to seed Depauw higher because Depauw would still hold a big lead in the only primary criteria differentiating the two: "strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition)." It makes no sense to me that regional strength-of-schedule should outweigh a head-to-head result. Am I reading this right?
Can anybody explain why the selection criteria gives priority to "in-region" results if the playoff brackets aren't segregated by region?
I don't think it matters much since W&L isn't really a factor, but I was surprised they lost out to H-S in getting a home game. W&L lost 2 games in September, granted they weren't the best opponents, but they were 2 of the first 3 weeks of the season and then rolled through their schedule including 2 ranked opponents. They beat H-S end of season when both teams knew the season was on the line with everything to play for. You could point to the number of underclassmen starting and playing for W&L (only 7 seniors both sides of the ball) as a mitigating factor in the slow start. In this case, I think the H2H should have been a deciding factor. Then again, lacking a pedigree and with only one other playoff appearance (an absolute slaughter by Wilkes a few years ago), it's hard to complain too much. Of course I would have loved to see the game in Lexington VA but just can't make the drive to Cincy...
While as an ODAC guy I was pleased to see HSyd get an at-large bid, I am baffled how-just in terms of common sense-W/L got seeded below the Hamsters. I can imagine the Generals strength of schedule was somewhat low, but balance that against starting 1-2 and finishng with seven straight wins. You would think the hot hand would get a better deal...especially over a team they beat hea to head.
Quote from: DPUBro on November 14, 2010, 08:33:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2010, 04:45:49 PM
The single most surprising seed to me was DePauw #3 in the NCC bracket, over also 9-1 (but far more impressive) #4 ONU, undefeated #5 Witt (whose point differential against Wabash vis-a-vis DePauw was SIXTY-FOUR points, separated by only ONE week)), and undefeated #6 Trine.
Perhaps the selection committee didn't hear the Monon Bell result?! ::)
SOS ratings:
DePauw:39th
ONU:147th
Witt:175
Trine:202
Perhaps the selection committee looked at the whole season and not just the Monon Bell game?!?!
SOS:
Wabash - 15
Coe - 135
Montclair - 136
"Explain the logic underlying that conclusion..."
"Well, it's so clean..."
"It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese..."
Quote from: jknezek on November 14, 2010, 10:34:55 PM
W&L lost 2 games in September, granted they weren't the best opponents, but they were 2 of the first 3 weeks of the season and then rolled through their schedule including 2 ranked opponents.
Corrected -- 1 nationally ranked (H-S) and 1 regionally ranked though receiving national votes (R-M).
Maybe the committee takes into account English comprehension and spelling.
I can't believe Wesley (my alma mater) is the # 1 overall seed . If they get to the semifinals they won't have to travel to Whitewater or Mt. Union for a change. I think the way they gutted out their season and how they over came devastating injuries, they will get to the finals and have a great chance of winning it all. Go Wolverines!!!
On a side note could someone tell me how St. Lawrence got in with a 5-5 record??
Quote from: WesleyGrad2008 on November 14, 2010, 11:49:41 PM
I can't believe Wesley (my alma mater) is the # 1 overall seed . If they get to the semifinals they won't have to travel to Whitewater or Mt. Union for a change. I think the way they gutted out their season and how they over came devastating injuries, they will get to the finals and have a great chance of winning it all. Go Wolverines!!!
On a side note could someone tell me how St. Lawrence got in with a 5-5 record??
They won their conference. Automatic qualifier.
D1 'March Madness' sometimes has teams with actual losing records for the same reason.
Quote from: Bwana on November 14, 2010, 10:36:11 PM
While as an ODAC guy I was pleased to see HSyd get an at-large bid, I am baffled how-just in terms of common sense-W/L got seeded below the Hamsters. I can imagine the Generals strength of schedule was somewhat low, but balance that against starting 1-2 and finishng with seven straight wins. You would think the hot hand would get a better deal...especially over a team they beat hea to head.
Unlike the NCAA DI basketball turnaments, there is no trend criteria for figuring the seedings. Whether W&L's 2 losses came at the beginning of the season or the end of the season does not matter. The moral of the story is that if you want to play a home game, win the games that you should win. Speaking as another ODAC guy, I am glad that the conference got two teams in this year, but there is no way that
any two loss team should host a game, particularly a team with two losses and W&L's SOS.
Quote from: jknezek on November 14, 2010, 11:06:24 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 14, 2010, 10:34:55 PM
W&L lost 2 games in September, granted they weren't the best opponents, but they were 2 of the first 3 weeks of the season and then rolled through their schedule including 2 ranked opponents.
Corrected -- 1 nationally ranked (H-S) and 1 regionally ranked though receiving national votes (R-M).
National rankings on d3football.com or in the AFCA poll are not a selection or seeding criteria. If they were, UW-Whitewater would be the #1 overall seed, not Wesley. The regional rankings are the only rankings that matter based on the NCAA criteria.
In any sport, the NCAA cares not a whit about rankings by outsiders. And the tools like RPI and SOS are just tools and not absolutes. It comes down to people in the room.
National rankings on d3football.com or in the AFCA poll are not a selection or seeding criteria. If they were, UW-Whitewater would be the #1 overall seed, not Wesley. The regional rankings are the only rankings that matter based on the NCAA criteria.
[/quote]
That actually doesn't change anything. Nationally ranked H-S was also regionally ranked, so they beat 2 regionally ranked teams if you prefer. Shrug. It really doesn't matter as I don't think either W&L or H-S will be a player. But after flying up to see W&L get minced by Wilkes a few years ago, I hate having to miss this one because we lost out on the home game and it's just too far for me to travel. All water under the bridge and here's hoping for a good tournament with no injuries for all involved!
Still, 2 regional losses means something. Again, the moral of the story is win your games, and then win the playoff games. That takes care of everything. This isn't the BCS, thank goodness!
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2010, 12:13:34 AM
In any sport, the NCAA cares not a whit about rankings by outsiders. And the tools like RPI and SOS are just tools and not absolutes. It comes down to people in the room.
That's probably the strongest argument for UW-W getting a number one seed. It comes down to people in the room. People assumedly have brains. Brains are to use logic and exercise judgement. In other words, when strict use of criteria leads to a nonsensical result, judgement is exercised to produce a result that makes sense. Otherwise, let's fire the committee and program a computer.
Of course there are criterion based arguments for the #1 seeds that were chosen. That's not the point anyone is making.
Keith, isn't the foundation of a reasonable bracket getting the four best teams number one seeds? Shouldn't the committee be able to get that right?
And it seems that UW-W would have to travel to UMHB as well. Nice.
Please don't get me wrong. The last thing I'm worried about is any of this costing UW-W a trip to Salem. That will be played out on whatever field the road leads to. UW-W hasn't had a chance to play "angry" for awhile. They left an awful lot of points on the field this year (ONE MILLION handoffs up the middle in the fourth quarter of almost every game). Maybe they need to open it up a bit.
Oh and as far as that precious "Strength of Schedule" criteria, I guess we'll find out how well that holds up for teams when they line up against UW-W (and against Mount Union too for that matter) during the playoffs. At the end of the day, NCC may have preferred to have UW-W stay in the west. We will find out soon enough.
Quote from: WesleyGrad2008 on November 14, 2010, 11:49:41 PM
I can't believe Wesley (my alma mater) is the # 1 overall seed . If they get to the semifinals they won't have to travel to Whitewater or Mt. Union for a change. I think the way they gutted out their season and how they over came devastating injuries, they will get to the finals and have a great chance of winning it all. Go Wolverines!!!
On a side note could someone tell me how St. Lawrence got in with a 5-5 record??
I'm thinking you aren't alone in this.
And as far as the whole "they won't have to travel to Whitewater or Mt. Union for a change...". I'm actually looking forward to UW-W putting that whole thing to rest. Maybe we'll bring our cannon with us. ;D
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2010, 11:53:40 PM
Quote from: WesleyGrad2008 on November 14, 2010, 11:49:41 PM
I can't believe Wesley (my alma mater) is the # 1 overall seed . If they get to the semifinals they won't have to travel to Whitewater or Mt. Union for a change. I think the way they gutted out their season and how they over came devastating injuries, they will get to the finals and have a great chance of winning it all. Go Wolverines!!!
On a side note could someone tell me how St. Lawrence got in with a 5-5 record??
They won their conference. Automatic qualifier.
D1 'March Madness' sometimes has teams with actual losing records for the same reason.
In the d3 women's soccer tournament, there was a team that got in with a record of 4-12-3....
Did they get a #1 seed, too?
Quote from: KitchenSink on November 15, 2010, 09:03:36 AM
Did they get a #1 seed, too?
Yes. Monster strength of schedule! ;)
Not to go overboard patting ourselves on the back, but I would think that the people who post on these boards are maybe the most knowledgeable people about who's who, and what's what in D III Football. I did not see one post in any thread (I may have missed it) that didn't presuppose that Mt Union and UWW would get #1 seeds in one bracket or another. The arguments meandered about who would get the other two. I think that says all you need to know about the lack of sanity in the selection process.
I know that what we have here is preferable to the BCS madness. It doesn't mean that it couldn't be better.
What would a better system look like? To be honest, short of using only known quantitative measures like the NFL playoffs, there is always going to be human input. And it gets real hard to pick only quantitative measures in a "league" that has dozens of teams with no common opponents let alone H2H results. The vast majority of complaints that I've read are about seedings with very few complaints about who received the non-AQ bids. That tells me the committee pretty much did it right. As for the seedings... well, at least the teams get to play it out on the field, and that's what is really important.
As for me, I'd be tempted to go to a quantitative system, but that's because I'm a numbers guy. Rank the conferences and conference winners of the hardest conferences get the highest seeds in ascending order. No non-AQ gets a home game, and the weakest AQ conferences go on the road. Does this give the best TEAMS home games? For the most part yes. Some non-AQs would be somewhat shafted, but that's what you get for failing in your conference. How you rank the conferences, of course, would become the big debate and I'm sure some of the AQs from conference 17 on would be unhappy. Especially if you had a really good team year in and year out in a weak conference. But at least you'd have a known system to point to for why, as opposed to simply saying "the committee felt this was best."
This system also limits the impact of non-conference games, something I know a lot of people think is a mistake. But for the vast majority of DIII teams winning the conference is more of a goal than winning the playoffs simply because they aren't competitive with the top 3 or 4 teams. This is one way to throw AQs from conferences 10-16 a nice bone for taking care of business and prioritizing being a conference champion before you start thinking of being national champion.
Overall though, I don't think the current system needs much tweaking and I'd be pretty happy leaving it alone. I'm just thankful we have the tournament, especially a truly inclusive 32 team tournament, and we get to see the best team crowned based on results, not votes.
Quote from: CardinalAlum on November 14, 2010, 07:56:16 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 14, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 14, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
I'm just curious how a 10-0 team in the best (rated) conference in DIII got a number 5 overall seed..essentially. And I don't want to hear about SOS, b/c like you said...everybody in the region refuses to schedule UWW.
Here is the 2010 Handbook...
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
1) On what page is the conference rating?
2) On what page is the explanation of how the conference rating is used to select and seed teams?
3) On what page is the explanation of how the committee should handle teams that can't find in-region non-conference games?
"Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please....". ;D
I am looking for the page that shows me where the mess hall is? ;D
ok, after a day of reading complaint after complaint about who is the # 1 overall seed and #1 in each region, i am confused by one thing that some of the posters have been doing. what did wesley or ncc do to be personally attacked as programs by some posters? all either team did was play the games and win them. neither one pettitioned to be a #1 seed. if you have an issue with the process or the committee so be it, but the personal attacks seem to be rather juvenile at the least. if you dont think they deserve to be #1, then say so, but to insult the programs makes no sense to me. what i know is that wesley will show up to play whomever gets sent to dover and i am sure that ncc will do the same. at least the arguments about who should or shouldnt be dont matter in the end, it will be decided on the field. thanks goodness, because if you listen to some, the only 2 teams that matter are uwww and mount.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 15, 2010, 11:25:05 AM
ok, after a day of reading complaint after complaint about who is the # 1 overall seed and #1 in each region, i am confused by one thing that some of the posters have been doing. what did wesley or ncc do to be personally attacked as programs by some posters? all either team did was play the games and win them. neither one pettitioned to be a #1 seed. if you have an issue with the process or the committee so be it, but the personal attacks seem to be rather juvenile at the least. if you dont think they deserve to be #1, then say so, but to insult the programs makes no sense to me. what i know is that wesley will show up to play whomever gets sent to dover and i am sure that ncc will do the same. at least the arguments about who should or shouldnt be dont matter in the end, it will be decided on the field. thanks goodness, because if you listen to some, the only 2 teams that matter are uwww and mount.
Maybe, because UWW and Mount are the one's who HAVE mattered for the past, oh, several national championships?? I don't see where wesley was being "personally attacked".......just go win one.
It appears to someone who simply enjoys the vitality and honest effort of non-scholarship athletes, that the NCAA/ESPN System - whatever that might be - has overextended it's absolute arrogance in endeavoring to control how the process works. I have always heard and read how difficult the various conferences are and many have stated how tough the conferences UWW and Mt. Union are in. The other teams are good, but strength of schedule over the past five years indicates something also. I cannot imagine another Division having a defending national champion or runner-up with such records and not having home field.
It will interesting to watch, but sadly obviously manipulated. With all due respect to the other schools, I hope to once again see an all purple Stagg Bowl, just so Mt Union and UWW can celebrate their fine accomplishments this season and the past five years.
I think Pat's asking the wrong question on the front page. It should be
Which of these teams should have gotten a No. 1 seed?"
A. UST and NCC
B. UST and UWW
C. NCC and UWW
Quote from: Blutarsky on November 15, 2010, 12:01:58 PM
Maybe, because UWW and Mount are the one's who HAVE mattered for the past, oh, several national championships?? I don't see where wesley was being "personally attacked".......just go win one.
I guess the point is this is not last year or the year before or the year before and based on this years SoS other teams have earned a shot at a #1 seed. i don't like the BCS because of the subjectivity, why do I want to bring that to D3? And this is from a fan whose team gets hosed every year 2 teams from the conference make the playoffs.
blutarsky, obviously you havent been reading different posts. both wesley and ncc have been attacked for doing nothing but being chosen as #1 seeds. not surprising to me though, that you dont see it. it is the arrogance of a few of the fans for both teams that gets annoying after awhile. most of the posters from both teams, some of which i know personally from being at the national championships the last couple of years represent their schools with class when they post. Just go win one, wow that is a great explanation as to why neither one should be #1 this year.
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 15, 2010, 02:17:43 PM
Quote from: Blutarsky on November 15, 2010, 12:01:58 PM
Maybe, because UWW and Mount are the one's who HAVE mattered for the past, oh, several national championships?? I don't see where wesley was being "personally attacked".......just go win one.
I guess the point is this is not last year or the year before or the year before and based on this years SoS other teams have earned a shot at a #1 seed. i don't like the BCS because of the subjectivity, why do I want to bring that to D3? And this is from a fan whose team gets hosed every year 2 teams from the conference make the playoffs.
While the handbook gives us some very objective criteria, the committee has chosen to apply said criteria extremely subjectively. Based on the criteria that are published, we really don't even need a selection committee. Anybody can sit down and crunch the numbers and rather easily pick the top six teams from the Pool C eligibles. A computer could do it. The committe is there, and I've heard K-Mack make this point in a couple of places around the site this week, to apply the criteria and make adjustments when things don't quite make sense. One example of where they did this correctly is the Montclair/Rowan situation. The numbers would have placed Rowan before Montclair, but the numbers are not so overwhelmingly in Rowan's favor as to negate the h2h result. The h2h won out, correctly, and it would seem that an adjustment in the rankings was made to accommodate that.
Anybody who even remotely has their finger on the pulse of D-III football knows that UWW and UMU live in their own little world right now. They ROUTINELY make excellent teams look really bad. So the SOS is a little down for UWW. There's only so much UWW can do about that SOS. They can't go win games for UW-RF (actually, they probably could if they sent a busload of reserves to RF for gameday). I like using the criteria to guide the selection and seeding criteria, but those human brains in that room on selection Sunday have to be able to apply, when necessary, a little bit of a common sense correction factor to what the numbers spit out at them.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2010, 02:37:00 PM
While the handbook gives us some very objective criteria, the committee has chosen to apply said criteria extremely subjectively. Based on the criteria that are published, we really don't even need a selection committee. Anybody can sit down and crunch the numbers and rather easily pick the top six teams from the Pool C eligibles. A computer could do it. The committe is there, and I've heard K-Mack make this point in a couple of places around the site this week, to apply the criteria and make adjustments when things don't quite make sense. One example of where they did this correctly is the Montclair/Rowan situation. The numbers would have placed Rowan before Montclair, but the numbers are not so overwhelmingly in Rowan's favor as to negate the h2h result. The h2h won out, correctly, and it would seem that an adjustment in the rankings was made to accommodate that.
Anybody who even remotely has their finger on the pulse of D-III football knows that UWW and UMU live in their own little world right now. They ROUTINELY make excellent teams look really bad. So the SOS is a little down for UWW. There's only so much UWW can do about that SOS. They can't go win games for UW-RF (actually, they probably could if they sent a busload of reserves to RF for gameday). I like using the criteria to guide the selection and seeding criteria, but those human brains in that room on selection Sunday have to be able to apply, when necessary, a little bit of a common sense correction factor to what the numbers spit out at them.
The objective criteria are always subjectively applied. I do in fact have a good feel for the pulse of D3 football and think, as most do, that UWW and UMU will most likely be in Salem, but that doesn't change my opinion. it appears that the committee went with SoS as the primary seeding criteria. I think that's great. It was a criterium applied rather than a hey we know they are the best so...I've seen brackets over the years that seemed to heavily favor one team or another and when the complaints come it is always you still have to beat everyone you play. So UWW and UMU have to win them all, they just don't get them all at home. :'( Improve you SoS and you get the #1, maybe. We in the ASC have dealt with that scenario more than once.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 15, 2010, 02:23:34 PM
blutarsky, obviously you havent been reading different posts. both wesley and ncc have been attacked for doing nothing but being chosen as #1 seeds. not surprising to me though, that you dont see it. it is the arrogance of a few of the fans for both teams that gets annoying after awhile. most of the posters from both teams, some of which i know personally from being at the national championships the last couple of years represent their schools with class when they post. Just go win one, wow that is a great explanation as to why neither one should be #1 this year.
OK, you think I'm arrogant, and I think you whine.........let's call the whole thing off.
Welcome to the world of having a #1 seed on your head.
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 15, 2010, 02:58:02 PM
The objective criteria are always subjectively applied. I do in fact have a good feel for the pulse of D3 football and think, as most do, that UWW and UMU will most likely be in Salem, but that doesn't change my opinion. it appears that the committee went with SoS as the primary seeding criteria. I think that's great. It was a criterium applied rather than a hey we know they are the best so...I've seen brackets over the years that seemed to heavily favor one team or another and when the complaints come it is always you still have to beat everyone you play. So UWW and UMU have to win them all, they just don't get them all at home. :'( Improve you SoS and you get the #1, maybe. We in the ASC have dealt with that scenario more than once.
You guys down in the ASC are victims of a whole different set of garbage. In this case, if the goal of the committee is to pick the four best teams in Division III and build brackets around those four teams (which is what they've said they have been doing since they decided to start surrounding UMU with eastern teams) and a room full of people whose charge is to watch and study and be knowledgeable about these teams decided that UWW is NOT one of those four best teams, then they failed. And it isn't good enough to say that UWW should have scheduled stronger teams. UWW can't get games and their own league has mandated playing a second game against a WIAC team. Again, this or any selection committee has to know these variables and take them into account. The common sense correction factor was not applied.
I agree with Wally, you have to look at the circumstances. Now, circumstances probably meant Coe and Montclair were selected instead of Wabash (who had a great SoS, but the league itself doesn't have that great of a reputation and they did have a second loss to an out of region team) and that may have been the right call, but to not look at the WIAC circumstance and see that UW-W is a #1, is, well, dubious at best and hypocritical at worst.
Wesley and North Central always have great teams - and at some point they were going to get a #1, but I didn't think it's be at the expense of Whitewater.
Of course, it was a mid-term election year, and dubious and hypocritical were par for the course!
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2010, 12:27:20 AM
Again, the moral of the story is win your games, and then win the playoff games. That takes care of everything. This isn't the BCS, thank goodness!
Amen, brother!
So Witt goes 10-0 and are sole champs of the NCAC and has to go on the road. While DPU are 47-0 losers to the NCAC runners up and get to host a playoff game? How retarded.
DPU should have had to go to ONU and Witt should have hosted Trine.
I guess that was too complicated for the selection whizzes to figure out.
Geesh.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 15, 2010, 03:36:43 PM
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 15, 2010, 02:58:02 PM
The objective criteria are always subjectively applied. I do in fact have a good feel for the pulse of D3 football and think, as most do, that UWW and UMU will most likely be in Salem, but that doesn't change my opinion. it appears that the committee went with SoS as the primary seeding criteria. I think that's great. It was a criterium applied rather than a hey we know they are the best so...I've seen brackets over the years that seemed to heavily favor one team or another and when the complaints come it is always you still have to beat everyone you play. So UWW and UMU have to win them all, they just don't get them all at home. :'( Improve you SoS and you get the #1, maybe. We in the ASC have dealt with that scenario more than once.
You guys down in the ASC are victims of a whole different set of garbage. In this case, if the goal of the committee is to pick the four best teams in Division III and build brackets around those four teams (which is what they've said they have been doing since they decided to start surrounding UMU with eastern teams) and a room full of people whose charge is to watch and study and be knowledgeable about these teams decided that UWW is NOT one of those four best teams, then they failed. And it isn't good enough to say that UWW should have scheduled stronger teams. UWW can't get games and their own league has mandated playing a second game against a WIAC team. Again, this or any selection committee has to know these variables and take them into account. The common sense correction factor was not applied.
Wally, I know some of our garbage is different garbage, but it is related. There are a lot of circumstances ignored when seeding and match-ups come into play. We don't give 1st round conference rematches, unless you're on a geographic island and rather than give a round flight you match up with one of the top teams in the region (see 2006 when HSU lost 2 games, both to UMHB, and whose SoS was seriously impeded by a game called because of lightening and not finished/replayed.) Good sense and considering circumstance doesn't match up UMHb and HSU whenever they make the playoffs, money does. The WIAC knew the potential for SoS issues when they mandated the 2nd WIAC game, but money made that call. All UMU and UWW have to do to prove they deserve to be 1 & 2 is win games. it isn't like they were penalized and put under teams with worse records or worse SoSs. Other teams were rewarded for their successes with theoretically more difficult schedules. you don't get to go to the front of the line just because of your name and history in the playoffs, maybe in the preseason, but not in the playoffs.
Time for my two cents. I dont think it matters at all about the teams of past years, because every year theres a new team for the same school. It doesnt make sense to say "oh whitewater should be ranked #1 just because of last year." The 2009 and 2010 teams are different. Thats true with any program.
Also, in the end it doesnt matter what your rank is. You have to win. Doesnt matter where, or when. Stop whining and start cheering your team to Salem.
Quote from: thewaterboy on November 15, 2010, 06:05:27 PM
Time for my two cents. I dont think it matters at all about the teams of past years, because every year theres a new team for the same school. It doesnt make sense to say "oh whitewater should be ranked #1 just because of last year." The 2009 and 2010 teams are different. Thats true with any program.
Also, in the end it doesnt matter what your rank is. You have to win. Doesnt matter where, or when. Stop whining and start cheering your team to Salem.
"We are prepared to show the NCAA we can play and compete with anybody."
NCAA as always has their crazy views for things. But here is my opinion.
1) Conference winners always get 1st round home games against teams who did not win their conference
2) If teams met during regular season, teams that have won head to head contests get home field during 1st round games
3) Higher seeds get home field 1st round after #1 and #2 above
4) Higher SOS gets home field 1st round after 1,2,3 above
NCAA never makes sense in any sports to me. Teams get left out. Teams with bad records get included in,
teams that should host playoff games don't because of stupid NCAA requirements. Too many damn rules, too much complexity but I expect no less from the people who run the NCAA.
Well, bad as it might be, if we used the BCS logic we'd have
1. North Central
2. Wheaton
3. Mt Union
4. Wesley
5. Whitewater
6. St Thomas
7. Linfield
8. Wartburg
9. MHB
10. Wittenberg
School (1st votes) Rec Pts Prev.
1 UW-Whitewater (23) 10-0 623 1
2 Mount Union (2) 10-0 602 2
3 Wesley 9-0 561 3
4 St. Thomas 10-0 546 4
5 North Central (Ill.) 10-0 516 5
6 Mary Hardin-Baylor 10-0 511 6
7 Ohio Northern 9-1 415 10
8 Linfield 8-1 405 12
9 Wittenberg 10-0 393 9
10 Thomas More 10-0 385 11
If we followed the BCS this is what we would be looking at for the top ten. They actually use and are highly influenced by the polls. I think we should do the same. Using this data along with data on h2h, common opponents and finally Sos would help determine the seedings. I was upset last year when NCC missed the playoffs and thought that it was even a worse slight to ONU. This year in response, the committee has made a more egregious error not having Mt. Union and UWW as the number one and two seed. The third and fouth seeds should have been between Wesley, NCC and UST.
Hey, folks -- our friends at d3photography.com (not part of the network, but a partner) is hosting D3football.com's bracket challenge this season. Go sign up and fill out a bracket at:
http://www.d3photography.com/pickem/
As usual no prizes, which protects student-athletes and coaches from NCAA issues.
This season, one sign-up gets you access to all bracket challenges -- no more signing back up for D3hoops.com brackets in the spring.
In the HuddLLe interview of Dr Joy Solomon, she mentions that there will be 24 Pool A bids in 2011.
I wonder if she is not aware of the specifics of UMAC and the ECFC, or one conference is not yet ready for a Pool A bid. Here is the link to the 23 minute interview.
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/15/what-the-chair-said/
Quote from: seventiesraider on November 15, 2010, 08:42:43 PM
Well, bad as it might be, if we used the BCS logic we'd have
1. North Central
2. Wheaton
3. Mt Union
4. Wesley
5. Whitewater
6. St Thomas
7. Linfield
8. Wartburg
9. MHB
10. Wittenberg
So you can see why UWW fans are calling this year's selection committee the BCS for DIII ;)
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2010, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: seventiesraider on November 15, 2010, 08:42:43 PM
Well, bad as it might be, if we used the BCS logic we'd have
1. North Central
2. Wheaton
3. Mt Union
4. Wesley
5. Whitewater
6. St Thomas
7. Linfield
8. Wartburg
9. MHB
10. Wittenberg
So you can see why UWW fans are calling this year's selection committee the BCS for DIII ;)
A list, ranking teams, from Seventies is about as reliable as the weatherman in Chicago. ;)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2010, 12:00:49 AM
In the HuddLLe interview of Dr Joy Solomon, she mentions that there will be 24 Pool A bids in 2011.
I wonder if she is not aware of the specifics of UMAC and the ECFC, or one conference is not yet ready for a Pool A bid. Here is the link to the 23 minute interview.
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/15/what-the-chair-said/
Probably not since, around the 10 minute mark, she states that there were no, "results against common opponents," between NCC and UWW which should have
also been considered along with the SOS. ??? ::) Honestly, she would be better off not doing interviews and using the standard. "No comment."
"Better to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt!"
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2010, 12:00:49 AM
In the HuddLLe interview of Dr Joy Solomon, she mentions that there will be 24 Pool A bids in 2011.
I wonder if she is not aware of the specifics of UMAC and the ECFC, or one conference is not yet ready for a Pool A bid. Here is the link to the 23 minute interview.
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/15/what-the-chair-said/
I need to listen again. I thought I heard her say that next year there would only be five Pool C bids. I thought starting in 2011, there would be 25 AQs, one Pool B and six Pool C. Can anyone clarify?
Quote from: martin on November 16, 2010, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2010, 12:00:49 AM
In the HuddLLe interview of Dr Joy Solomon, she mentions that there will be 24 Pool A bids in 2011.
I wonder if she is not aware of the specifics of UMAC and the ECFC, or one conference is not yet ready for a Pool A bid. Here is the link to the 23 minute interview.
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/15/what-the-chair-said/
I need to listen again. I thought I heard her say that next year there would only be five Pool C bids. I thought starting in 2011, there would be 25 AQs, one Pool B and six Pool C. Can anyone clarify?
Read Pat's post after the podcast (listed below it). He goes through the mathematical calculations for the different pool picks for 2011.
Quote from: Manuel Willocq on November 16, 2010, 01:27:24 PM
Quote from: martin on November 16, 2010, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 16, 2010, 12:00:49 AM
In the HuddLLe interview of Dr Joy Solomon, she mentions that there will be 24 Pool A bids in 2011.
I wonder if she is not aware of the specifics of UMAC and the ECFC, or one conference is not yet ready for a Pool A bid. Here is the link to the 23 minute interview.
http://d3blogs.com/d3football/2010/11/15/what-the-chair-said/
I need to listen again. I thought I heard her say that next year there would only be five Pool C bids. I thought starting in 2011, there would be 25 AQs, one Pool B and six Pool C. Can anyone clarify?
Read Pat's post after the podcast (listed below it). He goes through the mathematical calculations for the different pool picks for 2011.
Thanks for directing me to Pat's post. Solomen's comments begin at the 18:25 mark. I believe she is wrong. She was at the airport speaking off the cuff so cut her some slack. Although the way she said it leads me to believe that she does not understand the Pool allocations. Either that or she has already mentally removed herself from the committee. Who can blame her for all the grief you get for a thankless job. A somewhat accurate transcription of what she said:
QuoteWhen you have 23 automatic bids and next year you will have 24 and you're cutting Pool C down to 5 teams...
What Pat said:
QuoteSolomen makes an offhand comment late in the interview about 24 automatic bids, 5 Pool C next year. That isn't going to be the case. First of all, we're going to have 25 automatic bids, as near as I can tell. Secondly, here's the math.
This year we have (I think) 226 teams eligible for the Division III football championship (not the 10 NESCAC teams, not Birmingham-Southern, but everyone else).
198 teams are in Pool A (AQ conferences), divided by 23 bids = 8.609 teams for each spot
28 teams are in Pool B. Divide that by 8.609 and you get 3.25 bids. They always round down, so it's three.
The leftover bids are Pool C bids. That's six.
Let's say that only the UMAC gets a new automatic bid next year.
Nine teams move from Pool B to the UMAC automatic bid, plus a 10th school starts football.
Salisbury and Frostburg State move from Pool B to the Empire 8.
Stevenson adds football and joins the MAC in Pool A.
Birmingham-Southern finishes its provisional years and counts as a member of the Pool A SCAC.
DePauw leaves the SCAC and spends one year in limbo in Pool B.
Pool B's net loss is 10 teams, giving them 18. Pool A's net gain is 12 teams, giving them 210.
210 teams are in Pool A (AQ conferences), divided by 24 bids = 8.75 teams for each spot
18 teams are in Pool B. Divide that by 8.75 and you get 2.057 bids. They always round down, so it's two.
The leftover bids are Pool C bids. That's six.
Now, let's add the ECFC to this list. That's eight more teams, one more AQ.
That means 218 teams are in Pool A, divided by 25 bids, 8.72 teams for each spot.
10 teams are in Pool B. Divide that by 8.72 and you get 1.147 bids. Round down to 1.
The leftover bids are Pool C bids. That's six.
The logic is simple...teams are shifting from Pool B eligible to Pool A eligible next year. The bid distribution shift is between Pools A and B...C is unaffected. We all know this. The tournament selection committee chairperson has to know this and has to be able to speak accurately about it from the NCAA HQ, their office, an airport, on the moon or wherever they get asked about it. They just have to.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2010, 02:12:45 PM
The tournament selection committee chairperson has to know this and has to be able to speak accurately about it from the NCAA HQ, their office, an airport, on the moon or wherever they get asked about it. They just have to.
Why does the chair of the 2010 selection committee need to know in November 2010 what the pool allocation will be for a tournament that will not take place until November 2011, when she will not even be the chair? It's not her job to determine how many teams are eligible in each pool. She only needs to be able to read the handbook (which won't come out for another 10+ months).
And how can you say, "We all know this."? The numbers Pat and Ralph have used are likely accurate, but I don't believe they have been confirmed by the NCAA. Do we have confirmation if either the UMAC or the ECFC will certainly get their Pool A bid? Can you be certain that 25 college presidents won't suddenly wake up one morning in March and tell the AD to scrap the football program, changing the Pool B ratio?
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2010, 02:12:45 PM
The logic is simple...teams are shifting from Pool B eligible to Pool A eligible next year. The bid distribution shift is between Pools A and B...C is unaffected. We all know this. The tournament selection committee chairperson has to know this and has to be able to speak accurately about it from the NCAA HQ, their office, an airport, on the moon or wherever they get asked about it. They just have to.
I don't agree either. The NCAA chair actually doesn't have any role in the bid determination process. That's done by the beancounters in Indianapolis. Actually, that's precisely why it is so often incorrect and why Ralph Turner's role as the anointed D3sports.com bid math guru is so prominent. How many times, just in the sports we cover, has the NCAA shifted a bid from B to C late in the game? That's because non-D3 people run the process and don't know when schools become eligible for the playoffs or when schools add the sport because they do not follow it.
Maybe Joy Solomen is off the hook for bid speculation but I am not sure how she can say "NCC and Whitewater have no HTH or common opponents so we had to look at the numbers available"
UWW 45 UWEC 0
NCC 20 UWEC 6
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2010, 02:12:45 PM
We all know this. The tournament selection committee chairperson has to know this and has to be able to speak accurately about it from the NCAA HQ, their office, an airport, on the moon or wherever they get asked about it. They just have to.
I guess where I'm coming from here is that if you're the chair of the D-III football tournament selection committee, you ought to know how that tournament works inside and out. When you don't know your tournament inside and out, things like UWW not being one of the top four teams and the Witt/DePauw seeding situation are a lot less palatable because it doesn't seem like this committee is coming from a place of any particular Division III football expertise.
Quote from: USee on November 16, 2010, 02:53:05 PM
Maybe Joy Solomen is off the hook for bid speculation but I am not sure how she can say "NCC and Whitewater have no HTH or common opponents so we had to look at the numbers available"
UWW 45 UWEC 0
NCC 20 UWEC 6
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2010, 02:12:45 PM
We all know this. The tournament selection committee chairperson has to know this and has to be able to speak accurately about it from the NCAA HQ, their office, an airport, on the moon or wherever they get asked about it. They just have to.
Ya, this one is making me absolutely crazy! Since the chair and it seems the entire committee was, apparently, totally unaware of the common opponent it really doesn't matter but as Pat said in the podcast, UW-W took their foot off the gas in their last drive in the 4th quarter running the #4 RB up the middle behind the # 2's against their #1's or that score would have reached into the 50's. But beating a common opponent by 45 or 52 when the other team only wins by 2 TD's doesn't matter much if the committee is oblivious to the fact. ???
I have to let this go............... ;)
Thanks for the shoutout. I have a hard time understanding why the NCAA doesn't put more effort into maintaining "AQ integrity". How can you have credibility about your sport when you don't even know the most important fact of the playoff? How many competitors will there be?
As for UWW going on the road, life is tough when you're stuck on an island, like the WIAC, the ASC, the NWC and the SCIAC.
Pat outlines it well. There should be 1 Pool B in 2011, if the ECFC and the UMAC move to Pool A status.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2010, 02:58:57 PM
When you don't know your tournament inside and out, things like UWW not being one of the top four teams and the Witt/DePauw seeding situation are a lot less palatable because it doesn't seem like this committee is coming from a place of any particular Division III football expertise.
The 2010 committee is comprised of 4 head football coaches, 2 conference commissioners, and 2 athletic directors. These are D-III people, most of them are likely football people too (at least half for sure). They aren't college presidents who are more worried about other things besides athletics. They aren't non-sports people or bean-counters. They aren't people who care more about the big schools. They aren't people who are more interested in other sports. They are D-III football.
We tend to use the terms "NCAA" and "committee" and think of some mystical group that makes these selection decisions without any regard for the schools involved. We often forget that they people making these decisions are direct representatives of the the schools involved and the rules they use were created by the schools involved.
Atleast a regional committee member (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/14/1424900/plu-passed-over-for-division-iii.html) admits this year's selection had more to do with numbers, and little to do with common sense.
Quote from: altor on November 16, 2010, 04:24:34 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 16, 2010, 02:58:57 PM
When you don't know your tournament inside and out, things like UWW not being one of the top four teams and the Witt/DePauw seeding situation are a lot less palatable because it doesn't seem like this committee is coming from a place of any particular Division III football expertise.
The 2010 committee is comprised of 4 head football coaches, 2 conference commissioners, and 2 athletic directors. These are D-III people, most of them are likely football people too (at least half for sure). They aren't college presidents who are more worried about other things besides athletics. They aren't non-sports people or bean-counters. They aren't people who care more about the big schools. They aren't people who are more interested in other sports. They are D-III football.
We tend to use the terms "NCAA" and "committee" and think of some mystical group that makes these selection decisions without any regard for the schools involved. We often forget that they people making these decisions are direct representatives of the the schools involved and the rules they use were created by the schools involved.
Which is the disheartening thing for me. They aren't outsiders and they ought to know better. If you know what you're doing, you can't walk out of that room and tell the world that UWW isn't one of the four top teams in the division. If you know what you're doing, you can't not know that UWW/NCC and DePauw/Witt had common opponents.
Anyway, I think I've made my point and I'll move on now. We are going to have an exciting tournament over the next five weeks. Hopefully next year this committee will be led by somebody who will let themselves get a little more invested in making sure everything makes sense.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2010, 04:35:41 PM
Atleast a regional committee member (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/14/1424900/plu-passed-over-for-division-iii.html) admits this year's selection had more to do with numbers, and little to do with common sense.
QuoteCarnahan said. "But it comes down to a ranking system with very little human common sense to it."
Well, Mr. Carnahan, what does it say about the D-III members who voted for this criteria? Do they not have "human common sense"? I suggest you create some legislation for the D-III members to vote on that does have common sense, if that is what you want. The selection criteria was designed by the membership. It's not like they can't change it.
Sigh. Remember when the complaints were that the selections were too subjective?
Sometimes you have to extrapolate what is meant from what is said. It might be that Ms Solomen meant that there were no common opponents where a decision could be made from those games. Since both NCC and UWW beat their only common opponent, there was no way to differentiate the two teams based on that common opponent. (Without, of course, going by point spread, which, IMHO doesn't mean squat.) Just a thought as to explain this seemingly innacurate statement.
Quote from: altor on November 16, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2010, 04:35:41 PM
Atleast a regional committee member (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/14/1424900/plu-passed-over-for-division-iii.html) admits this year's selection had more to do with numbers, and little to do with common sense.
QuoteCarnahan said. "But it comes down to a ranking system with very little human common sense to it."
Well, Mr. Carnahan, what does it say about the D-III members who voted for this criteria? Do they not have "human common sense"? I suggest you create some legislation for the D-III members to vote on that does have common sense, if that is what you want. The selection criteria was designed by the membership. It's not like they can't change it.
Sigh. Remember when the complaints were that the selections were too subjective?
The problem is not the criteria. The problem is the seemingly random application of the criteria. There are
several criteria, with no specification as to their relative importance. Last year, SoS seemed to be largely ignored. This year it seemed to be the one overriding criterion.
Quote from: altor on November 16, 2010, 04:24:34 PM
The 2010 committee is comprised of 4 head football coaches, 2 conference commissioners, and 2 athletic directors. These are D-III people, most of them are likely football people too (at least half for sure). They aren't college presidents who are more worried about other things besides athletics. They aren't non-sports people or bean-counters. They aren't people who care more about the big schools. They aren't people who are more interested in other sports. They are D-III football.
We tend to use the terms "NCAA" and "committee" and think of some mystical group that makes these selection decisions without any regard for the schools involved. We often forget that they people making these decisions are direct representatives of the the schools involved and the rules they use were created by the schools involved.
This is a very good point and something I hope people here understand.
Most years I travel to Salem for the basketball Final Four. I'm fortunate to have gotten to know a lot of head coaches who have served on regional and national advisory committees - guys like Pat Cunningham (Trinity-Tx) and Charlie Brock (Springfield). I've really learned a lot about how the Division III selection process works, and what the roles of the committee members are. I've come to realize the following:
1) The members of the regional/national committees are almost all great "basketball guys." They completely understand which leagues/regions are the toughest, which are the easiest, etc. Bottom line, they know Division III basketball about as well as anyone and are guys fans would pick to be on the committees if we had a say.
2) The system the committee members are required to use in selecting/seeding teams is very flawed. They all know this. One of the flaws is the "in-region game" concept -- the fact that all D3 games don't count, and the fact that Illinois Wesleyan vs Occidental is in-region while Wheaton vs Calvin is not. Another flaw is that regional data is used to make national decisions, and when some regions are stronger than others, that creates a big problem. And there are obviously several other problems...and the committee members know them all. But they are bound by the rules they are given (the criteria laid out in the Handbook.) Note, former Wheaton head coach Bill Harris removed himself from the Midwest region committee a few years back saying, "A computer can do this...why do they need me?"
I know this is the football board, and I have not had the same level of interaction with football committee members (in fact I have had none), but I have to believe it's the same issue -- good, solid D3 football people who have a great feel for who the #1 seeds probably are, etc. but are given a system to use that has flaws.
I'm simply posting all of this because sometimes I get the sense that people think there are a bunch of NCAA "bean counters" running the selection/bracketing system -- people who think that Wesley is better than Whitewater, because that's what the SOS says. I'd just ask everyone to realize that those regional and national committees are made up of really good D3 people.
Also realize that the committee members turnover over every couple of years...which, I think, is what leads to the same rules being interpreted differently from year to year.
Quote from: retagent on November 16, 2010, 05:42:03 PM
Sometimes you have to extrapolate what is meant from what is said. It might be that Ms Solomen meant that there were no common opponents where a decision could be made from those games. Since both NCC and UWW beat their only common opponent, there was no way to differentiate the two teams based on that common opponent. (Without, of course, going by point spread, which, IMHO doesn't mean squat.) Just a thought as to explain this seemingly innacurate statement.
Oh, please................
She said and I quote,"
there wasn't anything to compare with in-region h2h or results against common opponents so the numbers played in there," and NCC's numbers were stronger, blah,blah,blah........
Extrapolate away, retagent, but it seems pretty cut and dried to me. ::)
Quote from: altor on November 16, 2010, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 16, 2010, 04:35:41 PM
Atleast a regional committee member (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/14/1424900/plu-passed-over-for-division-iii.html) admits this year's selection had more to do with numbers, and little to do with common sense.
QuoteCarnahan said. "But it comes down to a ranking system with very little human common sense to it."
Well, Mr. Carnahan, what does it say about the D-III members who voted for this criteria? Do they not have "human common sense"? I suggest you create some legislation for the D-III members to vote on that does have common sense, if that is what you want. The selection criteria was designed by the membership. It's not like they can't change it.
Sigh. Remember when the complaints were that the selections were too subjective?
The criteria is not absolute and binding. And the Committee has shown that in the past. They have even shown that in this bracket to some extent. They may well be honorable D3 football people. It's simply hard to believe that 8 people with normally functioning brains could have come up with the four #1 seeds they did. They can't hide behind the criteria. They could have named UW-W and Mount #1 and #2 overall and been just fine. But they made a different choice. Maybe they are right. Maybe St. Thomas will play Wesley in the Stagg Bowl. Then they are right. But if it's UW-W and Mount Union again, they should be embarrassed.
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 16, 2010, 10:41:22 PM
Maybe they are right. Maybe St. Thomas will play Wesley in the Stagg Bowl. Then they are right. But if it's UW-W and Mount Union again, they should be embarrassed.
Really, embarrassed? Why? They made a choice based on criteria they chose. It isn't like UWW and UMU were the only undefeated teams in the country and were slighted. So no other team can be a #1 seed as long as UMU or UWW only lose one game a year, and that to the other team in the Stagg. That is asinine. D3 is a tournament format that should reward excellence in a season with home games and seedings, but as we have seen in the past that doesn't always happen as we think it should for a variety of reasons like the 500 mile rule or that there are a number of undefeated teams that deserve a shot at a number one seed when there are only 4. It's not like UWW and UMU never lose or are undefeatable. It may seem that way for the past few years, but guess what, they can be beat.
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 17, 2010, 08:38:08 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 16, 2010, 10:41:22 PM
Maybe they are right. Maybe St. Thomas will play Wesley in the Stagg Bowl. Then they are right. But if it's UW-W and Mount Union again, they should be embarrassed.
Really, embarrassed? Why? They made a choice based on criteria they chose. It isn't like UWW and UMU were the only undefeated teams in the country and were slighted. So no other team can be a #1 seed as long as UMU or UWW only lose one game a year, and that to the other team in the Stagg. That is asinine. D3 is a tournament format that should reward excellence in a season with home games and seedings, but as we have seen in the past that doesn't always happen as we think it should for a variety of reasons like the 500 mile rule or that there are a number of undefeated teams that deserve a shot at a number one seed when there are only 4. It's not like UWW and UMU never lose or are undefeatable. It may seem that way for the past few years, but guess what, they can be beat.
Undefeatable? ;)
NO! Only the Top 4 teams in the country "deserve" to be seeded #1.
Actually Toby, you made an assertion and then called it asinine. That is not my assertion at all. Point missed.
The reason I think the committee should be embarrassed if UW-W and Mount go to the Stagg Bowl is because it will have meant they missed the obvious. (When is that last time either of them lost a playoff game prior to the Stagg Bowl?) None of us know with absolute certainty who the best teams are this year. That's why we play the playoffs. I would hope the committee attempts to name the four best teams in the country (to the best of their collective estimation) the #1 seeds. I'm just saying, the committee shouldn't be charged with "spreading out the wealth" like some Obama program.
Do you think the committee believes that their #1 seeds are the four best teams in the country?
I hope the answer to that is, yes. If not, they should be embarrassed already.
They were the ones that ranked Wesley first and St. Thomas second. No one one forced them to do that, including the member schools of the NCAA.
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 17, 2010, 10:14:19 AM
NO! Only the Top 4 teams in the country "deserve" to be seeded #1.
Actually Toby, you made an assertion and then called it asinine. That is not my assertion at all. Point missed.
The reason I think the committee should be embarrassed if UW-W and Mount go to the Stagg Bowl is because it will have meant they missed the obvious. (When is that last time either of them lost a playoff game prior to the Stagg Bowl?) None of us know with absolute certainty who the best teams are this year. That's why we play the playoffs. I would hope the committee attempts to name the four best teams in the country (to the best of their collective estimation) the #1 seeds. I'm just saying, the committee shouldn't be charged with "spreading out the wealth" like some Obama program.
Do you think the committee believes that their #1 seeds are the four best teams in the country?
I hope the answer to that is, yes. If not, they should be embarrassed already.
They were the ones that ranked Wesley first and St. Thomas second. No one one forced them to do that, including the member schools of the NCAA.
I said "they deserve a shot at being a #1" not that they deserve to be number 1s. By virtue of winning all of their games, they at least deserve consideration. You're right that no one would look twice if UWW and UMU were given # 1 seeds, but they shouldn't be given by virute of history and name. I also don't think "best four teams in the country" matters much in the way of seeding. Those words are too subjective. The playoffs are intended to decide the best team in the country. How often do all 4 #1s end up in the semis? Should the committee be embarrassed if all 4 # 1s fail to make the semis? no. The games are played and settled on the field, and whoever is better that day advances.
The committee chose criteria and applied them, and opps, they didn't favor the teams most people believe to be the best teas in the country. Sometimes that is how it happens. I'd rather have the decision made that way than by the eyeball test because the eyeball test excludes people from the start based on perception. If UWW and UMU are the best teams, and even I believe they probably are, they will march through their brackets and meet in Salem. As a fan of UMHB, who went to the Stagg in 2004 playing every game on the road including a trip to Alliance, I know that either sometimes perception of the best team is wrong or sometimes the best team loses. It isn't a tournament about seed # it's a tournament about winning.
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 17, 2010, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 17, 2010, 10:14:19 AM
NO! Only the Top 4 teams in the country "deserve" to be seeded #1.
Actually Toby, you made an assertion and then called it asinine. That is not my assertion at all. Point missed.
The reason I think the committee should be embarrassed if UW-W and Mount go to the Stagg Bowl is because it will have meant they missed the obvious. (When is that last time either of them lost a playoff game prior to the Stagg Bowl?) None of us know with absolute certainty who the best teams are this year. That's why we play the playoffs. I would hope the committee attempts to name the four best teams in the country (to the best of their collective estimation) the #1 seeds. I'm just saying, the committee shouldn't be charged with "spreading out the wealth" like some Obama program.
Do you think the committee believes that their #1 seeds are the four best teams in the country?
I hope the answer to that is, yes. If not, they should be embarrassed already.
They were the ones that ranked Wesley first and St. Thomas second. No one one forced them to do that, including the member schools of the NCAA.
I said "they deserve a shot at being a #1" not that they deserve to be number 1s. By virtue of winning all of their games, they at least deserve consideration. You're right that no one would look twice if UWW and UMU were given # 1 seeds, but they shouldn't be given by virute of history and name. I also don't think "best four teams in the country" matters much in the way of seeding. Those words are too subjective. The playoffs are intended to decide the best team in the country. How often do all 4 #1s end up in the semis? Should the committee be embarrassed if all 4 # 1s fail to make the semis? no. The games are played and settled on the field, and whoever is better that day advances.
The committee chose criteria and applied them, and opps, they didn't favor the teams most people believe to be the best teas in the country. Sometimes that is how it happens. I'd rather have the decision made that way than by the eyeball test because the eyeball test excludes people from the start based on perception. If UWW and UMU are the best teams, and even I believe they probably are, they will march through their brackets and meet in Salem. As a fan of UMHB, who went to the Stagg in 2004 playing every game on the road including a trip to Alliance, I know that either sometimes perception of the best team is wrong or sometimes the best team loses. It isn't a tournament about seed # it's a tournament about winning.
Toby,
Thanks for clarifying. When you said "a shot" at a number one seed, I thought you meant it like rotating them year to year. "Let's give North Central and St. Thomas a shot this year." I didn't think that sounded too Texas-like! ;) Now I get it. You were talking about consideration. I definitely agree with that.
My own opinion is that the #1 seeds should be about the perceived best teams, but maybe the committee doesn't make that their over-riding goal. It still seems to me that if the whole thing is supposed to be criteria based, we could just use a computer. And if judgement is thrown into the mix, it's hard to believe that judgment wouldn't include making UW-W a #1. Not pretending to be unbiased, but it's my opinion.
The bottom line is that it will be decided on the field. Thank God this wasn't a conference call to name the official national champion! Good luck to the Cru! If UW-W makes it to the semi's, I have a feeling we'll be traveling to Texas. Now about that.... ;D ;D ;D
I think it is obvious that the selection committee is tiring, (possibly like many others), of seeing the Stagg Bowl turn into the Purple Party Bowl. If this were Div I, one could say it's about the money as that is what THEY are into. But this is Div III. That leaves one wondering why UWW is not a number one and Mt Union isn't the top pick on their side of the ledger.
The problem w/all this is that people start making arbitrary decisions not reflective of what is or has transpired on the field. Those folks on the committee might not like what has gone on the past five yrs, (and now maybe six), but what's right is after all, still right.
This should be decided on the field and not influenced by the committee.
But then again, at least they are consistent...after all, in Div I, it's the same type of people who have brought us the BCS...the Badly Convoluted System.
As a Mount guy, I think the Raiders got seeded (#3 overall) about exactly where I would have put them. History says they're one of the 4 best teams in the nation as evidenced by the fact that it's been since 1994 that they failed to make it to at least the Semi-Finals. And in '94, they lost 34-33 on the road in the 2nd round to Albion which was the eventual national champion. However looking at the player graduations from last season and scores of this year's game, I don't think Mount should be any higher than #3 overall.
In my mind, the top teams under consideration for #1 seeds are:
1. Whitewater
2. North Central
3. Mount Union
4. Wesley
5. St Thomas
6. Mary Hardin Baylor
The only major issues I have with the NCAA's bracket is St Thomas getting a #1 before Whitewater and DePauw (9-1) being a #3 seed when Wabash smoked them and Wittenberg (10-0) beat Wabash but is only #5 seed and therefore on the road. Those are the 2 seedings that stand out for me.
If I made the bracket, my seeds would have been (regions listed in overall seeding order too):
NORTH
1. Whitewater
2. Wheaton
WEST
1. North Central
2. St Thomas
EAST
1. Mount Union
2. Cortland State
SOUTH
1. Wesley
2. Mary Hardin Baylor
Quote from: midwestgiant on November 17, 2010, 12:33:49 PM
I think it is obvious that the selection committee is tiring, (possibly like many others), of seeing the Stagg Bowl turn into the Purple Party Bowl. If this were Div I, one could say it's about the money as that is what THEY are into. But this is Div III. That leaves one wondering why UWW is not a number one and Mt Union isn't the top pick on their side of the ledger.
The problem w/all this is that people start making arbitrary decisions not reflective of what is or has transpired on the field. Those folks on the committee might not like what has gone on the past five yrs, (and now maybe six), but what's right is after all, still right.
This should be decided on the field and not influenced by the committee.
But then again, at least they are consistent...after all, in Div I, it's the same type of people who have brought us the BCS...the Badly Convoluted System.
I think it's pretty ludicrous to think that the selection committee cares one way or another who plays in the championship game. In the last five years, teams have had a total of 20 chances to keep UWW and/or Mount Union out of the championship game and failed every time. It isn't right to condemn those two programs for being awesome. It also isn't right to use the SOS metric as the end-all indicator of how good a team is. That's where this committee failed.
Coach,
As usual, this is very well thought out. I agree with all of it except I would flip NCC and Mount. Mount is very young this year, but have still been very good. I know you know a million times more about them than I do, but my goodness, you are used to seeing them win PLAYOFF games by 30, 40 points and more on their way to the Stagg. Maybe this year, they will only win the semi-final by 10, but it still gets them to Salem. I still believe they are rising to the point of being a favorite in every game leading up to the Stagg Bowl. I also believe that by that point, they will be favored to beat any opponent they face, except UW-W and that game should be a pick-em.
But I also acknowledge that you are "da man" in all this! ;)
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 17, 2010, 01:57:03 PM
In the last five years, teams have had a total of 20 chances to keep UWW and/or Mount Union out of the championship game and failed every time. It isn't right to condemn those two programs for being awesome. It also isn't right to use the SOS metric as the end-all indicator of how good a team is. That's where this committee failed.
Well said, WW. Said with far more clarity and far less emotion than my rants have been. +k ;)
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2010, 12:53:41 PM
The only major issues I have with the NCAA's bracket is St Thomas getting a #1 before Whitewater and DePauw (9-1) being a #3 seed when Wabash smoked them and Wittenberg (10-0) beat Wabash but is only #5 seed and therefore on the road. Those are the 2 seedings that stand out for me.
If I can add to that, I was curious how Cal. Lutheran wasn't able to host their game against Linfield...espeically when CLU beat them earlier in the year.
I agree with you on DePuaw being ranked too high AND I don't know how they pulled off being able to host an undefeated Trine team. It seems like Wittenberg and DePauw should swap their places in the bracket. With Witt hosting Trine, and Ohion N. hosting DePauw.
hscoach, i would agree with the #1's, just maybe not the placement. i would have uwww, mount, wesley, ncc. being biased here as i dont want to have to think about going to uwww to see a game, would have to fly, can make the drive to alliance. :D
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2010, 02:20:49 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2010, 12:53:41 PM
The only major issues I have with the NCAA's bracket is St Thomas getting a #1 before Whitewater and DePauw (9-1) being a #3 seed when Wabash smoked them and Wittenberg (10-0) beat Wabash but is only #5 seed and therefore on the road. Those are the 2 seedings that stand out for me.
If I can add to that, I was curious how Cal. Lutheran wasn't able to host their game against Linfield...espeically when CLU beat them earlier in the year.
I agree with you on DePuaw being ranked too high AND I don't know how they pulled off being able to host an undefeated Trine team. It seems like Wittenberg and DePauw should swap their places in the bracket. With Witt hosting Trine, and Ohion N. hosting DePauw.
CLU is actually seeded higher but can not host because their facility doesn't meet the NCAA championship standard (believe they are in the midst of rennovating). Unfortunate break, but this kind of thing has happened before in the tournament.
DePauw seeded where they are is curious. Makes you wonder how high up on that board they were before Saturday's result.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 17, 2010, 02:36:32 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 17, 2010, 02:20:49 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2010, 12:53:41 PM
The only major issues I have with the NCAA's bracket is St Thomas getting a #1 before Whitewater and DePauw (9-1) being a #3 seed when Wabash smoked them and Wittenberg (10-0) beat Wabash but is only #5 seed and therefore on the road. Those are the 2 seedings that stand out for me.
If I can add to that, I was curious how Cal. Lutheran wasn't able to host their game against Linfield...espeically when CLU beat them earlier in the year.
I agree with you on DePuaw being ranked too high AND I don't know how they pulled off being able to host an undefeated Trine team. It seems like Wittenberg and DePauw should swap their places in the bracket. With Witt hosting Trine, and Ohion N. hosting DePauw.
CLU is actually seeded higher but can not host because their facility doesn't meet the NCAA championship standard (believe they are in the midst of rennovating). Unfortunate break, but this kind of thing has happened before in the tournament.
DePauw seeded where they are is curious. Makes you wonder how high up on that board they were before Saturday's result.
That makes sense about CLU, but that does suck. However, the CLU faithful on their board still think they should of hosted.
As far as DePauw, before they lost, the committee probably would of put UWW #3 and DePuaw #2 ::) ;)
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
Didn't Franklin have a similar situation in 2008, but was able to host their 3rd round game (vs. Wheaton) at a nearby high school?
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
I believe they are actually building a whole new stadium at a different location on Campus....nonethless....their current facility is not up to snuff.
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 17, 2010, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
Didn't Franklin have a similar situation in 2008, but was able to host their 3rd round game (vs. Wheaton) at a nearby high school?
The Franklin situation was different. They had used their field in a rainstorm and it was torn up so much it was unplayable so the NCAA let them use a nearby HS for the game.
Pretty much every question asked on this thread is answered in the latest Around the Nation (http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2010/surprises-disappointments-predictions). It is a lot, but I promise it's explained in there.
I drew on the discussion here and on the Daily Dose for the beginning part, then also there's our usual bracket reactions and then our Surprises and Disappointments picks.
If you read the entire thing you will know why W&L and Witt are seeded lower than H-SC and DePauw (even if you don't agree), you should understand why UW-W didn't get a No. 1 and how Rowan, PLU and Redlands could get left home.
Also why SUNY-M and CLU are on the road ... although I see that's been addressed above :)
In other words, you might have found all these answers, but now they're grouped in one place.
Great ATN Keith. Very well thought out. Thank you for taking the time to put it together.
I agree with pretty much all of your thoughts, but I'm still struggling with your denfense of SoS. Your argument that using SoS encourages scheduling harder teams. is compelling, but only if you assume teams can deliberately and significantly influence their strength of schedule. I just don't see how you can make that assumption, especially for the many teams in Division III who can only schedule one discretionary game per season. An increase in one opponent, no matter how drastic, just isn't going to move the needle that much.
How much influence are you assuming teams have over their SoS?
Wesley was a higher seeded team against Trinity TX in 2000 and had to travel because of the field condition and seating were not up to NCAA standards... As it turned out they went to Texas and played in a swamp caused by torrential rains... I felt then and still feel that a team should be afforded the opportunity to get a field within a reasonable distance from there home field.
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 17, 2010, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
Didn't Franklin have a similar situation in 2008, but was able to host their 3rd round game (vs. Wheaton) at a nearby high school?
The Franklin situation was different. They had used their field in a rainstorm and it was torn up so much it was unplayable so the NCAA let them use a nearby HS for the game.
So why couldn't CLU host at a So. Cal. high school field? I don't see the difference in the CLU and Franklin situations. Both had sub-standard on-campus facilities.
This CCIW fan is hoping for 2 NCC wins, 2 Wheaton wins and Linfield win over UST. That would mean 2 regional finals played within 7 miles of each other. Has to be a first! :o ;)
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 19, 2010, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 17, 2010, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
Didn't Franklin have a similar situation in 2008, but was able to host their 3rd round game (vs. Wheaton) at a nearby high school?
The Franklin situation was different. They had used their field in a rainstorm and it was torn up so much it was unplayable so the NCAA let them use a nearby HS for the game.
So why couldn't CLU host at a So. Cal. high school field? I don't see the difference in the CLU and Franklin situations. Both had sub-standard on-campus facilities.
The difference is Franklin had a field that was usable, and in fact, started the playoffs on that field, if you recall, before a playoff game tore it up.
Similarly Linfield back in the early part of the decade was allowed to host a playoff game at Willamette and Brockport State a game at Rochester when their field took a beating from an early round playoff game.
Cal Lutheran didn't have a viable field of its own to begin with. And you can't go into the playoffs hoping to host at a field you've never played at.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2010, 02:10:56 AM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 19, 2010, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 17, 2010, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
Didn't Franklin have a similar situation in 2008, but was able to host their 3rd round game (vs. Wheaton) at a nearby high school?
The Franklin situation was different. They had used their field in a rainstorm and it was torn up so much it was unplayable so the NCAA let them use a nearby HS for the game.
So why couldn't CLU host at a So. Cal. high school field? I don't see the difference in the CLU and Franklin situations. Both had sub-standard on-campus facilities.
The difference is Franklin had a field that was usable, and in fact, started the playoffs on that field, if you recall, before a playoff game tore it up.
Similarly Linfield back in the early part of the decade was allowed to host a playoff game at Willamette and Brockport State a game at Rochester when their field took a beating from an early round playoff game.
Cal Lutheran didn't have a viable field of its own to begin with. And you can't go into the playoffs hoping to host at a field you've never played at.
WHY ?????
There are 2 nice turf fields not far from Cal Lu's campus, Westlake High School, and Moorpark Junior College.
In other sports playoffs are not always held at on campus school fields why does the NCAA require this for football....IMO Ridiculous....like many of the NCAA rules....Inconsistent as usual rather than take the logical
choice....
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 20, 2010, 02:36:53 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2010, 02:10:56 AM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 19, 2010, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: ncc_fan on November 17, 2010, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: USee on November 17, 2010, 02:53:29 PM
CLU can't host because their facilities aren't up to snuff. They are doing a scrape off/rebuild this offseason.
Didn't Franklin have a similar situation in 2008, but was able to host their 3rd round game (vs. Wheaton) at a nearby high school?
The Franklin situation was different. They had used their field in a rainstorm and it was torn up so much it was unplayable so the NCAA let them use a nearby HS for the game.
So why couldn't CLU host at a So. Cal. high school field? I don't see the difference in the CLU and Franklin situations. Both had sub-standard on-campus facilities.
The difference is Franklin had a field that was usable, and in fact, started the playoffs on that field, if you recall, before a playoff game tore it up.
Similarly Linfield back in the early part of the decade was allowed to host a playoff game at Willamette and Brockport State a game at Rochester when their field took a beating from an early round playoff game.
Cal Lutheran didn't have a viable field of its own to begin with. And you can't go into the playoffs hoping to host at a field you've never played at.
WHY ?????
There are 2 nice turf fields not far from Cal Lu's campus, Westlake High School, and Moorpark Junior College.
In other sports playoffs are not always held at on campus school fields why does the NCAA require this for football....IMO Ridiculous....like many of the NCAA rules....Inconsistent as usual rather than take the logical
choice....
NCAA rules -- not sure what else I can tell you but you cannot host a playoff game at a place where you have played less than half of your regular season home games.
It doesn't have to be on campus, but it must be
your home field.
Well, FWIW it's rainy and cool down here in L.A. anyway so they might as well play in Oregon!
It seems that there were a lot of high scoring games today.
Half the remaining field is from just four conferences, as the OAC, CCIW, MIAC, and NJAC as went 2-0. Not such a good day for the two other conferences with two teams, as the ODAC and IIAC both went 0-2.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2010, 06:02:10 PM
Half the remaining field is from just four conferences, as the OAC, CCIW, MIAC, and NJAC as went 2-0. Not such a good day for the two other conferences with two teams, as the ODAC and IIAC both went 0-2.
And I think that the #2 team from the ASC, (either HSU or Louisiana College) could beat 16 of the teams in the original bracket.
I have yet to confirm the rumor that UMHB's head coach Pete Fredenburg sent Louisiana College's head coach a dozen 32 oz. steaks for Louisiana College's beating Hardin-Simmons. :D
ESPN's Bottom line has been showing the D3 football playoff scores from today's games. They have Muhlenburg beating Wesley 53-14. ESPN "The Worldwide Leader in Sports". I would think that by 7:45 in the evening you'd have the right score posted even if you had made a mistake earlier in the day. :o
ESPN had a story on earlier today calling Gregg Popovich "George." Methinks their fact checking ain't what it used to be.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2010, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2010, 06:02:10 PM
Half the remaining field is from just four conferences, as the OAC, CCIW, MIAC, and NJAC as went 2-0. Not such a good day for the two other conferences with two teams, as the ODAC and IIAC both went 0-2.
And I think that the #2 team from the ASC, (either HSU or Louisiana College) could beat 16 of the teams in the original bracket.
The ASC isn't alone, though.
Hate to go back to the selection process, but I just stumbled upon another instance of the NCAA's utter imcompetence in administering its selection criteria.
The ratings spread sheet for 11/10 had Case 6-1 in-region, when they were 6-2 (two conference losses)
http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank
And I see the DII committees are secure enough to release their final RRs.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2010, 02:10:56 AM
The difference is Franklin had a field that was usable, and in fact, started the playoffs on that field, if you recall, before a playoff game tore it up.
Actually, Franklin was the #5 seed in 2008 and played the first two rounds on the road that year, at Otterbein and at NCC. The field was torn up during the Hanover game. IIRC, they also were planning to put in new field turf after the season, so there may have been mitigating circumstances regarding the entire situation.
Sorry, true. But they did file to host with that field, which is the real point.
Pat Coleman,
You used to show the ranking of conferences in the playoffs for several years, up-to-date. I can not find it anymore.
Did you abandon it or am I just blind?
After this year's NCAA selections and yesterday's results, this data is more important than ever. All conferences are NOT equal.
George
GO LINFIELD WILDCATS! GO!
NCAA
700 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
Division III
Football Playoff Selection Committee,
With all due respect, this playoff format needs major change. The best 32 teams should be in, not just any champion from any conference. Look at yesterday: four teams did NOT belong, with season records of 3, 4 and 5 losses each. They lost by scores of 53-14, 57-7, 59-7 and 49-0.
Please allow me to make some recommendations of how future playoff teams should be selected. The current system clearly does not select the best 32 teams in Division III.
• This year four conference champions received bids with overall win ratios of only 70%, 60% and 50%.
• At the same time, three teams with only one loss were not invited to the playoffs. They would have been more competitive in the playoffs.
Foundation and Goals: In my opinion, here should be the goals of the playoff selection:
1. 32 best teams selected.
2. All conferences are NOT equal.
3. Pool B teams have an unfair advantage over Pool C teams. Why should a champion from a weak Pool B conference be selected over a Pool C team with a better record in a tough conference?
4. Some conferences have historically shown strength against non-conference teams and in the playoffs. The American Southwest Conference, Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Northwest Conference, Ohio Athletic Conference, Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference consistently produce extremely strong teams. Their 2nd and 3rd best teams can beat conference champions from many weaker conferences.
Recommendations:
1. Scrap the Pool B and Pool C concept entirely.
2. Automatic invitations:
A. Conference champions from a conference with at least 7 teams, and,
B. Champion must achieve at least an 80% total win ratio during the entire season.
3. At large invitations:
A. All other teams are eligible if they have at least a 70% win ratio in their total schedule. Geographical location will have no consideration at all.
B. Selection is based on this criteria:
(1) Undefeated teams get first selections.
(2) One loss teams get second selections.
(3) Two loss teams get next selections.
(4) If needed, three loss teams are eligible for final spots.
(5) SOS can be used to for selections in groups (3) and (4) only above.
C. Once all the teams are selected, teams will be placed in their own region for playoff games, if possible.
D. Each team selected will have at least one home game, as early as possible, in rounds two, three and four, unless they lose first. Seedings of the 32 teams decides all other home games, including round one.
These rules do not apply if a team can not meet the hosting standards of the NCAA.
I am just a great fan of Division III football. I hope the committee will take a serious look at the current playoff format.
Thank you.
George Thompson
GO CATS! GO!
george, pool b teams do not get in by winning any conference, pool b is for teams that dont have an aq conference and independents. there were only 3 this year and i believe it drops to 2 or 1 next year so pool b is not the issue.
Quote from: George Thompson on November 21, 2010, 11:40:08 AM
NCAA
700 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
Division III
Football Playoff Selection Committee,
With all due respect, this playoff format needs major change. The best 32 teams should be in, not just any champion from any conference. Look at yesterday: four teams did NOT belong, with season records of 3, 4 and 5 losses each. They lost by scores of 53-14, 57-7, 59-7 and 49-0.
Please allow me to make some recommendations of how future playoff teams should be selected. The current system clearly does not select the best 32 teams in Division III.
• This year four conference champions received bids with overall win ratios of only 70%, 60% and 50%.
• At the same time, three teams with only one loss were not invited to the playoffs. They would have been more competitive in the playoffs.
Foundation and Goals: In my opinion, here should be the goals of the playoff selection:
1. 32 best teams selected.
2. All conferences are NOT equal.
3. Pool B teams have an unfair advantage over Pool C teams. Why should a champion from a weak Pool B conference be selected over a Pool C team with a better record in a tough conference?
4. Some conferences have historically shown strength against non-conference teams and in the playoffs. The American Southwest Conference, Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Northwest Conference, Ohio Athletic Conference, Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference consistently produce extremely strong teams. Their 2nd and 3rd best teams can beat conference champions from many weaker conferences.
Recommendations:
1. Scrap the Pool B and Pool C concept entirely.
2. Automatic invitations:
A. Conference champions from a conference with at least 7 teams, and,
B. Champion must achieve at least an 80% total win ratio during the entire season.
3. At large invitations:
A. All other teams are eligible if they have at least a 70% win ratio in their total schedule. Geographical location will have no consideration at all.
B. Selection is based on this criteria:
(1) Undefeated teams get first selections.
(2) One loss teams get second selections.
(3) Two loss teams get next selections.
(4) If needed, three loss teams are eligible for final spots.
(5) SOS can be used to for selections in groups (3) and (4) only above.
C. Once all the teams are selected, teams will be placed in their own region for playoff games, if possible.
D. Each team selected will have at least one home game, as early as possible, in rounds two, three and four, unless they lose first. Seedings of the 32 teams decides all other home games, including round one.
These rules do not apply if a team can not meet the hosting standards of the NCAA.
I am just a great fan of Division III football. I hope the committee will take a serious look at the current playoff format.
Thank you.
George Thompson
GO CATS! GO!
Scrap Pool A,B,C process for all sports it don't work....Rewards weak Pool A, Pool B teams. Hurts stronger Pool C bid teams
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 21, 2010, 02:20:16 PM
Quote from: George Thompson on November 21, 2010, 11:40:08 AM
NCAA
700 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
Division III
Football Playoff Selection Committee,
With all due respect, this playoff format needs major change. The best 32 teams should be in, not just any champion from any conference. Look at yesterday: four teams did NOT belong, with season records of 3, 4 and 5 losses each. They lost by scores of 53-14, 57-7, 59-7 and 49-0.
Please allow me to make some recommendations of how future playoff teams should be selected. The current system clearly does not select the best 32 teams in Division III.
• This year four conference champions received bids with overall win ratios of only 70%, 60% and 50%.
• At the same time, three teams with only one loss were not invited to the playoffs. They would have been more competitive in the playoffs.
Foundation and Goals: In my opinion, here should be the goals of the playoff selection:
1. 32 best teams selected.
2. All conferences are NOT equal.
3. Pool B teams have an unfair advantage over Pool C teams. Why should a champion from a weak Pool B conference be selected over a Pool C team with a better record in a tough conference?
4. Some conferences have historically shown strength against non-conference teams and in the playoffs. The American Southwest Conference, Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Northwest Conference, Ohio Athletic Conference, Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference consistently produce extremely strong teams. Their 2nd and 3rd best teams can beat conference champions from many weaker conferences.
Recommendations:
1. Scrap the Pool B and Pool C concept entirely.
2. Automatic invitations:
A. Conference champions from a conference with at least 7 teams, and,
B. Champion must achieve at least an 80% total win ratio during the entire season.
3. At large invitations:
A. All other teams are eligible if they have at least a 70% win ratio in their total schedule. Geographical location will have no consideration at all.
B. Selection is based on this criteria:
(1) Undefeated teams get first selections.
(2) One loss teams get second selections.
(3) Two loss teams get next selections.
(4) If needed, three loss teams are eligible for final spots.
(5) SOS can be used to for selections in groups (3) and (4) only above.
C. Once all the teams are selected, teams will be placed in their own region for playoff games, if possible.
D. Each team selected will have at least one home game, as early as possible, in rounds two, three and four, unless they lose first. Seedings of the 32 teams decides all other home games, including round one.
These rules do not apply if a team can not meet the hosting standards of the NCAA.
I am just a great fan of Division III football. I hope the committee will take a serious look at the current playoff format.
Thank you.
George Thompson
GO CATS! GO!
Scrap Pool A,B,C process for all sports it don't work....Rewards weak Pool A, Pool B teams. Hurts stronger Pool C bid teams
I like the pool A. It rewards teams that win their conference. IF you're going to have conferences then you need the pool A bids. If you want to subjectively say "these are the best 32 in the land" then do it and call it something other than a national championship, because "national championship" suggests that all teams at least start with an equal shot. That's why I hate the BCS. It's why I love March madness. You win the conference you get in, you don't you might get left out regardless of your merit. CNU got crushed yesterday but they earned the right to be there. The day D3 just "chooses the top 32"is the day I walk away from D3 football.
Personally I disagree. Win your conference and you are in. If you can't win your conference, how can you be a national title holder? There may be better teams left out by the current system, but those teams didn't get the job done during the season. If you pull out the AQs and just select 32 teams it becomes much too subjective. I'd be much more inclined to ONLY allow conference champions. Will this make for the 32 (or approx 25 as it stands now in pool A plus a few pool B) best teams? No. But I don't think the teams that get to the final of that structure will be worse than some team that couldn't win its own conference.
Bottom line... win and you're in. Lose your conference, submit to the vagaries of the committee. Every team knows what it needs to do and that should not be taken away. It's easy to say some conferences are harder than others, and there is no doubt about it. However, the second best team in a hard conference doesn't have much of a case for trying for a national title... they've already proven to be second best this year...
I agree that some teams who are left out, are better than some of the teams who are in. However, I don't bellieve that any team who could win the Championship is left out. If there was an objective way to assure that the best 32 teams were chosen, I would be all for it. I believe that the system, such as it is, is better than another arbitrary method. This comes from a backer of a team that, this year, I believe, is better than maybe 10 - 12 teams who are in the playoffs. I do not think that they would get farther than possibly the second round. I understand that this is preferable to a subjective selection.
I strongly disagree with GT. The selection of teams is by Pool A is perfect. Win your conference regardless of strong or weak, and you're in.
The only suggestion I have is to get rid of Poll B and make the everything past Pool A an at-large bid. If a Pool B team goes 10-0, as in Wesley, then they're easily win. However a marginal 8-2 Pool B team shouldn't go before a 9-1 Pool C.
Alfred gets pretty good support on the road. While parents form the nucleus of the AU crowd (and AU parents are the best!), there's also a good following of "locals" and alumni. Alfred is likely to have a good crowd at Cortland, which is an easy trip compared to Springfield, St. Lawrence, RPI, etal.
Pep was pleased with the crowd at Merrill Field Saturday, considering the increase in ticket prices (NCAA) for both students (usually free) and general admission. Pep noticed the Cortland-Endicott game drew a crowd of only 822 and wondered whether that was unusual for an NCAA Playoff. Not really. Of the 16 playoff games on Saturday, here are the games listed in order by attendance (3 games did not list attendance):
Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw 2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor 2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred 2008
Benedictine at St. Thomas 1620
(Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney 1554)
Salisbury at Delaware Valley 1500
Franklin at Whitewater 1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley 918
W&L at Thomas More 863
Endicott at Cortland 822
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union n/a
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney n/a
Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a
Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.
Quote from: AUPepBand on November 21, 2010, 09:24:19 PM
Alfred gets pretty good support on the road. While parents form the nucleus of the AU crowd (and AU parents are the best!), there's also a good following of "locals" and alumni. Alfred is likely to have a good crowd at Cortland, which is an easy trip compared to Springfield, St. Lawrence, RPI, etal.
Pep was pleased with the crowd at Merrill Field Saturday, considering the increase in ticket prices (NCAA) for both students (usually free) and general admission. Pep noticed the Cortland-Endicott game drew a crowd of only 822 and wondered whether that was unusual for an NCAA Playoff. Not really. Of the 16 playoff games on Saturday, here are the games listed in order by attendance (4 games did not list attendance):
Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw 2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor 2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred 2008
Benedictine at St. Thomas 1620
Salisbury at Delaware Valley 1500
Franklin at Whitewater 1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley 918
W&L at Thomas More 863
Endicott at Cortland 822
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union n/a
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney n/a
Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a
Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.
That's a small crowd for the Cru. I know we stayed away because 1) I thought the game would go the way it did and 2) I have to make that trip this coming week for Thanksgiving so we save the gas money. I'll be there Saturday though
Box score listed the Montclair/Sydney game at 1,554.
NCAA D3 Championships First Round Attendance (updated--Pep could not locate attendance for 2 games):
Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw 2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor 2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred 2008
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union 1973
Benedictine at St. Thomas 1620
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney 1554
Salisbury at Delaware Valley 1500
Franklin at Whitewater 1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley 918
W&L at Thomas More 863
Endicott at Cortland 822
Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a
Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.
Quote from: retagent on November 21, 2010, 05:51:59 PM
I agree that some teams who are left out, are better than some of the teams who are in. However, I don't bellieve that any team who could win the Championship is left out. If there was an objective way to assure that the best 32 teams were chosen, I would be all for it. I believe that the system, such as it is, is better than another arbitrary method. This comes from a backer of a team that, this year, I believe, is better than maybe 10 - 12 teams who are in the playoffs. I do not think that they would get farther than possibly the second round. I understand that this is preferable to a subjective selection.
From a big picture perspective, a dozen years ago we had a subjective, 16 team tournament without AQs. Today we're up to 32 teams with the AQ. If we take the D3football Week 11 poll as our subjective selection we have the top 16 teams in this year's tournament with #17 Pacific Lutheran as the best team out. Outside of a miraculous run, how many teams in the lower half of the top 25 have a real chance at winning the tournament. I think the current tournament structure allows for equitable access while also crowning the best team as champion.
AUKaz00
I think you're right. As a fan of UMHB I can say that in 2004 the Cru may or may not have been left out of a subjective playoff because they didn't win the conference AQ because they were monkey stomped by HSU in the regular season. They had to go on the road @ Trinity, HSU, W&J, and MUC to make the Stagg Bowl. The glory run may not always happen, but they do happen.
Quote from: AUPepBand on November 21, 2010, 11:44:24 PM
NCAA D3 Championships First Round Attendance (updated--Pep could not locate attendance for 2 games):
Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw 2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor 2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred 2008
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union 1973
Benedictine at St. Thomas 1620
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney 1554
Salisbury at Delaware Valley 1500
Franklin at Whitewater 1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley 918
W&L at Thomas More 863
Endicott at Cortland 822
Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a
Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.
Most of the people at the Thomas More game did not go inside the stadium. The vantage point from the parking lot is very good and they sell tailgate spots.
Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 22, 2010, 11:10:52 AM
Quote from: retagent on November 21, 2010, 05:51:59 PM
I agree that some teams who are left out, are better than some of the teams who are in. However, I don't bellieve that any team who could win the Championship is left out. If there was an objective way to assure that the best 32 teams were chosen, I would be all for it. I believe that the system, such as it is, is better than another arbitrary method. This comes from a backer of a team that, this year, I believe, is better than maybe 10 - 12 teams who are in the playoffs. I do not think that they would get farther than possibly the second round. I understand that this is preferable to a subjective selection.
From a big picture perspective, a dozen years ago we had a subjective, 16 team tournament without AQs. Today we're up to 32 teams with the AQ. If we take the D3football Week 11 poll as our subjective selection we have the top 16 teams in this year's tournament with #17 Pacific Lutheran as the best team out. Outside of a miraculous run, how many teams in the lower half of the top 25 have a real chance at winning the tournament. I think the current tournament structure allows for equitable access while also crowning the best team as champion.
Well stated...
The "bottom 16" had a lot of "Cinderellas". The 2010 season will be one of great memories for those teams who will likely stand out in the repesective athletic histories of their institutions. Just winning the conference and earning a bid to the playoffs is the central theme of American sports culture. And, with the Pool System, the strength is that every player knows what it takes at the beginning of the season.
Having tasted the bitter ashes of the old system in 1982 when an undefeated Wabash team that had been ranked number 1 during the season was denied entry into the playoffs, I can attest that the curent system of AQ's, no matter its short comings, is infinitely better than the old subjective system. The first goal of a team each year is to win the conference and that's the way it should be. It is also great to have some Pool C "Wildcard" teams as well. Otherwise you could end up with some ho hum mail it in games at the end of the season. The Colts tried that a year or to back, and it didn't work out very well.
I think Keith had a far more 'workable' option in his Around the Nation piece, George. Requiring an 80% winning percentage isn't likely, but there might be room to throw the auto-bid into the at-large pool if a league champ has more than 3 D3 losses (and throw that champ into the pool of hopefuls...for whatever that's worth).
(BTW - with Linfield and PLU only playing 9 games - a 7-2 record leaves you on the 'outside' in your 80% plan even if you win the NWC!)
Quote from: d-train on November 22, 2010, 01:12:30 PM
I think Keith had a far more 'workable' option in his Around the Nation piece, George. Requiring an 80% winning percentage isn't likely, but there might be room to throw the auto-bid into the at-large pool if a league champ has more than 3 D3 losses (and throw that champ into the pool of hopefuls...for whatever that's worth).
(BTW - with Linfield and PLU only playing 9 games - a 7-2 record leaves you on the 'outside' in your 80% plan even if you win the NWC!)
Rather than 80% (no more than 2 losses for a team with 10 games) why not just no more than 2 losses period.
Why are so many happy to see the kind of lopsided scores from the first round with the AQs that are not competitive? Seriously, is there a reason to see your team beat by 40 or 50 points so they can keep that memory? There have been teams that have been in the top 16 ranked teams that have not made the playoffs (ONU last year). After all of their excellent work and hard play, the answer for some is that they did not win the conference, so too bad? Even though their teams would be decimated by them. It is clear why they would want these teams to make the playoffs and face them.
My preference is to give Pool A AQ playoff spots only to teams with zero or 1 loss. Next chosen would be Conference champs with 2 losses and then all others are at large bids picked with the current Pool C criteria. We need to reward winning. More deserving teams will get in. Others stay home. :-[
If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score? Vince Lombardi ...
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 08:13:54 AM
My preference is to give Pool A AQ playoff spots only to teams with zero or 1 loss. Next chosen would be Conference champs with 2 losses and then all others are at large bids picked with the current Pool C criteria. We need to reward winning. More deserving teams will get in. Others stay home. :-[
But wouldn't this encourage a lot of teams to play a bad non-conference schedule and/or NAIA games? For example, why would Benedictine ever play a CCIW team (they played the last place CCIW this year and lost) if 2 losses means you're out of the playoffs? Wouldn't they just play 3 NAIA teams in the non-conference (games that don't count) and hope to only lose 0 or 1 in the NathCon?
[/quote]
Rather than 80% (no more than 2 losses for a team with 10 games) why not just no more than 2 losses period.
Why are so many happy to see the kind of lopsided scores from the first round with the AQs that are not competitive? Seriously, is there a reason to see your team beat by 40 or 50 points so they can keep that memory? There have been teams that have been in the top 16 ranked teams that have not made the playoffs (ONU last year). After all of their excellent work and hard play, the answer for some is that they did not win the conference, so too bad? Even though their teams would be decimated by them. It is clear why they would want these teams to make the playoffs and face them.
[/quote]
Ask the NCAA DI basketball teams that qualify from the NEC and other conferences that are almost always the 16th seed and get blown out by Duke etc. It's getting to the dance that matters, and getting there means winning your conference. Period. It's an honor to go to the dance, even losing in the first round by a lopsided score. Lets face it, in any given year there are only 6 or 8 (3-5 more likely) teams tops with a chance of winning the DIII playoffs. Everyone else is more or less cannon fodder. There is a huge disparity in the leagues and teams and that isn't going to go away. Reward the AQs like we do in every other division (except DI football). That's a reward for a season goal achieved, a shot at a very (long)shot dream...
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 08:13:54 AM
My preference is to give Pool A AQ playoff spots only to teams with zero or 1 loss. Next chosen would be Conference champs with 2 losses and then all others are at large bids picked with the current Pool C criteria. We need to reward winning. More deserving teams will get in. Others stay home. :-[
If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score? Vince Lombardi ...
The AQ as it stands does reward winning. You get it for winning conference games. What do you do when a conference is even top to bottom so that multiple teams end up with multiple losses. The ASC is on the verge of having 4 very good teams: UMHB and HSU, perennial top 25 teams; Louisiana College, who finished 2nd in conference this season; and McM, whose air raid offense took UMHB and LC to the wire this season. You could also throw in Mississippi College that was conference co-champ last season but fell off this year. I could see a scenario, with all of the talent available in the area, where each team could finish with 2 losses and a 4 way tie at the top. What? You leave out the team that is deemed winner of the conference when all four could probably beat a number of 1 loss teams and maybe a few unbeatens?
The AQ as it stands does what is intended; it rewards excellence within the conference. Isn't that the coach speak, goal one is win the conference. Games outside of conference are meant to prepare the team for conference. The playoff trip is bonus. If the conference title shouldn't be that important then do away conferences and just have a D3 pool. Everyone sets 10 games and goes with it. How easy do you think it would be for UMU or UWW or UMHB or Linfield or HSU or pick your perennial top 25 team to get a full schedule?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Teams that got playoff bids
Christopher Newport(6-4)
Franklin and Marshall(5-5)
St Lawerence (5-5)
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Teams left out
Pacific Lutheran((8-1)
Redlands(8-1)
Hardin-Simmons(8-2)
Tell me this makes senses........ ???
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 09:41:58 AM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Teams that got playoff bids Teams that won their conference
Christopher Newport(6-4)
Franklin and Marshall(5-5) (9-1)
St Lawerence (5-5)
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Teams left out Teams that did not win their conference
Pacific Lutheran((8-1)
Redlands(8-1)
Hardin-Simmons(8-2)
I can make make arbitrary headings on my lists too...and I can use the correct data.
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 09:41:58 AM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Teams that got playoff bids
Christopher Newport(6-4) Won their conference AQ! Lost to Wesley, Salisbury and Frostburg State, all of which needed non-conference games. Went 6-1 in conference. Under a "two-loss rule", they probably should have scheduled Southern Virginia, UVA-Wise and some other non-D-3 team.
Franklin and Marshall(5-5) Did not make the NCAAs. They played an ECAC playoff game.
St Lawerence (5-5) They won the Liberty League AQ with a 5-1 record. They started the season 0-3 and then lost a mid-season non-conference game to Utica.
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Teams left out
Pacific Lutheran((8-1) Yes, the West Coast is isloated and never can get a good OWP/OOWP. For the ASC, SCIAC and NWC, you really must win your conference to get a bid. Those schools conferences won't get any help from the criteria in any other way. This is a fact of life in all sports.
Redlands(8-1) - Ditto
Hardin-Simmons(8-2) Had a Pool C bid wrapped up, but missed FG's at the end of each half against Louisiana College to lose by 2 points.
Tell me this makes senses........ ???
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 09:41:58 AM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Teams that got playoff bids
Christopher Newport(6-4)
Franklin and Marshall(5-5)
St Lawerence (5-5)
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Teams left out
Pacific Lutheran((8-1)
Redlands(8-1)
Hardin-Simmons(8-2)
Tell me this makes senses........ ???
I agree with altor...won their conference. As for HSU, ralph touched on it. they were a pool C lock (if there is such a thing) but lost to LC in a close game a LC team, which would have beat UMHB had the Cru not intercepted a pass in the endzone to secure the win. BTW LC lost 3 games this season and by your criteria would have been left out if they had beat UMHB
If LC had beaten UMHB, then LC is the AQ from the ASC!
Probably would have been a stronger case if CrashDavisD3 had mentioned Rowan and not HSU or Franklin and Marshall.
Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.
But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.
This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.
We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.
But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.
This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.
We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.
Now I'm confused. Isn't this pretty much what we have now?
Quote from: altor on November 23, 2010, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.
But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.
This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.
We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.
Now I'm confused. Isn't this pretty much what we have now?
Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: altor on November 23, 2010, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.
But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.
This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.
We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.
Now I'm confused. Isn't this pretty much what we have now?
Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.
Pool B leftovers can still get Pool C bids, as happened in baseball about 4-5 years ago.
Pool B has changed so much in the last decade due to all of the non-aligned and small conferences aggregating into larger units.
The challenges in Pool B saw teams leave for other divisions, eg CSU-East Bay and Menlo in baseball.
We saw the creation of the Association of D-III Independents to represent the needs of those schools.
The Capital AC went from dominating Pool B with 2-3 bids of the 6-7 available to a single Pool A bid as teams added baseball in the conference.
Once again for new readers, the number of Pool B schools (coming from conferences that don't have at least 4 full members and at least 7 full and affiliate members) is divided by the access ratio. That number comes from the number of teams in Pool A conferences divided by the number of Pool A conferences. Pool B is like one big national conference with the same ratio of teams per bid.
And remember, a new conference spends its first 2 years competing for Pool B bids, as the Landmark Conference (non-football), the New England Collegiate Conference (non-football), the Upper Midwest Athletic Conference and the East Coast Football Conference (a single sport conference) have done.
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 01:57:58 PM
Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.
Wait...your proposal has changed quite a bit. You do realize that 6-4 CNU and 5-5 St.L. were Pool A teams, right? Salisbury (with two losses)
might have been left home for Rowan if Pools B and C were merged.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2010, 02:24:16 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: altor on November 23, 2010, 01:54:09 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 23, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.
But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.
This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.
We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.
Now I'm confused. Isn't this pretty much what we have now?
Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.
Pool B leftovers can still get Pool C bids, as happened in baseball about 4-5 years ago.
Pool B has changed so much in the last decade due to all of the non-aligned and small conferences aggregating into larger units.
The challenges in Pool B saw teams leave for other divisions, eg CSU-East Bay and Menlo in baseball.
We saw the creation of the Association of D-III Independents to represent the needs of those schools.
The Capital AC went from dominating Pool B with 2-3 bids of the 6-7 available to a single Pool A bid as teams added baseball in the conference.
Once again for new readers, the number of Pool B schools (coming from conferences that don't have at least 4 full members and at least 7 full and affiliate members) is divided by the access ratio. That number comes from the number of teams in Pool A conferences divided by the number of Pool A conferences. Pool B is like one big national conference with the same ratio of teams per bid.
And remember, a new conference spends its first 2 years competing for Pool B bids, as the Landmark Conference (non-football), the New England Collegiate Conference (non-football), the Upper Midwest Athletic Conference and the East Coast Football Conference (a single sport conference) have done.
Thanks again for your excellent information on this topic...
How about this concept of non-conference in-region games...
You must not count on Pool C. Pool C gives 6 lucky teams a "do-over".
You win your conference.
If you have a strong in-conference in-region record, then you are competing for a playoff home game, or two or three.
We have seen it March Madness. The last at-large team in the field of 65 was usually a #12 seed. The Big Dance has 16-18 conference Pool A's that are first round fodder. How many of you have had your bracket totally messed up by a #13 or #14 seed?
Let's leave that aspect in our D-III football playoffs.
(Remember in the 2007 North Carolina Wesleyan (http://www.d3football.com/teams/North_Carolina_Wesleyan/2007/index) team, a #8 seed that beat #1 W&J?)
Ralph, not to mention just two years ago when a #7(?) Wheaton team won the "north".
True, they were a pool C, but if my memory is correct, they beat a #6 pool A Franklin team in the regional finals! ;) [They beat Trine, Wabash, and Franklin all in Indiana (I've joked about getting Mt. Union transferred to Indiana for the next game ;)), in that order, but I can't recall the seeds.]
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2010, 07:15:57 PM
How about this concept of non-conference in-region games...
You must not count on Pool C. Pool C gives 6 lucky teams a "do-over".
You win your conference.
If you have a strong in-conference in-region record, then you are competing for a playoff home game, or two or three.
We have seen it March Madness. The last at-large team in the field of 65 was usually a #12 seed. The Big Dance has 16-18 conference Pool A's that are first round fodder. How many of you have had your bracket totally messed up by a #13 or #14 seed?
Let's leave that aspect in our D-III football playoffs.
(Remember in the 2007 North Carolina Wesleyan (http://www.d3football.com/teams/North_Carolina_Wesleyan/2007/index) team, a #8 seed that beat #1 W&J?)
And then promptly got treated like a #8 in Belton in one seriously miserable day. not only did they get beat 64-0, but it was pouring and sleeting with a strong north wind and in the mid 30's and they had no cold weather gear. I felt horrible for them. I wish people would realize that in November and December in Texas it does get cold and it is a different kind of cold.
^Taking nothing away from NCW, but the real problem was the NCAA selection of W&J as #1 seed. The Presidents should be the poster child for strength of schedule being a big factor in the selection and seeding.
I shared this with another poster about Pool B.
I think that we have 6 Pool C bids for the near future.
Let's look at the composition of Pool B in 2010.
Midwest independents have consolidated into the UMAC. That takes 9 schools out of the Pool B in 2011.
The ECFC has consolidated a bunch of a east region independents. That removes 8 schools from Pool B, and looks like a home for any other East region school who wants to add football.
To stay out of Pool B, the Empire 8 has accepted two state schools from Maryland, Salisbury and Frostburg State as affiliate members in 2011.
Stevenson has accepted an affiliation with the MAC.
I think that the GSAC men will affiliate with the USA South when Shenandoah moves to the ODAC. The USA South only has, at most, 6 members in all sports. An affiliation agreement by the USA South with the GSAC will move Huntingdon and LaGrange out of Pool B into a Pool A conference.
Pool B is left with 7 or 8 teams. That is below the access ratio, which is truncated. Will there even be a Pool B bid, if the access ratio is greater than 8 at sometime in the future. There will need to be 17 teams for there to be 2 Pool B bids.
East Region -- none
South Region -- (3) Wesley; Carnegie Mellon, Wash U StLouis (UAA)
North Region -- (2 or 3) Chicago, Case Western Reserve (UAA), (Finlandia in 2012).
West Region -- (2) Macalester, Chapman
There just aren't any conferences out there to get another Pool A bid, unless the UAA wants to restructure its arrangement with the NCAC. Seven schools could stay in the NCAC and preserve a bid and allow three NCAC schools to affiliate with the UAA. (In fact, the agreement might involve a rotating affiliation so a different group of schools from the NCAC compete in the UAA.)
The Capital AC will have these football playing members in 2011.
Wesley -- independent
Salisbury, Frostburg St -- Empire 8 affiliates
Stevenson -- MAC affiliate
(CNU might move to the Capital AC in all sports except football, until there are 7 football playing schools that can come under the Capital AC auspices for an AQ.)
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 23, 2010, 08:20:01 PM
...And then promptly got treated like a #8 in Belton in one seriously miserable day. not only did they get beat 64-0, but it was pouring and sleeting with a strong north wind and in the mid 30's and they had no cold weather gear. I felt horrible for them. I wish people would realize that in November and December in Texas it does get cold and it is a different kind of cold.
I agree. IMHO, 35 degrees, windy and wet, is much worse and 10 degrees and dry!
Ralph...I marvel at your concise consideration of the relevent facts, and your passion for D-III football.
So has Coach Mumme shown a "bad side" yet, or has he embraced the D-III culture?
Thanks for your contributions....
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 23, 2010, 10:38:38 PM
Ralph...I marvel at your concise consideration of the relevent facts, and your passion for D-III football.
So has Coach Mumme shown a "bad side" yet, or has he embraced the D-III culture?
Thanks for your contributions....
according to the HSU fans he has been a little salty on the sidelines. ;)
I can say that what I have observed listening to his weekly radio show , watching McM sports and the tv show they put out, he seems to have embraced the D3 mindset. he's visible in the community. he stumps for the school not just the program. he emphasizes the "
student athlete" theme when talking publicly. I've been pretty impressed. to hear him tell it on the radio, he also seems to like the pace of d3 life.
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 23, 2010, 10:38:38 PM
Ralph...I marvel at your concise consideration of the relevent facts, and your passion for D-III football.
So has Coach Mumme shown a "bad side" yet, or has he embraced the D-III culture?
Thanks for your contributions....
Thanks, skunks. +1! :)
We are privileged to have two of the finest coaches in the American football.
Joe Lee Dunn is the Defensive Coordinator at McMurry. McMurry led the ASC in team defense and permitted the fewest TD's (22) in the conference this season. This is a tremendous turnaround in 2 seasons.
Dunn is the creator of his version of the 3-3-5 which he created at Memphis State in 1991 in preparation for a game against Southern Cal. Memphis State upset USC 24-10. You can google his name to find the background of that defense.
Joe Lee Dunn link (http://blogs.commercialappeal.com/the_memphis_edge/2009/09/joe-lee-dunn-mention-in-san-diego.html) and
here (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/sep/02/aztecs-long-3-3-5/?sports).
Quote from: Toby Taff on November 21, 2010, 03:03:44 PMI like the pool A. It rewards teams that win their conference. IF you're going to have conferences then you need the pool A bids. If you want to subjectively say "these are the best 32 in the land" then do it and call it something other than a national championship, because "national championship" suggests that all teams at least start with an equal shot. That's why I hate the BCS. It's why I love March madness. You win the conference you get in, you don't you might get left out regardless of your merit. CNU got crushed yesterday but they earned the right to be there. The day D3 just "chooses the top 32" is the day I walk away from D3 football.
I'm pretty close to where you are Toby, although I'd be willing to consider replacing 5-5 Pool A teams with 9-1 Pool C teams. But I think the conference gives every team something truly acheivable to play for and to aim for, and by extension, it's a true national championship.
I come from the 90s in D3 where they thought the SCIAC and HCAC and ODAC were inferior and without the AQ we would never have had Bridgewater '01 or Oxy '04 or Franklin '08. There are upsets and intrigue, especially in Rounds 2 and 3 where I think the best (most competitive) games tend to be ...
But even if the same teams keep winning, they do it on the field in a field that was open to everyone in D3 and there are no doubts about who earned it and how.
Even if they do switch the system people will just whine about that. I'm more convinced than ever that nothing will satisfy everyone, and wherever the bubble is, the teams on the wrong side of it will believe they got shafted rather than point at what they failed to do to earn access.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2010, 07:15:57 PM
How about this concept of non-conference in-region games...
You must not count on Pool C. Pool C gives 6 lucky teams a "do-over".
You win your conference.
If you have a strong in-conference in-region record, then you are competing for a playoff home game, or two or three.
We have seen it March Madness. The last at-large team in the field of 65 was usually a #12 seed. The Big Dance has 16-18 conference Pool A's that are first round fodder. How many of you have had your bracket totally messed up by a #13 or #14 seed?
Let's leave that aspect in our D-III football playoffs.
(Remember in the 2007 North Carolina Wesleyan (http://www.d3football.com/teams/North_Carolina_Wesleyan/2007/index) team, a #8 seed that beat #1 W&J?)
+K
Who is left from Top 25 11/23/2010
1 UW-Whitewater
2 Mount Union
3 Wesley
4 St. Thomas
5 North Central (Ill.)
6 Mary Hardin-Baylor
7 Ohio Northern
8 Linfield
9 Wittenberg
10 Thomas More
11 Wartburg
12 Trine
13 Coe
14 Bethel
15 Wheaton (Ill.)
16 Cal Lutheran
17 Pacific Lutheran
18 Delaware Valley
19 Hardin-Simmons
20 Cortland State
21 Montclair State
22 Rowan
23 Hampden-Sydney
24 Franklin
25 Wabash
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on November 24, 2010, 02:54:43 AM
Who is left from Top 25 11/23/2010
1 UW-Whitewater
2 Mount Union
3 Wesley
4 St. Thomas
5 North Central (Ill.)
6 Mary Hardin-Baylor
7 Ohio Northern
8 Linfield
9 Wittenberg
10 Thomas More
11 Wartburg
12 Trine
13 Coe
14 Bethel
15 Wheaton (Ill.)
16 Cal Lutheran
17 Pacific Lutheran
18 Delaware Valley
19 Hardin-Simmons
20 Cortland State
21 Montclair State
22 Rowan
23 Hampden-Sydney
24 Franklin
25 Wabash
There are 15 left in the Top 25.
The only unranked team left is Alfred, which plays Cortland State.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 24, 2010, 07:25:01 AM
There are 15 left in the Top 25.
The only unranked team left is Alfred, which plays Cortland State.
We love our Rodney Dangerfield label here in Mayberry. Why spoil that with a Top 25 ranking?
Let's hope that all the MIAC doubters are enjoying their crow. Shall we again bring up the topic of St John's being over rated? Since two of their losses came to final Eight teams by 3, and in OT, maybe not.
I think St Johns is rated right where they should be don't you? Not sure your point. You could say Franklin (who seriously tested UWW last week) lost to the CCIW's 5th place team. Carthage certainly isn't over rated. Are we really talking about St Johns who didn't even make the playoffs?
Quote from: USee on November 27, 2010, 05:32:45 PM
I think St Johns is rated right where they should be don't you? Not sure your point. You could say Franklin (who seriously tested UWW last week) lost to the CCIW's 5th place team. Carthage certainly isn't over rated. Are we really talking about St Johns who didn't even make the playoffs?
Yeah, I didn't get this either.
I believe K-Mack was the one who brought up the thought that St John's is over rated. Perhaps your memories are not as good as my Old Timers disease ridden brain. The Front Page survey had St Thomas as the most likely #1 to lose this weekend. There are many who didn't think either Bethel or St Thomas would win last week, much less make it through the second round. Maybe I dreamed all this, but I thought it was an appropriate way to say that the MIAC is not given the respect it might deserve. Sorry if I confused you.
Yes, based on the outcomes of Saturday's games, CLEARLY it was a mistake for our readers to suggest St. Thomas was the No. 1 team most likely to lose!
Not to dwell on this since it beating a dead horse that no one wanted to ride when it was alive, BUT........................
It's not just one round of games. If you want to argue that way, you would be right. I'm addressing the totality of the season, many, many posts by various posters from many leagues, implying, if not actually saying, that Bethel and St Thomas didn't deserve to be "seeded" where they are. I would guess, without doing a survey of all posts on this site, that the majority thought neither school would be around this long. If you want to ignore the prevailing "wisdom" that the MIAC is weaker than it actually seems to to be playing out to be, then do so. The St John's reference is just an extension of that inferred perception.
Quote from: retagent on November 29, 2010, 09:27:19 AM
Not to dwell on this since it beating a dead horse that no one wanted to ride when it was alive, BUT........................
It's not just one round of games. If you want to argue that way, you would be right. I'm addressing the totality of the season, many, many posts by various posters from many leagues, implying, if not actually saying, that Bethel and St Thomas didn't deserve to be "seeded" where they are. I would guess, without doing a survey of all posts on this site, that the majority thought neither school would be around this long. If you want to ignore the prevailing "wisdom" that the MIAC is weaker than it actually seems to to be playing out to be, then do so. The St John's reference is just an extension of that inferred perception.
For me, any qualms that I might have had for a MIAC friend was not the quality of the MIAC teams in the playoffs.
It was about the strength and balance of the West Region. Where is the weak conference in the 2010 West Region? (The Midwest Conference?) You had two Pool C bids this year in this bracket., and I thought that Redlands and Pacific Lutheran were stronger candidates for a Pool C bid.
The UMAC may be the weakest Pool A bid next season, and so that Pool A bid will be sent to the #1 seed. The "Pool B bid" that the UMAC schools afforded the field was seeded in another bracket, as SUNY-Maritime or Salisbury was this season. Therefore, a UMAC Pool A bid will slightly weaken the "West" Bracket overall.
Quote from: retagent on November 29, 2010, 09:27:19 AM
Not to dwell on this since it beating a dead horse that no one wanted to ride when it was alive, BUT........................
It's not just one round of games. If you want to argue that way, you would be right. I'm addressing the totality of the season, many, many posts by various posters from many leagues, implying, if not actually saying, that Bethel and St Thomas didn't deserve to be "seeded" where they are. I would guess, without doing a survey of all posts on this site, that the majority thought neither school would be around this long. If you want to ignore the prevailing "wisdom" that the MIAC is weaker than it actually seems to to be playing out to be, then do so. The St John's reference is just an extension of that inferred perception.
Who thought St. Thomas should be seeded behind any of the other teams in its bracket?
I think the actual opinion I saw was that St. Thomas should be seeded behind UWW or North Central. St. Thomas hasn't had the opportunity to dissuade anyone from that opinion as of yet, right?
The only thing I know right now is that Bethel/Wheaton are pretty evenly matched teams and St Thomas/Linfield are pretty evenly matched teams. It also appears to me that Bethel/St Thomas are pretty evenly matched. All of which is what Pat and most people were saying about the St Thomas bracket, that all of those teams are pretty good and any of them could emerge from the bracket. Bethel has won 2 very tough games on the road, which is impressive to me. Now they get "rewarded" with a close road game and a grudge match against a conference rival. If St Thomas beats them again, they deserve to be the region #1.
What does this say about the MIAC? I think it confirms what many have already thought, the top 2-3 teams in the MIAC are probably as good as many of the top 2-3 teams from the top conferences. It doesn't reflect at all on any respect/lack of for the MIAC in my opinion. The question is what else can the MIAC claim as a conference?
Three different teams making the quarterfinals in the past eight seasons.
Similar to OAC and CCIW? Which is what most thought already. Either way, it certainly doesn't sound like any lack of respect issue.
Retagent,
I am one guy guilty of picking St. Thomas as a #1 most likely to lose. However, it has nothing to do with lack of respect to them or the conference. They were playing Linfield, a team that UWW has played twice. I saw them play last year so I had the personal experience. I simply felt their balanced offense would present greater challenges to St. Thomas.
I'm a big fan of the land of 10,000 lakes, and all D3 teams that play in between them.
The fact is they were the most likely #1 to lose last week. The games bore that out. This week it's probably NCC's turn as most likely to lose.
Again, I'm not basing my comment on that particular episode. I would like all those who picked St Thomas, and/or Bethel, to get to the quarterfinals to speak up. There has been a lot of talk about Linfield, NCC, or of course, UWW to get to the Stagg. I doubt that anyone outside the MIAC fans spoke of St Thomas to get there. And going back even further, who picked SJU to get to the Stagg in 2000, and stay in the game, or to win it in 2003? As I said, this is a long running theme.
Nope. totally disagree. take off your Minnesota colored glasses. I can fax you my bracket as I have St Thomas playing in the Semi's against Mount. I did have Wheaton losing to St Thomas this weekend and I was 1 pass from making that happen. I am just 1 poster but I don't see the "bias" you are referring to. I think the St Thomas bracket is the most competitive in the tourney this year and the games are proving that out. As Pat said, it wouldn't be surprising for any of these teams to win the region.
Does anyone know if the NCAA will be providing Internet Video Streaming of the Semi Final Games as they have in the past?
^ I heard Pat say on the UWW-NCC game that they will be providing video from both games as they have in the past.
Quote from: BoBo on December 04, 2010, 10:24:58 PM
^ I heard Pat say on the UWW-NCC game that they will be providing video from both games as they have in the past.
Thanks Chief!
Quote from: retagent on November 30, 2010, 11:40:12 AM
Again, I'm not basing my comment on that particular episode. I would like all those who picked St Thomas, and/or Bethel, to get to the quarterfinals to speak up. There has been a lot of talk about Linfield, NCC, or of course, UWW to get to the Stagg. I doubt that anyone outside the MIAC fans spoke of St Thomas to get there. And going back even further, who picked SJU to get to the Stagg in 2000, and stay in the game, or to win it in 2003? As I said, this is a long running theme.
I had Bethel and Mount in the semi's and in fact, I still do. Missed some games early on, but have the semi's right
Quote from: Manuel Willocq on December 04, 2010, 06:45:10 PM
Does anyone know if the NCAA will be providing Internet Video Streaming of the Semi Final Games as they have in the past?
The NCAA will "provide" it, only if the home teams do the "providing." Mount will have their video crew back from HS playoff duty, and can provide it, but the way I read the media section of the playoff handbook, they are not required to do so.
Quote from: seventiesraider on December 05, 2010, 01:13:51 PM
Quote from: Manuel Willocq on December 04, 2010, 06:45:10 PM
Does anyone know if the NCAA will be providing Internet Video Streaming of the Semi Final Games as they have in the past?
The NCAA will "provide" it, only if the home teams do the "providing." Mount will have their video crew back from HS playoff duty, and can provide it, but the way I read the media section of the playoff handbook, they are not required to do so.
Again, to reiterate an earlier post, the NCAA has provided their own video feeds (often through the use of regional contractors) over the past few years. There has been no indication that this policy has changed. We will know for sure very soon -- I know Pat is confirming specifics. This round differs from prior rounds described in the Handbook, as the NCAA has the right at any point to exercise their own rights to the broadcasts. The NCAA could choose to begin such coverage in earlier rounds but has yet to do so.
Long story short, expect live video with specific details to follow.
Quote from: seventiesraider on December 05, 2010, 01:13:51 PM
Quote from: Manuel Willocq on December 04, 2010, 06:45:10 PM
Does anyone know if the NCAA will be providing Internet Video Streaming of the Semi Final Games as they have in the past?
The NCAA will "provide" it, only if the home teams do the "providing."
This assumption is incorrect. If the home team does not have a video production team in place, the NCAA will send a producer and hire camera operators.
Quote from: seventiesraider on December 05, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 30, 2010, 11:40:12 AM
Again, I'm not basing my comment on that particular episode. I would like all those who picked St Thomas, and/or Bethel, to get to the quarterfinals to speak up. There has been a lot of talk about Linfield, NCC, or of course, UWW to get to the Stagg. I doubt that anyone outside the MIAC fans spoke of St Thomas to get there. And going back even further, who picked SJU to get to the Stagg in 2000, and stay in the game, or to win it in 2003? As I said, this is a long running theme.
I had Bethel and Mount in the semi's and in fact, I still do. Missed some games early on, but have the semi's right
My humble apologies to you sr. However, in argumentation, it's iffy, at best, to go from the specific to the general, and vice versa.
In today's Daily Dose semifinal reaction thread, poster "Geiger" brought up an interesting tidbit. Mount Union has now played 42 consecutive playoff games at home.
Several people piled on Geiger for arguing that the 42 consecutive home playoff games cheapens the Mount Union run. However I think it is worthy of discussion. Most of the counter arguments were that "Mount Union has earned home field advantage by going undefeated." However I think it is pretty clear that even if Mount Union had the same record as X opponent in the playoffs, the game would be played in Alliance and no one would question it. Has there ever been a case where MUC had an identical record to its opponent and was given home field anyhow? My guess is a resounding yes.
On the exact opposite side of the spectrum, Whitewater plays in arguably the most difficult conference in D3, is the defending national champions, undefeated, and was still asked to go on the road to make it to Salem.
What gives? Would it be too much to ask Mount Union to play at an undefeated North Central or Trine in the playoffs? And since the rest of the nation seems to have decided the East is the weakest region (arguable imo), is it fair that Mount gets 3 home playoff games against the East while Whitewater runs a more difficult gauntlet and has to go on the road?
This isn't just about 2010. I would make MUC the favorite on the road versus any team short of UWW. But I'd still like to see them get it done on the road once in a while.
Discuss...
There weren't any of those teams this year, though, Dan, and if unbeaten St. Thomas had managed to protect its home field and advance, Mount Union would have traveled.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 11, 2010, 06:36:11 PM
There weren't any of those teams this year, though, Dan, and if unbeaten St. Thomas had managed to protect its home field and advance, Mount Union would have traveled.
And if Wabash would have defended their #1 seed in 2005...and if Del Valley would have beaten Rowan in 2005 Mount would have been on the road.
Although the Stagg Bowl is being billed as All-Purple VI, the 2004 Stagg Bowl had Cardinal and Purple Linfield and Purple, Gold and White UMHB.
St John's, winner of 2003 Stagg Bowl and loser of the 2000 Stagg, is Cardinal and Blue.
Trinity TX, loser of the 2002 Stagg Bowl, is Maroon and White.
Bridgewater, loser of the 2001 Stagg Bowl, is Crimson and Gold.
The last "non-purple" Stagg Bowl was 1999. Black and Gold Pacific Lutheran beat Brown and Gold Rowan.
:)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 11, 2010, 06:36:11 PM
There weren't any of those teams this year, though, Dan, and if unbeaten St. Thomas had managed to protect its home field and advance, Mount Union would have traveled.
That's an excellent point.
This year's playoff selections and seedings left a lot to be desired. See my comments under Best D3 Conferences section.
Pat, do you have complete playoff records for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007 and 2008? I would like to see those records if i can find them.
Thanks,
George
During these cold, quiet days, there is time to think. Perhaps too much time for Pep to think. So Pep was musing:
The 2010 Stagg Bowl was, once again an all-purple affair. The chances of that occurring were pretty great, considering five of the eight quarter-finalists embrace purple as their dominant school color...Whitewater, Mount Union, Mary Hardin-Baylor, St. Thomas and Alfred.
It was difficult to sort out the Saxon fans from the Mount fans at Mount Union Stadium on Dec. 4, 2010. It definitely was a "Purple Out."
The color purple has only a couple words with which it rhymes. Given the desire to be clever and witty in supporting the Saxons, one is severely limited in concocting a chant with a line ending with "purple" when desiring for said chant's lines to rhyme.
So, here's an off-season challenge for all posting supporters of purple-clad teams....first, identify the TWO words (and one is a stretch) that rhyme with purple. Second, create a chant in support of your team that uses at least one of those words that rhyme with purple.
On your mark, get set.....GO!
gerbil?
Quote from: AUPepBand on January 23, 2011, 08:06:12 AM
So, here's an off-season challenge for all posting supporters of purple-clad teams....first, identify the TWO words (and one is a stretch) that rhyme with purple. Second, create a chant in support of your team that uses at least one of those words that rhyme with purple.
On your mark, get set.....GO!
Alfred's "Pep," the musical Saxon,
Is seeking a rhyming attraction;
For his team's color, purple -
How about a slang term, "nurple,"
Toward a cheer of painful distraction?
As tomorrow is Robert Burn's night - this offering to make the Haggis, Neeps and Tatties more appealing: ;D
A kick to the curple, leads to a hirple;
And alters that regular stance -
But huddles of purple, giving a "nurple,"
Offers a traditional, Saxon advance!
Quote from: ADL70 on January 24, 2011, 08:20:15 AM
gerbil?
;D ::) +k for imaginative stimulation, even if not a true rhyme
Quote from: cave2bens on January 24, 2011, 08:38:20 AM
Quote from: AUPepBand on January 23, 2011, 08:06:12 AM
So, here's an off-season challenge for all posting supporters of purple-clad teams....first, identify the TWO words (and one is a stretch) that rhyme with purple. Second, create a chant in support of your team that uses at least one of those words that rhyme with purple.
On your mark, get set.....GO!
Alfred's "Pep," the musical Saxon,
Is seeking a rhyming attraction;
For his team's color, purple -
How about a slang term, "nurple,"
Toward a cheer of painful distraction?
As tomorrow is Robert Burn's night - this offering to make the Haggis, Neeps and Tatties more appealing: ;D
A kick to the curple, leads to a hirple;
And alters that regular stance -
But huddles of purple, giving a "nurple,"
Offers a traditional, Saxon advance!
Pep is impressed with the effort but not quite sure the Saxons would want to be known for giving each other purple nurples; nevertheless, you've given Pep some stuff to work with! +K
I just recalled this couplet from Roger Miller's "Dang Me"
Roses are red and violets are purple
Sugar is sweet and so is maple surple
I'll take my shot at a purplish rhyme:
Pep and the band support the Saxons,
They wear the gold and purple.
Whenever there's a timeout or first down,
The band plays a tune per lull.
Working from cave2bens mastery of words rhyming with purple, how about:
Kick 'em in the curple,
Saxons make 'em hirple.
Give the (Saints) a nurple,
Purple, Purple, Purple!
On Saxon Warriors!