D3boards.com

New thread for the 2015 Playoffs.

PLAYOFFS, PLAYOFFS, PLAYOFFS...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdUr5hF0yGc

A few quick notes:

a) I think we all know that the playoff system has minimal suspense in the first round for most/all teams that are serious national title contenders.
b) I think we all know that the budget does some unfair things in the bracketing, and that "geography" can be blamed for a lot of stuff.
c) Some teams may have harder/easier paths because that was the best way to set up the bracket, but arguing about it does little good.

So let's maybe all put our swords away and keep the focus on the games.  Sure, the Albright/Norwich winner may be doomed next week when they head to Alliance, but let's give the kids their day in the sun, shall we?  So let's kick off the Playoffs thread with a few fun questions to stimulate the first-round discussion (there will be plenty of time to argue about who has the hardest quarterfinal when we actually get to the quarterfinals):

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

*I realize that "competitive" is a highly subjective word.  There are a couple of things that can make a game "competitive" - i.e. does the underdog lead the game beyond the first quarter?  Is the game within a score at halftime?  Does the underdog ever get the ball with a chance to tie the game in the fourth quarter?  I'm using a liberal definition here.  For example, if St. Lawrence is tied 14-14 at halftime with Mount before Mount pulls away and wins 49-14, I think we'd all agree that Mount wasn't really in any danger, but we'd also give St. Lawrence some serious props for doing something no one has done yet this season.  So be creative here.  Will there be any scores that make you look up at halftime and say "Wow, didn't expect that?"

In comparing the D3 Football projected bracket with the actual, amazing that the projected bracket hit on only three first round match-ups.  I guess the UW-P, Guilford, Whitworth and ONU misses may have something to do with that.  However, just makes one wonder exactly what the NCAA committee considers vs. what the D3 guys do.  I know Wally seems to to have a grip on what goes on and has shed some light on the various considerations the committee takes into account, but it just seems strange that the actual pairings could be so far off of what was projected. 

Quote from: Royal85 on November 17, 2015, 09:28:13 AM
In comparing the D3 Football projected bracket with the actual, amazing that the projected bracket hit on only three first round match-ups.  I guess the UW-P, Guilford, Whitworth and ONU misses may have something to do with that.  However, just makes one wonder exactly what the NCAA committee considers vs. what the D3 guys do.  I know Wally seems to to have a grip on what goes on and has shed some light on the various considerations the committee takes into account, but it just seems strange that the actual pairings could be so far off of what was projected.

Ever read those NFL draft projections?  Even guys like Mel Kiper (whose entire job is scouting the draft!) rarely get more than a handful of the first-round picks totally correct - he usually knows which guys are going in the first round, but has a hard time pinning down exactly who is going to take who.  Same thing is in play here.  When one or two of the Pool C dominoes fall differently, it shifts the entire bracketology.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2015, 09:27:22 AM
1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

My own answers to these questions:

1) Couple of good choices here.  I'll go with Salisbury @ Cortland.  Other candidates include UMHB @ HSU, W&L @ Thomas More, maybe ONU @ Franklin.
2) UMHB/HSU seem like the prevailing wisdom here.  Besides that, it's hard to see Mount, UWO, UST, Linfield, et al being pushed in any of their games.
3) Framingham State @ Wesley.  I know that Wesley is a heavy favorite to win, but I could see this game having a lot of points on both sides (like 61-35 or something crazy).  I'll take this game and 100 total points.
4) This is a really tough category.  There aren't a lot of pure shutdown defenses any more (and I don't think any game features two of them).  The "lowest scoring game" might be something like 28-21 (since the few teams who could notch a shutout are likely to score big themselves in round 1).  So I'll take...Dubuque @ St. John's.  Total of 42 points.
5) St. Lawrence @ Mount Union.  I'll predict 67-0.  CSS @ UWO seems like another possibility.

Interesting questions, ETP!

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)

Showing my east region bias, but I think the Salisbury/Cortland matchup will be very interesting and close. (Edit: I guess I agree with ETP :) )

2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?

Not in the top 4 seeds. but I do think Johns Hopkins as a 2 seed could have a competitive game with Western New England. I am not sure this counts, as I don't think any of the #1 seeds or any of the other #2 seeds will be challenged.

3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

I'll take Hendrix/Huntingdon. Seems like something wild could happen there. 55-49 Huntingdon in overtimes, 104 total points.

Two other possibilities: Thomas More/Washington and Lee and Cortland/Salisbury

4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

This seems tough because so few teams play big time defense. I'm going to pick the Albright/Norwich game, because I don't think Norwich will score (similar logic could be used for MTU/STL, but I think Mount will score more). So I'll pick Albright 28-3, 31 total points.

5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

UW-Oshkosh 70 - St. Scholastica 7 (63 points)

I notice our answers are very similar but I swear I wrote mine before reading yours :P

Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

That was and IS insane.  Dude's got issues.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

In a discussion sometime in the last year or two, the very reasonable hazzben made an outstanding point.  Someone had brought up the notion that the committee should be reading the stuff on here to help them sort through things (typical "can-you-believe-the-dumb-committee-did-this" post), and hazzben said something to the effect of "What we discuss on here is all well and good, but I don't want the committee reading fan's opinions at all when putting together the brackets."  He meant that with all respect to the fine work we do in combing the criteria and putting together a mock bracket - just was saying that the folks who are putting the real bracket together should not let anything said on D3boards or otherwise influence their decisions.  Even if we did something that looks "more right" to us (i.e. putting UWP ahead of Whitworth) than what they did.

I don't know if the chair was being tongue-in-cheek or was serious with that comment, but I did find it a little off-putting.  Why so worried about mock brackets?  Shouldn't you just be putting things together yourself?  Isn't the fact that people care enough to put together mock brackets a good thing?

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

And if that turns out to be the case, you should have Keith, Ryan and Adam Turer do a bracket next year and release them after the main one.  We'll show him! :)

Someone stepped on his little empire and he didn't like it. Clearly not grasping reality. Mock brackets are pretty much a part of everything in college sports and the little Napoleon didn't want his spotlight questioned.

Quote1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

1.  Huntingdon/Hendrix
2.  UMHB and Wabash.  It wouldn't surprise me if UWW and Wheaton are challenged more than some may think.
3.  Huntingdon/Hendrix, Hendrix, 100 points
4.  St. John's/Dubuque, St. Johns, 28 points
5.  St. Thomas/La Verne, St. Thomas, 65 point mov.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

This really irks me. They'd rather that D3 get no attention at all it seems than get criticism. What's the problem in predicting what will happen? Ugggggh.

Quote from: emma17 on November 17, 2015, 12:01:08 PM

Quote1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

1.  Huntingdon/Hendrix
2.  UMHB and Wabash.  It wouldn't surprise me if UWW and Wheaton are challenged more than some may think.
3.  Huntingdon/Hendrix, Hendrix, 100 points
4.  St. John's/Dubuque, St. Johns, 28 points
5.  St. Thomas/La Verne, St. Thomas, 65 point mov.

I thought about this one a little bit.  Albion's offense is good enough that this could be interesting for awhile if they get some traction early.  If Wabash jumps to an early lead, I think that's going to get ugly pretty fast.  But if the Albion offense can score in the first quarter, and they can stick with what looks like a pretty nice run/pass balance on offense, I could definitely see that being 21-14 or thereabouts at halftime.

Huntingdon/Hendrix looks like an early popular pick (with only a few precincts reporting so far) for high score.

Are the committee members paid for the selection process?

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 17, 2015, 12:15:50 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 17, 2015, 12:01:08 PM

Quote1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

1.  Huntingdon/Hendrix
2.  UMHB and Wabash.  It wouldn't surprise me if UWW and Wheaton are challenged more than some may think.
3.  Huntingdon/Hendrix, Hendrix, 100 points
4.  St. John's/Dubuque, St. Johns, 28 points
5.  St. Thomas/La Verne, St. Thomas, 65 point mov.

I thought about this one a little bit.  Albion's offense is good enough that this could be interesting for awhile if they get some traction early.  If Wabash jumps to an early lead, I think that's going to get ugly pretty fast.  But if the Albion offense can score in the first quarter, and they can stick with what looks like a pretty nice run/pass balance on offense, I could definitely see that being 21-14 or thereabouts at halftime.

Huntingdon/Hendrix looks like an early popular pick (with only a few precincts reporting so far) for high score.

I watched the fourth quarter of the Albion/Trine game last night to get a taste for what the Britons are doing.  There will be some challenges for the Wabash defense here, but I think what Albion does Wabash has seen in bits and pieces from other offenses throughout the year.  Albion relies on a lot of play action for big pass plays- this isn't a thing that many people can get done against Wabash.  1) Nobody has been able to establish a run with RBs against Wabash.  So you're play action isn't fooling anybody.  2) Those plays take time to get dudes downfield and Wabash generally doesn't give QBs time to stand around in the pocket and survey.  If Albion can figure out how to deal with either of those two things, they can find some points. 

On the other side...whoo.  That Briton defense is buh-rutal.  Raeburn is going to have to absolute field day calling plays against that unit.  As long as the offense executes and doesn't kill itself with penalties and turnovers (neither has been an issue in 2015), Wabash is going to score a lot.  That's just a really deficient unit for Albion. 

Albion may be wanting to join the ASC - traditional home of higher football than basketball scores!  8-)

Seriously,  the gamelan could be..  Zurek right..  Zurek left..   Repeat..   And Albions high flying offense will simply have a front row seat for most of the game..  This game lines up perfectly for how ER has constructed the offense... 

Quote from: emma17 on November 17, 2015, 12:19:58 PM
Are the committee members paid for the selection process?

I don't believe so, aside from expenses and some swag.

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game) Hendrix/Huntingdon
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game? NO
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)Wesley/Framingham, Wesley, 90
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)Ohio Northern/Franklin, Franklin, 48
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)St. Thomas/LaVerne, St. Thomas, 56

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 01:57:33 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 17, 2015, 12:19:58 PM
Are the committee members paid for the selection process?

I don't believe so, aside from expenses and some swag.

I was trying to get some perspective from their side.  I think it's entirely fine that D3 does a mock draft.  That said, I can see from their perspective it would be like someone doing my job for me, and then waiting to see if I would do the job as well as they did. 
The thing with Pool B and C is there are only 7 choices- so all of their work is based on picking 7 teams (not counting the bracketing).  And, there is published information as to how those 7 teams should be selected.  And, it can't be argued that there are people on the D3.com staff and board participants that the committee knows follows the sport as close- and likely closer than they do. 

They are in an odd situation.

It will be interesting to see how the triple option teams do this weekend.  I think Salisbury will be tough on Cortland, but they have played to their opposition lately.  Sloppy against CNU, pretty strong game against Wesley, then needed 21 points in the 4th quarter to win against Frostburg.  Could be a high scoring game.  W&L going to Thomas More is also interesting.  W&L go undefeated and get a tough first round game.  Thomas More looked good all year, but again they have to stop the triple option.  Should be a fun game to see.  I think one of the triple option teams wins, just not sure which one.  Something tells me the UMHB//HSU game is not going to be very close.  I think UMHB wins this one pretty easily.  If you are a top team you cant lose to ETBU the week after you beat UMHB no matter what the field condition was.  I will also be interested in how West New England does against Hopkins.  The ERFP debated almost all year as to if or where they should be ranked.  Eventually we had to move them up since everyone else kept losing.  Now I would be fine with them winning since that would mean Wesley gets another home game if they beat Framingham which I expect them to do.  I will be checking the scores this Saturday to see if there are any games that make me say, WOW, didn't see that.  Who is the dark horse this year?

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game) ONU/Franklin (although I'd be fine if Franklin proves me wrong and wins big ;D)
2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game? UMHB but I also think Wheaton will be close in the first half and Whitewater could still be a contest in the 4th
3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points) St Thomas over La Verne 83 points
4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points) UWW over St Norbert 38 points
5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV) Mount Union over St Lawrence by 59

Anybody else out there in play-off land wishing the NCAA would stagger play-off games that are within 100 miles of each other so fans could go see both if they wanted to? Up here in the Northland we have two games in the MIAC, both at Collegeville as the Johnnies are hosting Dubuque, and the Tommies are hosting La Verne. Both stadiums have lights, so a 12:00 and 5:00 pm start would allow us die-hard fans the opportunity to take in both games. Wheaton, Oshkosh and Whitewater are also close enough if you were fans of these teams. Might be some Eastern teams that also fall in this dilemma.

Is there a video, where I can watch the replay of the selection show?

Quote from: art76 on November 18, 2015, 10:36:57 AM
Anybody else out there in play-off land wishing the NCAA would stagger play-off games that are within 100 miles of each other so fans could go see both if they wanted to? Up here in the Northland we have two games in the MIAC, both at Collegeville as the Johnnies are hosting Dubuque, and the Tommies are hosting La Verne. Both stadiums have lights, so a 12:00 and 5:00 pm start would allow us die-hard fans the opportunity to take in both games. Wheaton, Oshkosh and Whitewater are also close enough if you were fans of these teams. Might be some Eastern teams that also fall in this dilemma.

Yes, but playing that late may put a team on the bus at 9 or 10 pm (and who knows how long that bus ride might be) or if a team had to fly, playing that late might force an extra night of lodging, and I think we know how the NCAA would feel about that expense. 

I would be all for staggering the kickoffs of these 16 games into maybe 3 or 4 start times, but that runs the risk of costing more money and also wouldn't be ideal for the student-athletes with respect to travel. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 18, 2015, 11:11:53 AM

Quote from: art76 on November 18, 2015, 10:36:57 AM
Anybody else out there in play-off land wishing the NCAA would stagger play-off games that are within 100 miles of each other so fans could go see both if they wanted to? Up here in the Northland we have two games in the MIAC, both at Collegeville as the Johnnies are hosting Dubuque, and the Tommies are hosting La Verne. Both stadiums have lights, so a 12:00 and 5:00 pm start would allow us die-hard fans the opportunity to take in both games. Wheaton, Oshkosh and Whitewater are also close enough if you were fans of these teams. Might be some Eastern teams that also fall in this dilemma.

Yes, but playing that late may put a team on the bus at 9 or 10 pm (and who knows how long that bus ride might be) or if a team had to fly, playing that late might force an extra night of lodging, and I think we know how the NCAA would feel about that expense. 

I would be all for staggering the kickoffs of these 16 games into maybe 3 or 4 start times, but that runs the risk of costing more money and also wouldn't be ideal for the student-athletes with respect to travel.

Big key here.  D3 isn't D1; the student-athletes should come first in this decision-making.  D1 schools can play games whenever they can get on TV because it brings in extra revenue, justifying the additional inconvenience to the athletes (sure, we'll play a Tuesday night game!  Kids, you'll have to skip all of your Tuesday classes to travel there, and we'll get home at 3 AM on Wednesday morning, so you might as well plan on skipping Wednesday's classes too). 

Anyways, staggering the start times won't significantly increase revenue from ticket sales (with all due respect, art, how many guys like you, emma, wally etc exist that would get in a car and drive 50+ miles from a noon game to a 5 PM game just to watch two Division III playoff games, one of which did not involve a team that they root for/played for/have a son playing for?) so I don't think the additional burden on the athletes - as wally said, the late kickoff means that those teams are either busing/flying and getting home at some wacko time like 4 AM, or staying an extra night on the NCAA's dime (not going to happen) - can really be justified.

if we were worried about student athlete health then the games would start at 12 of the team further West. Linfield having to play at 9 am their time at Widener is much different than Widener having to start at 3 pm. No one wants to start a football game at 9 am as body clocks aren't ready for it. The NCAA could easily make the change by having all playoff games start at 3 pm Eastern. Of course you'd need lights to host which might be an issue for some schools.

Quote from: art76 on November 18, 2015, 10:36:57 AM
Anybody else out there in play-off land wishing the NCAA would stagger play-off games that are within 100 miles of each other so fans could go see both if they wanted to? Up here in the Northland we have two games in the MIAC, both at Collegeville as the Johnnies are hosting Dubuque, and the Tommies are hosting La Verne. Both stadiums have lights, so a 12:00 and 5:00 pm start would allow us die-hard fans the opportunity to take in both games. Wheaton, Oshkosh and Whitewater are also close enough if you were fans of these teams. Might be some Eastern teams that also fall in this dilemma.

Yes, I agree.  I just wish they were different times so I could get back home and watch some of the other games.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 18, 2015, 12:01:43 PM
if we were worried about student athlete health then the games would start at 12 of the team further West. Linfield having to play at 9 am their time at Widener is much different than Widener having to start at 3 pm. No one wants to start a football game at 9 am as body clocks aren't ready for it. The NCAA could easily make the change by having all playoff games start at 3 pm Eastern. Of course you'd need lights to host which might be an issue for some schools.

I don't think the time change would have made the outcome any different between Linfield and Widener. You guys destroyed them. However, I do get your point.

D1 (and D2) has an advantage as well where many of the universities have summer classes. A lot of the D3 liberal arts schools do not, so missed class time is critical.

I know that the trend now at larger universities is for athletes to have some online classes during their season.

Another reason to schedule all games at 12:00 local is weather.  If the weather at 12:00 is horrendous, you have time to delay.  If the weather at 12:00 is fine, but horrendous several hours later, somebody's going to be tarred and feathered for scheduling a late game.

Do you really want to to go out of your way to put yourself in position for another UMHB-Texas Lutheran playoff postponement?

http://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2015-11-15/diii-football-2015-selection-show

Found It.

Quote from: edward de vere on November 18, 2015, 01:07:36 PM
Another reason to schedule all games at 12:00 local is weather.  If the weather at 12:00 is horrendous, you have time to delay.  If the weather at 12:00 is fine, but horrendous several hours later, somebody's going to be tarred and feathered for scheduling a late game.

Do you really want to to go out of your way to put yourself in position for another UMHB-Texas Lutheran playoff postponement?

How many D3 stadiums have lights? With no DST it gets late awfully early...

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)

UMHB/HSU   and Hendrix Huntingdon

2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?

UMHB or HSU

3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

I agree. Huntingdon over Hendrix. 55 - 48 = 103


4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

Salisbury at Cortland because the SJU game has been picked.  Salisbury 21-17  = 38 points.


5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

St Thomas by 55.

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)

Any of the rematch games (Linfield/Whitworth, St. Johns/Dubuque, HSU/MHB, )---even though there are clear favorites in each of these games---the 2nd time around is usually pretty competitive.

2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?

see question #1

3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

Salisbury over Cortland St.-- 95 points


4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

Mary Hardin Baylor over Hardin Simmons 27 pts.


5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

Mt Union by 49.

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)

Ohio Northern at Franklin - I can see this game being won in OT by one


2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?

I'll jump on the bandwagon of the UMHB/Hardin-Simmons game.


3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

Framingham State at Wesley, Wesley will win, and the total scores will add up to 118 (59 to 49)


4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)

Norwich at Albright, Albright will win, and the total scores will add up to 28 (21 to 7)


5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)

Whitworth at Linfield, Linfield by 53 (63 to 10)

Ha!  We now have a pick for Salisbury-Cortland as both the HIGHEST SCORING and the LOWEST SCORING game of the first round!

I'm glad somebody else took me up on that Wesley-Framingham game.  I can see a lot of points on the board both ways there....

Lots of action on St. Thomas as the biggest MOV in round 1.  Is this because La Verne is perceived as the weakest opponent of any #1 seed, or because UST is viewed as having the coaching staff most likely to throw a few behind-the-back extra point passes to rub it in against an overmatched opponent?

Smedindy

How early does it get late there;Du

Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2015, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: edward de vere on November 18, 2015, 01:07:36 PM
Another reason to schedule all games at 12:00 local is weather.  If the weather at 12:00 is horrendous, you have time to delay.  If the weather at 12:00 is fine, but horrendous several hours later, somebody's going to be tarred and feathered for scheduling a late game.

Do you really want to to go out of your way to put yourself in position for another UMHB-Texas Lutheran playoff postponement?

How many D3 stadiums have lights? With no DST it gets late awfully early...

Living on a D3 island I don't get to see a lot of D3 stadiums, would you guys say that not having lights is common?

Quote from: crufootball on November 19, 2015, 10:17:21 AM

Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2015, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: edward de vere on November 18, 2015, 01:07:36 PM
Another reason to schedule all games at 12:00 local is weather.  If the weather at 12:00 is horrendous, you have time to delay.  If the weather at 12:00 is fine, but horrendous several hours later, somebody's going to be tarred and feathered for scheduling a late game.

Do you really want to to go out of your way to put yourself in position for another UMHB-Texas Lutheran playoff postponement?

How many D3 stadiums have lights? With no DST it gets late awfully early...

Living on a D3 island I don't get to see a lot of D3 stadiums, would you guys say that not having lights is common?

I'd be surprised if more than half the stadiums in D3 have lights. Even those that do rarely use them. I think W&L plays about one game a year under the lights, mainly because of what it does for travel. Unless teams are staying over night after the game, it's a long ride home in the dark if the game ends at 9.

Really limits the usefulness versus the expense.

Quote from: jknezek on November 19, 2015, 10:20:28 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 19, 2015, 10:17:21 AM

Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2015, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: edward de vere on November 18, 2015, 01:07:36 PM
Another reason to schedule all games at 12:00 local is weather.  If the weather at 12:00 is horrendous, you have time to delay.  If the weather at 12:00 is fine, but horrendous several hours later, somebody's going to be tarred and feathered for scheduling a late game.

Do you really want to to go out of your way to put yourself in position for another UMHB-Texas Lutheran playoff postponement?

How many D3 stadiums have lights? With no DST it gets late awfully early...

Living on a D3 island I don't get to see a lot of D3 stadiums, would you guys say that not having lights is common?

I'd be surprised if more than half the stadiums in D3 have lights. Even those that do rarely use them. I think W&L plays about one game a year under the lights, mainly because of what it does for travel. Unless teams are staying over night after the game, it's a long ride home in the dark if the game ends at 9.

Really limits the usefulness versus the expense.

I know for some teams having the lights, helps with practice times, especially when multiple teams use the same field.

Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 19, 2015, 10:27:52 AM
Living on a D3 island I don't get to see a lot of D3 stadiums, would you guys say that not having lights is common?

I'd be surprised if more than half the stadiums in D3 have lights. Even those that do rarely use them. I think W&L plays about one game a year under the lights, mainly because of what it does for travel. Unless teams are staying over night after the game, it's a long ride home in the dark if the game ends at 9.

Really limits the usefulness versus the expense.
[/quote]

Forgot about that. Good call.

I know for some teams having the lights, helps with practice times, especially when multiple teams use the same field.
[/quote]

Of course, there are some stadiums with no stands on the visitor's side, so lights would even be more of a luxury.

And some stadiums are still grass.  ::)

Thanx everyone for the feedback on staggering the start times of playoff games in close proximity to one another. As was posted earlier, there's probably only a handful of fans that would take advantage of it and it really does add to travel woes, which I had not considered. I was under the impression that travelling teams stayed the night before and the night after a game to travel home the next day - apparently that is not so.

Quote from: art76 on November 19, 2015, 10:41:55 AM
Thanx everyone for the feedback on staggering the start times of playoff games in close proximity to one another. As was posted earlier, there's probably only a handful of fans that would take advantage of it and it really does add to travel woes, which I had not considered. I was under the impression that travelling teams stayed the night before and the night after a game to travel home the next day - apparently that is not so.

Certainly worth discussing - but ultimately I think night playoff games in D3 is a non-starter for several of the reasons given here.

Re: traveling teams, this certainly is not one size fits all but for my lone away playoff game (CMU @ Wesley)which is relevant because it would have been on the NCAA's dime, we had a walkthrough at our place on Friday morning, the bus pulled out for Dover around noon on Friday, we had dinner and stayed over on Friday night, and then departed for home on Saturday afternoon, arriving back in Pittsburgh around 11 PM that night.

For regular-season games, trips that required a flight (Chicago, WashU-St Louis, and Colorado) we generally did stay over on Friday night before the game and Saturday night after the game, but I'm not sure that second night in a hotel is common.  Since we typically had only had one "flight" trip per year I think our AD/coach were able to lobby to give the team an extra night in the hotel (and our coaches definitely used that as a recruiting tool - that we had an away trip to Chicago and/or St. Louis every year, and that the team was allowed to go out in the city after the game, as long as we all made the team bus the next morning for the airport).

I'm not sure if that's really common or not, though (in fact, even in Division I football, I'm not sure if it's common that the away team stays over the night after the game, especially for afternoon games).  Anyone else know whether most schools that have a regular-season game with a flight typically stay over the second day, or if they usually leave that night?  Any other anecdotal experience to share?

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2015, 11:12:29 AM

Quote from: art76 on November 19, 2015, 10:41:55 AM
Thanx everyone for the feedback on staggering the start times of playoff games in close proximity to one another. As was posted earlier, there's probably only a handful of fans that would take advantage of it and it really does add to travel woes, which I had not considered. I was under the impression that travelling teams stayed the night before and the night after a game to travel home the next day - apparently that is not so.

Certainly worth discussing - but ultimately I think night playoff games in D3 is a non-starter for several of the reasons given here.

Re: traveling teams, this certainly is not one size fits all but for my lone away playoff game (CMU @ Wesley)which is relevant because it would have been on the NCAA's dime, we had a walkthrough at our place on Friday morning, the bus pulled out for Dover around noon on Friday, we had dinner and stayed over on Friday night, and then departed for home on Saturday afternoon, arriving back in Pittsburgh around 11 PM that night.

For regular-season games, trips that required a flight (Chicago, WashU-St Louis, and Colorado) we generally did stay over on Friday night before the game and Saturday night after the game, but I'm not sure that second night in a hotel is common.  Since we typically had only had one "flight" trip per year I think our AD/coach were able to lobby to give the team an extra night in the hotel (and our coaches definitely used that as a recruiting tool - that we had an away trip to Chicago and/or St. Louis every year, and that the team was allowed to go out in the city after the game, as long as we all made the team bus the next morning for the airport).

I'm not sure if that's really common or not, though (in fact, even in Division I football, I'm not sure if it's common that the away team stays over the night after the game, especially for afternoon games).  Anyone else know whether most schools that have a regular-season game with a flight typically stay over the second day, or if they usually leave that night?  Any other anecdotal experience to share?

This isn't limited to just D3 either.  I remember maybe a couple of years ago, San Diego St. head basketball coach Steve Fisher lit up the NCAA for sending whatever team the Aztecs just beat in the first round off to an airport at some ungodly hour to fly home immediately after a late game instead of lodging them for another night.  And this happened during the D1 men's basketball tournament, which we all know pays for absolutely everything.  Even then, they're cutting corners a bit. 

In totally unrelated news I'm sure, Steve Fisher's Aztec program is under investigation.   ::)

Brockport just got lights 2 years ago, I think. And I think they've only used them once, to my knowledge. I love games under the lights, so if it's a close team I can see it as useful.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 19, 2015, 11:26:48 AM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2015, 11:12:29 AM

Quote from: art76 on November 19, 2015, 10:41:55 AM
Thanx everyone for the feedback on staggering the start times of playoff games in close proximity to one another. As was posted earlier, there's probably only a handful of fans that would take advantage of it and it really does add to travel woes, which I had not considered. I was under the impression that travelling teams stayed the night before and the night after a game to travel home the next day - apparently that is not so.

Certainly worth discussing - but ultimately I think night playoff games in D3 is a non-starter for several of the reasons given here.

Re: traveling teams, this certainly is not one size fits all but for my lone away playoff game (CMU @ Wesley)which is relevant because it would have been on the NCAA's dime, we had a walkthrough at our place on Friday morning, the bus pulled out for Dover around noon on Friday, we had dinner and stayed over on Friday night, and then departed for home on Saturday afternoon, arriving back in Pittsburgh around 11 PM that night.

For regular-season games, trips that required a flight (Chicago, WashU-St Louis, and Colorado) we generally did stay over on Friday night before the game and Saturday night after the game, but I'm not sure that second night in a hotel is common.  Since we typically had only had one "flight" trip per year I think our AD/coach were able to lobby to give the team an extra night in the hotel (and our coaches definitely used that as a recruiting tool - that we had an away trip to Chicago and/or St. Louis every year, and that the team was allowed to go out in the city after the game, as long as we all made the team bus the next morning for the airport).

I'm not sure if that's really common or not, though (in fact, even in Division I football, I'm not sure if it's common that the away team stays over the night after the game, especially for afternoon games).  Anyone else know whether most schools that have a regular-season game with a flight typically stay over the second day, or if they usually leave that night?  Any other anecdotal experience to share?

This isn't limited to just D3 either.  I remember maybe a couple of years ago, San Diego St. head basketball coach Steve Fisher lit up the NCAA for sending whatever team the Aztecs just beat in the first round off to an airport at some ungodly hour to fly home immediately after a late game instead of lodging them for another night.  And this happened during the D1 men's basketball tournament, which we all know pays for absolutely everything.  Even then, they're cutting corners a bit. 

In totally unrelated news I'm sure, Steve Fisher's Aztec program is under investigation.   ::)

For those interested...

http://www.mercurynews.com/national-sports-news/ci_25394696/steve-fisher-rips-ncaas-disgraceful-travel-policy-ncaa

"Teams are provided a chartered flight and hotel rooms by the NCAA for the tournament but once they lose, they have to fly home. That night, no matter what.

Even if it's after an overtime game in Spokane, Wash., that doesn't end until after 10:30 p.m. local time.

New Mexico State lost to San Diego State in the final game played Thursday night and then the Aggies were sent on their way – 1,600 miles back to campus in Las Cruces, N.M.

San Diego State coach Steve Fisher has a problem with that, and made a point to address it in the post-game press conference."

What seems a little strange to me is this: are those kids being sent to the airport to catch a commercial flight, or a private charter?  Because if they're flying commercial, doesn't the NCAA have to pay for tickets ahead of time for both teams that may or may not go used?  And if they're flying charter (which I assume they are)...is it really any cheaper to have a couple of chartered planes sitting there ready and waiting that might have to take kids back to either San Diego or New Mexico than it is to spring for one more night's hotel accommodations and have the plane take off in the morning?

I don't know much about the process of arranging travel for something like the NCAA basketball tournament.  D3 football playoffs are easy - the games are on Saturday and everyone goes home afterwards, win or lose.  But for D1 basketball - when half the teams go home on Thursday/Friday night and the other half stay until the weekend, and you don't know which half is which until that afternoon and evening - I assume that coordinating this is a little more complex.

Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 19, 2015, 10:27:52 AM

Quote from: jknezek on November 19, 2015, 10:20:28 AM

Quote from: crufootball on November 19, 2015, 10:17:21 AM

Quote from: smedindy on November 18, 2015, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: edward de vere on November 18, 2015, 01:07:36 PM
Another reason to schedule all games at 12:00 local is weather.  If the weather at 12:00 is horrendous, you have time to delay.  If the weather at 12:00 is fine, but horrendous several hours later, somebody's going to be tarred and feathered for scheduling a late game.

Do you really want to to go out of your way to put yourself in position for another UMHB-Texas Lutheran playoff postponement?

How many D3 stadiums have lights? With no DST it gets late awfully early...

Living on a D3 island I don't get to see a lot of D3 stadiums, would you guys say that not having lights is common?

I'd be surprised if more than half the stadiums in D3 have lights. Even those that do rarely use them. I think W&L plays about one game a year under the lights, mainly because of what it does for travel. Unless teams are staying over night after the game, it's a long ride home in the dark if the game ends at 9.

Really limits the usefulness versus the expense.

I know for some teams having the lights, helps with practice times, especially when multiple teams use the same field.

I agree, even while most schools (I assume) would have practice fields, lights add another option for practice times. Not sure if this is the norm, but I think many of the IIAC schools open up their fields for high school games during the season & playoffs. Most of those games would be under the lights.

They are charter flights. Every couple years you get a news story about the dearth of charter flight options in late March because the tournament sucks up so many planes in the first round or two. Apparently it's a real burden on the wealthy and they quote a few, anonymously usually, about how they simply don't travel in that time period because of the inconvenience.

Interestingly enough, I think the last time I saw a version of that story it was from the NCAA's point of view lamenting that their aren't as many charter operations around anymore.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-01-14/declining-availability-charter-flights-will-affect-ncaa-championships

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2015, 11:12:29 AM

Quote from: art76 on November 19, 2015, 10:41:55 AM
Thanx everyone for the feedback on staggering the start times of playoff games in close proximity to one another. As was posted earlier, there's probably only a handful of fans that would take advantage of it and it really does add to travel woes, which I had not considered. I was under the impression that travelling teams stayed the night before and the night after a game to travel home the next day - apparently that is not so.

I'm not sure if that's really common or not, though (in fact, even in Division I football, I'm not sure if it's common that the away team stays over the night after the game, especially for afternoon games).  Anyone else know whether most schools that have a regular-season game with a flight typically stay over the second day, or if they usually leave that night?  Any other anecdotal experience to share?

D1 teams and NFL teams for that matter fly home after the game without staying an extra night.

Seems there will be potential weather impacts on games in the Midwest in week 1 of playoffs.  Expecting anywhere from 1-6 inches of snow in northern Illinois from Friday night to Saturday afternoon, with dropping temps (upper 20's during game times).  Also projecting 20-30 mph wind gusts.

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 17, 2015, 11:52:51 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

That was and IS insane.  Dude's got issues.

I didn't take it like that at all. I took it like "once you project something, it sets an expectation, and when we don't meet that expectation, it makes us look wrong, which is fine but sucks for the teams who got their hopes up."

Also, I don't think I've been on the boards all year, since Kickoff was released, not even to lurk ... but the chatter is high quality as always.

Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2015, 12:39:56 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 17, 2015, 11:52:51 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 11:45:04 AM
Hearing the disdain expressed by the committee chair on the ITH interview for mock brackets, I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally avoided every possible first round matchup we put out there. I mean, I've never heard anything like that from a chair before, even off the record.

That was and IS insane.  Dude's got issues.

I didn't take it like that at all. I took it like "once you project something, it sets an expectation, and when we don't meet that expectation, it makes us look wrong, which is fine but sucks for the teams who got their hopes up."

I look at it the from the other side- when we get 4/6 C's I think we got it wrong.   But I thought we did a good job during the bracketology show of laying out a couple of alternatives based on just the smallest of changes in the regional rankings. 

Would it be better if the projection we did during the bracketology was absolutely definitive?  Sure it would.  I think it would also be less interesting if there weren't *some* intrigue and mystery.  So there's the trade off, I suppose. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 17, 2015, 06:04:02 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 17, 2015, 01:57:33 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 17, 2015, 12:19:58 PM
Are the committee members paid for the selection process?

I don't believe so, aside from expenses and some swag.

I was trying to get some perspective from their side.  I think it's entirely fine that D3 does a mock draft.  That said, I can see from their perspective it would be like someone doing my job for me, and then waiting to see if I would do the job as well as they did. 
The thing with Pool B and C is there are only 7 choices- so all of their work is based on picking 7 teams (not counting the bracketing).  And, there is published information as to how those 7 teams should be selected.  And, it can't be argued that there are people on the D3.com staff and board participants that the committee knows follows the sport as close- and likely closer than they do. 

They are in an odd situation.

Well I think they make it odd by keeping secret the final regional rankings and the seeds. Transparency would equal greater understanding of the process, and I took the comment as "your projections unnecessarily got Platteville and Guilford's hopes up."

But if they wanted to eliminate that, publish the final regional rankings so we're all working with the same information and we can see what you see. Then the projections would either match their projections or we'd just agree to disagree.

I also think that there are people rotating on to the committee every couple of years and not all of them understand it as well as Pat, Greg, et. al., but usually there are enough people in the room to guide it through. This year must have been odd because of all the people who would have had to recuse themselves at certain points ... more than half of them had a team in the field/potential conflict of interest.

QuoteThe #d3fb playoff selection committee: Kean AD, Albright HC, CCIW commish, Wabash HC, Thiel AD, UMHB AD, Whitworth HC, UW-Stout AD. #d3fb32

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on November 18, 2015, 12:01:43 PM
if we were worried about student athlete health then the games would start at 12 of the team further West. Linfield having to play at 9 am their time at Widener is much different than Widener having to start at 3 pm. No one wants to start a football game at 9 am as body clocks aren't ready for it. The NCAA could easily make the change by having all playoff games start at 3 pm Eastern. Of course you'd need lights to host which might be an issue for some schools.

That's a really good point, and lights probably were part of the consideration when they first made the rule, and no one's ever thought to change it.

I personally would like some staggering, but even just exceptions for West Coast teams in the Eastern Time Zone makes common sense.

We'll be projecting scores in Triple Take, but I'll take a quick stab here:

1. What's your pick for the most competitive first-round matchup? (Closest game)
I only see three; UMHB/HSU, Salisbury at Cortland (the coaching staffs should know each other well since Gulls played a bunch of E8 teams just before Dragons joined E8) and ONU at Franklin. Actually, maybe the H game in the South and the game in Kentucky too. Would be happy to be proven wrong on this.

2. Anyone think that a true "contender" will have a competitive* first-round game?
The Texas teams are the only who can barely win in Round 1 but get to Salem.

3. Predictions for the highest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
Thomas More and W&L. I'll go 88 points; TM 53-35 or thereabouts.

4. Predictions for the lowest combined score in the first round? (Game, winner, estimated # points)
Somebody said there are no shutdown defenses anymore; Mount Union, Linfield, Wabash all qualify. Dubuque-St. John's could be low-scoring. But that's a rematch of a 46-9 game. So I'll take ONU 21, Franklin 14. :shrug:

5. Prediction for the largest margin of victory? (Game, winner, estimated MOV)
See Triple Take.

Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2015, 12:40:45 PM
Also, I don't think I've been on the boards all year, since Kickoff was released, not even to lurk ... but the chatter is high quality as always.

I was wondering where you'd been...besides on the podcasts, of course.

Re: the one comment (since I'm the guy who said there are "few" shutdown defenses any more)...Mount, Wabash, Linfield are definitely among a small handful of shutdown defenses in the playoffs but they're all playing against teams where they will score a lot of points (in round 1) anyway so I didn't see any of them as likely to play an overall low-scoring game (I expect Mount to win about 67-0, so even though they'll notch a shutout it will not be the lowest combined score...I don't think).

I think that what I'm has me chuckling a bit is that 21-14 now passes for a low-scoring game.  Back in the old days, when men were men and teams ran the wishbone and the I-formation and actually huddled between plays, that was just a normal score.  Now it's what we call the lowest-scoring first-round game.

If 35 is lowest O/U for any game this weekend, give me the under please. 

K-Mac, as you all are drafting triple take- I had a suggestion for you.  In four of the last five tournaments, exactly three road teams beat their first round opponent (in 2012 there were 5 road winners).  Assuming this trend holds - i'd like to hear your prediction on which 3 road teams are going to win.

Latest forecast for the Wheaton area on Saturday:

QuoteIssued by The National Weather Service Chicago, IL
Thu, Nov 19, 2:20 pm CST

    ... WINTER STORM WATCH IN EFFECT FROM FRIDAY EVENING THROUGH SATURDAY AFTERNOON...
    THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN CHICAGO HAS ISSUED A WINTER STORM WATCH... WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM FRIDAY EVENING THROUGH EARLY SATURDAY AFTERNOON.
    * TIMING... A POSSIBLE RAIN AND SNOW MIX BRIEFLY FRIDAY EVENING QUICKLY TRANSITIONING TO SNOW AND PERSISTING THROUGH EARLY TO MID AFTERNOON ON SATURDAY... WITH SNOW POSSIBLY HEAVY AT TIMES.
    * SNOW ACCUMULATIONS... 4 TO 7 INCHES.
    * IMPACTS... POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR DIFFICULT DRIVING CONDITIONS AND SHARPLY REDUCED VISIBILITIES.
    * THE FIRST ACCUMULATING SNOW OF THE YEAR CAN CATCH MOTORISTS OFF GUARD. ENSURE TO PLAN ACCORDINGLY AND USE EXTRA CAUTION IF TRAVELING.
    PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
    A WINTER STORM WATCH MEANS THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT SNOW THAT MAY IMPACT TRAVEL. CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE LATEST FORECASTS.

Not what Lakeland's high-octane pass attack would desire.

Minneapolis/St. Paul - high of 28 F, winds out of the NW at 10 mph, partly cloudy. Welcome to Minnesota La Verne Leopards.

Quote from: art76 on November 19, 2015, 03:41:29 PM
Minneapolis/St. Paul - high of 28 F, winds out of the NW at 10 mph, partly cloudy. Welcome to Minnesota La Verne Leopards.

Not a LaVerne guy but I live near there and it's been down right chilly here the past week or so.  I think we failed to reach 80 degrees for at least 7 straight days.  It's also been in the 40's several nights this week.  So I'm sure LaVerne will be ready.....   ::)

I don't think I'll have enough computers at my disposal on Saturday to watch all the games I want too.

Source #1: iPad (streaming through my TV via Apple TV) for the UWW game.
Source #2: Bringing home my work laptop to watch the MHB/HS game.
Source #3: Wife's work laptop to stream ether the Salisbury/Cortland St game or Thomas More/W&L.

I'm also interested in watching the St. John's/Dubuque game.

So many games so few computers.   :'(

The time zones help stagger them slightly, as in your case Salisbury/Cortland and Thomas More/WL will start an hour earlier than the other two games, but as a whole it's impossible for me to see everything I want to see.

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 19, 2015, 04:08:15 PM
I don't think I'll have enough computers at my disposal on Saturday to watch all the games I want too.

Source #1: iPad (streaming through my TV via Apple TV) for the UWW game.
Source #2: Bringing home my work laptop to watch the MHB/HS game.
Source #3: Wife's work laptop to stream ether the Salisbury/Cortland St game or Thomas More/W&L.

I'm also interested in watching the St. John's/Dubuque game.

So many games so few computers.   :'(

You can have 2-4 games on a screen (on a computer anyway)...of course then you need a second screen for your board posting :)

Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2015, 04:16:47 PM
The time zones help stagger them slightly, as in your case Salisbury/Cortland and Thomas More/WL will start an hour earlier than the other two games, but as a whole it's impossible for me to see everything I want to see.

True, but at noon (central time) it gets tough as all the games I'm interested in are playing at once.

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 19, 2015, 04:22:17 PM

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 19, 2015, 04:08:15 PM
I don't think I'll have enough computers at my disposal on Saturday to watch all the games I want too.

Source #1: iPad (streaming through my TV via Apple TV) for the UWW game.
Source #2: Bringing home my work laptop to watch the MHB/HS game.
Source #3: Wife's work laptop to stream ether the Salisbury/Cortland St game or Thomas More/W&L.

I'm also interested in watching the St. John's/Dubuque game.

So many games so few computers.   :'(

You can have 2-4 games on a screen (on a computer anyway)...of course then you need a second screen for your board posting :)

Board posting/reading will be done on my phone.  :)

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 19, 2015, 04:42:38 PM

Quote from: pg04 on November 19, 2015, 04:16:47 PM
The time zones help stagger them slightly, as in your case Salisbury/Cortland and Thomas More/WL will start an hour earlier than the other two games, but as a whole it's impossible for me to see everything I want to see.

True, but at noon (central time) it gets tough as all the games I'm interested in are playing at once.

Yup-luckily some of them get out of hand quickly and then you can move to another one.

Quote from: art76 on November 19, 2015, 03:41:29 PM
Minneapolis/St. Paul - high of 28 F, winds out of the NW at 10 mph, partly cloudy. Welcome to Minnesota La Verne Leopards.

UST had better hope that they are not in fact Snow Leopards! ;D

Weighing in on the lights conversation:  we down here in the south, Texas specifically, really need lights for the early season games.  Playing at Noon, or anytime in the middle of the day, would be miserably hot for those September games. 

Quote from: cover2 on November 19, 2015, 05:19:18 PM
Weighing in on the lights conversation:  we down here in the south, Texas specifically, really need lights for the early season games.  Playing at Noon, or anytime in the middle of the day, would be miserably hot for those September games.

+k, this is a very good point and a consideration I hadn't made, even though I now live in the south.

Quote from: Mugsy on November 19, 2015, 03:37:27 PM
Latest forecast for the Wheaton area on Saturday:

QuoteIssued by The National Weather Service Chicago, IL
Thu, Nov 19, 2:20 pm CST

    ... WINTER STORM WATCH IN EFFECT FROM FRIDAY EVENING THROUGH SATURDAY AFTERNOON...
    THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN CHICAGO HAS ISSUED A WINTER STORM WATCH... WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM FRIDAY EVENING THROUGH EARLY SATURDAY AFTERNOON.
    * TIMING... A POSSIBLE RAIN AND SNOW MIX BRIEFLY FRIDAY EVENING QUICKLY TRANSITIONING TO SNOW AND PERSISTING THROUGH EARLY TO MID AFTERNOON ON SATURDAY... WITH SNOW POSSIBLY HEAVY AT TIMES.
    * SNOW ACCUMULATIONS... 4 TO 7 INCHES.
    * IMPACTS... POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR DIFFICULT DRIVING CONDITIONS AND SHARPLY REDUCED VISIBILITIES.
    * THE FIRST ACCUMULATING SNOW OF THE YEAR CAN CATCH MOTORISTS OFF GUARD. ENSURE TO PLAN ACCORDINGLY AND USE EXTRA CAUTION IF TRAVELING.
    PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
    A WINTER STORM WATCH MEANS THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT SNOW THAT MAY IMPACT TRAVEL. CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE LATEST FORECASTS.

Not what Lakeland's high-octane pass attack would desire.

I'll be following along online from warm and sunny SoCal. Go Wheaton!

Quote from: wabndy on November 19, 2015, 01:21:36 PM

K-Mac, as you all are drafting triple take- I had a suggestion for you.  In four of the last five tournaments, exactly three road teams beat their first round opponent (in 2012 there were 5 road winners).  Assuming this trend holds - i'd like to hear your prediction on which 3 road teams are going to win.

Triple Take is out - Keith picked these three road warriors: Salisbury, Mary Hardin-Baylor and Ohio Northern. In fact, all three picked these teams to win. Gotta give Keith props though for being the only guy to pick against Ryan and Pat in choosing Huntingdon and Thomas More in their respective games.

Quote from: cover2 on November 19, 2015, 05:19:18 PM
Weighing in on the lights conversation:  we down here in the south, Texas specifically, really need lights for the early season games.  Playing at Noon, or anytime in the middle of the day, would be miserably hot for those September games.

Speaking of playoff scheduling:  Any idea why the d3football.com schedule has the Oshkosh game as 4:00 PM (Eastern) and the Oshkosh Site has it as 3:00 (local Oshkosh time)?  I know these two are the same times  but I thought all games were played 12:00 local? 

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 20, 2015, 09:09:26 AM

Quote from: cover2 on November 19, 2015, 05:19:18 PM
Weighing in on the lights conversation:  we down here in the south, Texas specifically, really need lights for the early season games.  Playing at Noon, or anytime in the middle of the day, would be miserably hot for those September games.

Speaking of playoff scheduling:  Any idea why the d3football.com schedule has the Oshkosh game as 4:00 PM (Eastern) and the Oshkosh Site has it as 3:00 (local Oshkosh time)?  I know these two are the same times  but I thought all games were played 12:00 local?

They are hosting the national cross country meet so an exception was made. Usually so staff can scurry around and get everything done.

Quote from: jknezek on November 20, 2015, 09:11:53 AM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 20, 2015, 09:09:26 AM

Quote from: cover2 on November 19, 2015, 05:19:18 PM
Weighing in on the lights conversation:  we down here in the south, Texas specifically, really need lights for the early season games.  Playing at Noon, or anytime in the middle of the day, would be miserably hot for those September games.

Speaking of playoff scheduling:  Any idea why the d3football.com schedule has the Oshkosh game as 4:00 PM (Eastern) and the Oshkosh Site has it as 3:00 (local Oshkosh time)?  I know these two are the same times  but I thought all games were played 12:00 local?

They are hosting the national cross country meet so an exception was made. Usually so staff can scurry around and get everything done.

Aha!  Thanks for the info. Was curious to see what appeared to be a random time on the schedule. 

They are in an odd situation. [/quote]

Well I think they make it odd by keeping secret the final regional rankings and the seeds. Transparency would equal greater understanding of the process, and I took the comment as "your projections unnecessarily got Platteville and Guilford's hopes up."

But if they wanted to eliminate that, publish the final regional rankings so we're all working with the same information and we can see what you see. Then the projections would either match their projections or we'd just agree to disagree.

I also think that there are people rotating on to the committee every couple of years and not all of them understand it as well as Pat, Greg, et. al., but usually there are enough people in the room to guide it through. This year must have been odd because of all the people who would have had to recuse themselves at certain points ... more than half of them had a team in the field/potential conflict of interest.

QuoteThe #d3fb playoff selection committee: Kean AD, Albright HC, CCIW commish, Wabash HC, Thiel AD, UMHB AD, Whitworth HC, UW-Stout AD. #d3fb32

[/quote]

I do think your point about transparency is key to all of this.  I'm not too upset that UWP didn't make it, based upon their poor performance in the biggest game of the regular season for them.  But that being said, there is still supposed to be some logic to this based upon the D3 published process.  If the committee is comfortable with the logic they used to make the selections, I simply don't understand why they won't be transparent.  My definition of transparency would require an open discussion, not just showing regional rankings.  We have to assume Whitworth was ranked ahead of UWP, just tell us why. 

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2015, 01:13:30 PM

Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2015, 12:40:45 PM
Also, I don't think I've been on the boards all year, since Kickoff was released, not even to lurk ... but the chatter is high quality as always.

I was wondering where you'd been...besides on the podcasts, of course.

Re: the one comment (since I'm the guy who said there are "few" shutdown defenses any more)...Mount, Wabash, Linfield are definitely among a small handful of shutdown defenses in the playoffs but they're all playing against teams where they will score a lot of points (in round 1) anyway so I didn't see any of them as likely to play an overall low-scoring game (I expect Mount to win about 67-0, so even though they'll notch a shutout it will not be the lowest combined score...I don't think).

I think that what I'm has me chuckling a bit is that 21-14 now passes for a low-scoring game.  Back in the old days, when men were men and teams ran the wishbone and the I-formation and actually huddled between plays, that was just a normal score.  Now it's what we call the lowest-scoring first-round game.

All fair.

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 20, 2015, 09:20:33 AM

Quote from: jknezek on November 20, 2015, 09:11:53 AM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 20, 2015, 09:09:26 AM

Quote from: cover2 on November 19, 2015, 05:19:18 PM
Weighing in on the lights conversation:  we down here in the south, Texas specifically, really need lights for the early season games.  Playing at Noon, or anytime in the middle of the day, would be miserably hot for those September games.

Speaking of playoff scheduling:  Any idea why the d3football.com schedule has the Oshkosh game as 4:00 PM (Eastern) and the Oshkosh Site has it as 3:00 (local Oshkosh time)?  I know these two are the same times  but I thought all games were played 12:00 local?

They are hosting the national cross country meet so an exception was made. Usually so staff can scurry around and get everything done.

Aha!  Thanks for the info. Was curious to see what appeared to be a random time on the schedule.

Did not know this. I wrote stock 15-games-at-once stuff in Triple Take, but it's only 14. Shame on me.

Quote from: K-Mack on November 20, 2015, 09:52:13 AM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 20, 2015, 09:20:33 AM

Quote from: jknezek on November 20, 2015, 09:11:53 AM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 20, 2015, 09:09:26 AM

Quote from: cover2 on November 19, 2015, 05:19:18 PM
Weighing in on the lights conversation:  we down here in the south, Texas specifically, really need lights for the early season games.  Playing at Noon, or anytime in the middle of the day, would be miserably hot for those September games.

Speaking of playoff scheduling:  Any idea why the d3football.com schedule has the Oshkosh game as 4:00 PM (Eastern) and the Oshkosh Site has it as 3:00 (local Oshkosh time)?  I know these two are the same times  but I thought all games were played 12:00 local?

They are hosting the national cross country meet so an exception was made. Usually so staff can scurry around and get everything done.

Aha!  Thanks for the info. Was curious to see what appeared to be a random time on the schedule.

Did not know this. I wrote stock 15-games-at-once stuff in Triple Take, but it's only 14. Shame on me.

Well you already told us that you're "not that smart", so we'll give you a pass.

In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

they don't, but they earn the spot. I'd rather that than have a strictly subjective system

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

I don't believe anybody claims that this tournament contains the top 32 teams in the division.  That's never been the objective. 

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

That's not the point.  D1's 'March Madness' is not the top 64 (now 68) teams either.  The point of conference AQ's is that everyone has ACCESS to the tourney.  Most of us prefer it that way, and it certainly is not going to change anytime soon.  Now if conference AQ's keep proliferating to the point that Pools B and C essentially disappear, I might well be open to some sort of 'modified' AQ system (Pat Coleman has toyed around with the idea that if no team in a conference makes it into any of the regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that season; some have also suggested a limit on the number of losses a team can have and still be an AQ).  But as long as no legitimate threat for a title gets left out of the field (and that is extremely unlikely in D3), don't think of the tourney as the BEST 32 teams - it isn't and was never intended to be.

And I think more than three games were not blowouts - several were highly contested much of the way but 'looked' like blowouts if you only see the final score.

Win you league, or you face the peril of being 9-1 or 8-2 and sitting home. It's that simple.

Pool C was unusually deep this year, so Guilford at 9-1 was left at the altar, and 9-1 Wartburg and Olivet never even had a first date....

I understand and accept the current structure as it is what it is.  I simply was attempting to make the point that with 32 teams in the playoffs and with most conference champions automatically qualifying, there are several worthy contenders that finished either 2nd or 3rd in very strong conferences, or are not in an AQ conference, that could be very legitimate contenders for deep playoff runs or even have a shot at the title.  I 100% believe that the true national champion is typically in the 32 team field, but there are others left out that could fare much better in the playoffs than several of those that are in and I feel that denying them that opportunity primarily based on cost is a shortchange.  Although there is no way that DIII University Presidents would ever approve of it, but with the approximately 250 D-III teams there are in the country, beginning the regular season one week earlier and extending the playoffs by one week with a 64 team field would modify the current structure to a system that would better identify the top teams in DIII and give more DIII student/athletes playing football an even richer experience.  Yes, there would be mismatches (but we have those already and there is no way around that), the NCAA would have a bigger bill (that means the NCAA would need to increase the expenditures it devotes to NCAA DIII from the paltry 3% it allocates now, to maybe 3 1/2 - 4%) and the student/athletes would have an additional week that could impact their classes (as the Presidents would use this as their primary objection by claiming it would deteriorate Division III's "educational mission"...hogwash, in my personal opinion).  Plus, you would have other athletic programs within the division possibly clamoring for a modification of their systems.  This I know is something that the University Presidents, who essentially drive the bus, would rather not want to address for all these reasons and more, and I get all that.  However, an expanded bracket would include those worthy teams that are yearly left out, i.e. this year's examples of UW-P,  North Central, TLU, JCU, Guilford as well as a few others.  64 teams would represent about 25% of the total teams in DIII and after the first week, we would be at a 32 team field at the same point in time that we are now. The bottom line, is it IS the bottom line that drives decisions of this magnitude, while protecting the "educational mission" of DIII institutions is the publicized reason that the Presidents use.    Anyway, its a pipe dream and I know several will blast such a proposal on all kinds of levels, but thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of creating a little "banter". 

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 08:47:05 AM
I understand and accept the current structure as it is what it is.  I simply was attempting to make the point that with 32 teams in the playoffs and with most conference champions automatically qualifying, there are several worthy contenders that finished either 2nd or 3rd in very strong conferences, or are not in an AQ conference, that could be very legitimate contenders for deep playoff runs or even have a shot at the title.  I 100% believe that the true national champion is typically in the 32 team field, but there are others left out that could fare much better in the playoffs than several of those that are in and I feel that denying them that opportunity primarily based on cost is a shortchange.  Although there is no way that DIII University Presidents would ever approve of it, but with the approximately 250 D-III teams there are in the country, beginning the regular season one week earlier and extending the playoffs by one week with a 64 team field would modify the current structure to a system that would better identify the top teams in DIII and give more DIII student/athletes playing football an even richer experience.  Yes, there would be mismatches (but we have those already and there is no way around that), the NCAA would have a bigger bill (that means the NCAA would need to increase the expenditures it devotes to NCAA DIII from the paltry 3% it allocates now, to maybe 3 1/2 - 4%) and the student/athletes would have an additional week that could impact their classes (as the Presidents would use this as their primary objection by claiming it would deteriorate Division III's "educational mission"...hogwash, in my personal opinion).  Plus, you would have other athletic programs within the division possibly clamoring for a modification of their systems.  This I know is something that the University Presidents, who essentially drive the bus, would rather not want to address for all these reasons and more, and I get all that.  However, an expanded bracket would include those worthy teams that are yearly left out, i.e. this year's examples of UW-P,  North Central, TLU, JCU, Guilford as well as a few others.  64 teams would represent about 25% of the total teams in DIII and after the first week, we would be at a 32 team field at the same point in time that we are now. The bottom line, is it IS the bottom line that drives decisions of this magnitude, while protecting the "educational mission" of DIII institutions is the publicized reason that the Presidents use.    Anyway, its a pipe dream and I know several will blast such a proposal on all kinds of levels, but thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of creating a little "banter".

The DIII Playoff system isn't prefect and the tournament selection as setup doesn't select the top 32 teams in DIIII.  There already is a significant difference between overall skill level from top on down.  Going to 64 teams and adding another week to the playoffs would result in even more mismatches.

As it was this year, around 60% of the first round games were wins by 28 or more points.  I think that percentage would probably remain similar if you expanded the field and then it would diminish as the rounds would advance.  The tricky part would be the pairings due to the geographical landscape of DIII programs as some programs would be burdened more with greater travel than others.  But as you noted, no system is perfect.

Quote from: Craft_Beermeister on November 22, 2015, 12:16:25 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 08:47:05 AM
I understand and accept the current structure as it is what it is.  I simply was attempting to make the point that with 32 teams in the playoffs and with most conference champions automatically qualifying, there are several worthy contenders that finished either 2nd or 3rd in very strong conferences, or are not in an AQ conference, that could be very legitimate contenders for deep playoff runs or even have a shot at the title.  I 100% believe that the true national champion is typically in the 32 team field, but there are others left out that could fare much better in the playoffs than several of those that are in and I feel that denying them that opportunity primarily based on cost is a shortchange.  Although there is no way that DIII University Presidents would ever approve of it, but with the approximately 250 D-III teams there are in the country, beginning the regular season one week earlier and extending the playoffs by one week with a 64 team field would modify the current structure to a system that would better identify the top teams in DIII and give more DIII student/athletes playing football an even richer experience.  Yes, there would be mismatches (but we have those already and there is no way around that), the NCAA would have a bigger bill (that means the NCAA would need to increase the expenditures it devotes to NCAA DIII from the paltry 3% it allocates now, to maybe 3 1/2 - 4%) and the student/athletes would have an additional week that could impact their classes (as the Presidents would use this as their primary objection by claiming it would deteriorate Division III's "educational mission"...hogwash, in my personal opinion).  Plus, you would have other athletic programs within the division possibly clamoring for a modification of their systems.  This I know is something that the University Presidents, who essentially drive the bus, would rather not want to address for all these reasons and more, and I get all that.  However, an expanded bracket would include those worthy teams that are yearly left out, i.e. this year's examples of UW-P,  North Central, TLU, JCU, Guilford as well as a few others.  64 teams would represent about 25% of the total teams in DIII and after the first week, we would be at a 32 team field at the same point in time that we are now. The bottom line, is it IS the bottom line that drives decisions of this magnitude, while protecting the "educational mission" of DIII institutions is the publicized reason that the Presidents use.    Anyway, its a pipe dream and I know several will blast such a proposal on all kinds of levels, but thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of creating a little "banter".

The DIII Playoff system isn't prefect and the tournament selection as setup doesn't select the top 32 teams in DIIII.  There already is a significant difference between overall skill level from top on down.  Going to 64 teams and adding another week to the playoffs would result in even more mismatches.

Royal85 -

I couldn't help but notice you have Guilford as an example of a team left out but was deserving and I'm wondering why you chose them when the team who beat them was rolled out of the tournament yesterday??

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 22, 2015, 03:55:56 PM
Royal85 -

I couldn't help but notice you have Guilford as an example of a team left out but was deserving and I'm wondering why you chose them when the team who beat them was rolled out of the tournament yesterday??

I based those examples primarily off of D3 Football's top 25 rankings and the projected bracket they published.  Point being, an expansion of the field would include those teams that are typically on the bubble and then some.  I think some 3 loss teams would be as far as the bracket should go.  Consider that there are always teams that may drop a couple of games early and then vastly improve as the season progresses but don't get a sniff for a bid when playoffs arrive.

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 04:16:49 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 22, 2015, 03:55:56 PM
Royal85 -

I couldn't help but notice you have Guilford as an example of a team left out but was deserving and I'm wondering why you chose them when the team who beat them was rolled out of the tournament yesterday??

I based those examples primarily off of D3 Football's top 25 rankings and the projected bracket they published.  Point being, an expansion of the field would include those teams that are typically on the bubble and then some.  I think some 3 loss teams would be as far as the bracket should go.  Consider that there are always teams that may drop a couple of games early and then vastly improve as the season progresses but don't get a sniff for a bid when playoffs arrive.

I never had Guilford on my ballot this year.  But, I get what you're saying.  I just don't think that team would've added much to this tournament, based upon what I saw out of their league champ yesterday.  Obviously a tournament with NC and UW-P would've been deeper, though, so I concede your point on them.

Is there going to be some kind of announcement or press release to formally communicate the designated hosts for next weekend's games?  Most of the articles I read yesterday indicated that the sites would be announced early on Sunday.  Has anything been published?

If you expand the tournament then you won't eliminate bubble teams, they'll move down to 3 and maybe 4 loss teams versus 2 loss teams. The same arguments would ensue, but it would be if a 4-loss UWSP team would offer more 'competition' than a 7-3 Denison and the like.

The Presidents and AD's would never vote for it either - it would make the post season 60% or 67% of the season for the winner (9 or 10 game season).

Quote from: Wabash Hokie on November 22, 2015, 04:44:27 PM
Is there going to be some kind of announcement or press release to formally communicate the designated hosts for next weekend's games?  Most of the articles I read yesterday indicated that the sites would be announced early on Sunday.  Has anything been published?

We posted the updated bracket this morning and posted to Twitter.

Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2015, 04:48:52 PM
If you expand the tournament then you won't eliminate bubble teams, they'll move down to 3 and maybe 4 loss teams versus 2 loss teams. The same arguments would ensue, but it would be if a 4-loss UWSP team would offer more 'competition' than a 7-3 Denison and the like.

The Presidents and AD's would never vote for it either - it would make the post season 60% or 67% of the season for the winner (9 or 10 game season).
[/quote

Absolutely agree.  The "bubble" argument will always be there regardless of the system unless you have no at-large bids and advance the top 2 from each conference, however that wouldn't eliminate protests from those who didn't qualify.  But there will always be the some level of discourse involving who got in vs. who didn't.   Going to a 6 game playoff vs a 5 game playoff is insignificant in my view.  Start the season a week earlier.

Absolutely agree.  The "bubble" argument will always be there regardless of the system unless you have no at-large bids and advance the top 2 from each conference, however that wouldn't eliminate protests from those who didn't qualify.  But there will always be the some level of discourse involving who got in vs. who didn't.   Going to a 6 game playoff vs a 5 game playoff is insignificant in my view.  Start the season a week earlier. 

Part of this discussion about the number of teams in the playoffs reminds me of the "every kid deserves a trophy" mindset.  The life lesson for D3 is that there is one game upon which your performance demands the utmost effort, concentration and preparation, and that was the game that kept you out of the playoffs.  Fortunately, it is only a game.  Borrowing the cliche, it is preparation for "going pro in life".

The Championship Committee decides Championships for every sport!  Sacrificing one week of competition for the (~247 minus 64) teams who would have to give up a week of play to permit a 64-game playoff is not worth it to me.

Not really about "every kid deserves a trophy".  More about providing opportunity to chase the trophy.  UW-P, as an example, is a quality enough team that could have very possibly advanced 2 - 3 rounds deep in the playoffs this year, maybe further, maybe not.  But expanding I think would enrich DIII programs and enhance the DIII experience.  DIII-level institutions are thirsty for students and we all should agree that a football program is a great recruiting tool.  Offering an expanded playoff field could very likely entice some institutions with no programs to consider initiating them which would increase student enrollment.  So it isn't about giving a participation trophy to make men feel better about themselves.  Better teams will beat lesser teams most of the time and losing teams will always fill the sting whether it's in the first round or the final game.  Not sure what you mean by "sacrificing one week of competition".  If you start the regular season one week earlier, teams could still get their 10 games and then 6 weeks in the playoffs would put the national championship game on the same weekend as it is right now.  I would also put that game in a more suitable climate.  Other than cost, could never figure out why the NCAA puts the game in a high school-stadium in a winter-weather state.  I respect and understand the current format and I know there are negative implications with expanding.  But I believe the positives would outweigh the negatives if expanding was a feasible possibility, which I know most would say it is not.

I think I was unintentionally a bit harsh on Salem.  I know they do a great job and have for a long time.  DIII is fortunate to have hosts that do so much for the championships.  It would be shameful to uproot without good reason and if the DIII membership is happy with Salem and are willing to face the risk that weather could have a significant impact in the final game, than I'm all for it.  Didn't mean to come across disrespectfully as I am sure that game means a lot to that town and DIII should be fortunate to be so welcomed.

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 05:38:39 PM
Absolutely agree.  The "bubble" argument will always be there regardless of the system unless you have no at-large bids and advance the top 2 from each conference, however that wouldn't eliminate protests from those who didn't qualify.  But there will always be the some level of discourse involving who got in vs. who didn't.   Going to a 6 game playoff vs a 5 game playoff is insignificant in my view.  Start the season a week earlier.

This costs schools quite a bit of money, to house and feed 100-plus student-athletes for an extra week. I suspect this also would be a non-starter.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 22, 2015, 07:24:55 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 05:38:39 PM
Absolutely agree.  The "bubble" argument will always be there regardless of the system unless you have no at-large bids and advance the top 2 from each conference, however that wouldn't eliminate protests from those who didn't qualify.  But there will always be the some level of discourse involving who got in vs. who didn't.   Going to a 6 game playoff vs a 5 game playoff is insignificant in my view.  Start the season a week earlier.

This costs schools quite a bit of money, to house and feed 100-plus student-athletes for an extra week. I suspect this also would be a non-starter.

There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help. 

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 07:57:47 PM
There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help.

I'm going to put this as nicely as possible. You simply don't have much of a grasp of what is actually happening in higher education right now.  The cost is insanely high. Very few students pay the sticker price as it is because almost no one can afford it. The goal in higher education is to drop expenses while still maintaining tuition. In just about any study of higher education, the single biggest factor in students deciding to go to one school versus another is expense. You don't just add "pay to play" and expect kids and parents to choke it down. Some schools are revenue desperate and would try, others aren't. If your kid got into both and one offered 10K in student aid per year and the other offered nothing and sent a bill to play football, where is the kid going?

Colleges are adding football in a desperate attempt to compete to fill the student body, especially males. You don't make it harder by sending a bill home for the sake of "a more fair" playoff system. It simply isn't going to happen. There isn't going to be a 64 team tournament any time soon and there will always be bubble teams left out. DII's earned access might be the only acceptable modification if we keep losing Pool C bids, but even that will probably be hotly contested until there are more AQs than bids available.

This is a pretty darn good system. I get the idea of tinkering at the margins, but things that add expenses, or revenue raising on the backs of overburdened students, simply are non-starters. This isn't public h.s. where pay to play is growing more common. These are, mostly, extremely expensive private schools and the market place between them for shrinking students is growing fiercer ever year. When you have intense competition, raising costs is a very bad idea.

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 07:05:35 PM
Not really about "every kid deserves a trophy".  More about providing opportunity to chase the trophy.  UW-P, as an example, is a quality enough team that could have very possibly advanced 2 - 3 rounds deep in the playoffs this year, maybe further, maybe not.  But expanding I think would enrich DIII programs and enhance the DIII experience. DIII-level institutions are thirsty for students and we all should agree that a football program is a great recruiting tool.  Offering an expanded playoff field could very likely entice some institutions with no programs to consider initiating them which would increase student enrollment.  So it isn't about giving a participation trophy to make men feel better about themselves.  Better teams will beat lesser teams most of the time and losing teams will always fill the sting whether it's in the first round or the final game.  Not sure what you mean by "sacrificing one week of competition".  If you start the regular season one week earlier, teams could still get their 10 games and then 6 weeks in the playoffs would put the national championship game on the same weekend as it is right now.  I would also put that game in a more suitable climate.  Other than cost, could never figure out why the NCAA puts the game in a high school-stadium in a winter-weather state.  I respect and understand the current format and I know there are negative implications with expanding.  But I believe the positives would outweigh the negatives if expanding was a feasible possibility, which I know most would say it is not.

But only Southwestern took the opportunity to add football in a very winnable conference, the SCAC. (No purple dynasties!)

Colorado College did not choose to resume a program that had competed for 127 years.

UDallas, Centenary, and Schreiner did not add, football, and I think that their enrollments could have used a boost in men.

Starting one week earlier is problematic for many schools. Getting athletes on campus early as it is now is a crunch for maintenance staffs.

The Midwest Conference chose to cut the season to 9 games so as not to impact the academic year.

The very academic NESCAC does not participate in the post-season and only plays 8 regular season games.

Quote from: jknezek on November 22, 2015, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 07:57:47 PM
There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help.

I'm going to put this as nicely as possible. You simply don't have much of a grasp of what is actually happening in higher education right now.  The cost is insanely high. Very few students pay the sticker price as it is because almost no one can afford it. The goal in higher education is to drop expenses while still maintaining tuition. In just about any study of higher education, the single biggest factor in students deciding to go to one school versus another is expense. You don't just add "pay to play" and expect kids and parents to choke it down. Some schools are revenue desperate and would try, others aren't. If your kid got into both and one offered 10K in student aid per year and the other offered nothing and sent a bill to play football, where is the kid going?

Colleges are adding football in a desperate attempt to compete to fill the student body, especially males. You don't make it harder by sending a bill home for the sake of "a more fair" playoff system. It simply isn't going to happen. There isn't going to be a 64 team tournament any time soon and there will always be bubble teams left out. DII's earned access might be the only acceptable modification if we keep losing Pool C bids, but even that will probably be hotly contested until there are more AQs than bids available.

This is a pretty darn good system. I get the idea of tinkering at the margins, but things that add expenses, or revenue raising on the backs of overburdened students, simply are non-starters. This isn't public h.s. where pay to play is growing more common. These are, mostly, extremely expensive private schools and the market place between them for shrinking students is growing fiercer ever year. When you have intense competition, raising costs is a very bad idea.

Point well-taken. I do understand the dilemma you described and i know that an expanded playoff is a pipe dream. But on a boring Sunday following the first idle Saturday for most of us, I thought I'd throw something out there to garner some banter. But I do feel that if cost was not a factor, a 64 team format would be best. Thanks and have a great week!

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 09:27:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on November 22, 2015, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 07:57:47 PM
There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help.

I'm going to put this as nicely as possible. You simply don't have much of a grasp of what is actually happening in higher education right now.  The cost is insanely high. Very few students pay the sticker price as it is because almost no one can afford it. The goal in higher education is to drop expenses while still maintaining tuition. In just about any study of higher education, the single biggest factor in students deciding to go to one school versus another is expense. You don't just add "pay to play" and expect kids and parents to choke it down. Some schools are revenue desperate and would try, others aren't. If your kid got into both and one offered 10K in student aid per year and the other offered nothing and sent a bill to play football, where is the kid going?

Colleges are adding football in a desperate attempt to compete to fill the student body, especially males. You don't make it harder by sending a bill home for the sake of "a more fair" playoff system. It simply isn't going to happen. There isn't going to be a 64 team tournament any time soon and there will always be bubble teams left out. DII's earned access might be the only acceptable modification if we keep losing Pool C bids, but even that will probably be hotly contested until there are more AQs than bids available.

This is a pretty darn good system. I get the idea of tinkering at the margins, but things that add expenses, or revenue raising on the backs of overburdened students, simply are non-starters. This isn't public h.s. where pay to play is growing more common. These are, mostly, extremely expensive private schools and the market place between them for shrinking students is growing fiercer ever year. When you have intense competition, raising costs is a very bad idea.

Point well-taken. I do understand the dilemma you described and i know that an expanded playoff is a pipe dream. But on a boring Sunday following the first idle Saturday for most of us, I thought I'd throw something out there to garner some banter. But I do feel that if cost was not a factor, a 64 team format would be best. Thanks and have a great week!

As a 15 year veteran of these boards, I understand.

I recommend a 12-step program near your local D3 campus.

"Hello, my name is Royal85 and I am a D3football-oholic."   

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2015, 08:53:10 PM

The Midwest Conference chose to cut the season to 9 games so as not to impact the academic year.

They didn't cut a week, they just call the last week championship week and play the team in the opposite division with the same place.

might be a little off topic, but I was just looking at the DII playoff bracket. Did anyone know that only like five teams make the playoffs there? :o

Quote from: AO on November 22, 2015, 11:18:13 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2015, 08:53:10 PM

The Midwest Conference chose to cut the season to 9 games so as not to impact the academic year.

They didn't cut a week, they just call the last week championship week and play the team in the opposite division with the same place.

Thanks, AO.  +1! (I did not see the "undercard" when I checked a schedule earlier last week.)

Gotta get you off the 1000 applauds.   ;)

Quote from: bluestreak66 on November 22, 2015, 11:42:14 PM
might be a little off topic, but I was just looking at the DII playoff bracket. Did anyone know that only like five teams make the playoffs there? :o

I believe that there are 28 teams in the D2 playoffs.

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d2/

Quote from: Royal85 on November 22, 2015, 07:05:35 PM
UW-P, as an example, is a quality enough team that could have very possibly advanced 2 - 3 rounds deep in the playoffs this year, maybe further, maybe not. 

Platteville already played and lost to two likely quarterfinalists during the regular season.  The only thing really compelling on their resume is that they beat the only other team not in this tournament who would have had a decent shot at making it to the quarterfinals.  I don't think the fate of Platteville or NC are good arguments.  They both had plenty of opportunity to play and beat the best and fell short.  We have a 32 team field in part because in the 8 or 16 team era - we had undefeated or powerhouse one loss schools that didn't have the political connections and/or didn't play in a strong enough conference to be deemed "worthy." It stunk because teams didn't have a chance to show on the field whether they deserved or not to win at the next level. 


Your example of platteville shows that really good teams that don't make the tournament basically only lose out because they lost to more than one even better team during the regular season.  The playoffs as structured give every team that opportunity to really measure yourself against the best in the country regardless of what conference you are in.  They aren't really designed to give every solid second tier teams a second bite at the apple - although occasionally it does happen - there are a few bids left over every year. 

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2015, 11:50:49 PM

Quote from: bluestreak66 on November 22, 2015, 11:42:14 PM
might be a little off topic, but I was just looking at the DII playoff bracket. Did anyone know that only like five teams make the playoffs there? :o

I believe that there are 28 teams in the D2 playoffs.

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d2/

haha oops. I didn't see the bottom half of that bracket. i think that means it's time to turn off the computer and go to sleep!

As far as squeezing in another week for an additional round of the playoffs... why not just shorten the regular season to 10 weeks. Season starts at the same time, and ends at the same time. The biggest problem would be for the conferences that have an odd number of teams but the MIAA and NACC have that figured out by having a nonconference game all season.
Then the playoffs could grow to say 48 teams allowing the top 16 a bye week which would be good because it still rewards the best teams with that extra rest time. There would be plenty of pool C bids for all the 9-1 teams who's only loss was in a torrential downpour or had their QB injured early in the game etc. Yes there would still be discussion of the last team in/first team out but there would be much less sympathy for the team who was left out.

Moving on to the round of 16...if I'm ranking the games from (EDIT FOR CLARITY) "least interesting" to "most interesting" this week, here's how I rank it:

8) Albright @ Mount Union: I grew up 10 minutes from Albright and I'm rooting like heck for the Lions this week.  I also think they're very, very, very badly outmanned.  For a team that has never played against one of the D3 powerhouses before, after a season's worth of playing "regular" D3 teams, I think it's just an absolute shock and you can find yourself behind 21-0 before you realize the game has started.  Mount rolls.

7) Huntingdon @ UMHB: so it's definitely possible that UMHB isn't quite the powerhouse we've seen the last few years.  I still think it's unlikely that this ends up a highly competitive game.

6) Cortland @ Linfield: Cortland has been very inconsistent this year, especially on defense.  Linfield is looking title worthy.  I don't see this one being close.

5) ONU @ UWO: here's the first game with just a smidgen of intrigue to me.  I don't think ONU is really national-caliber, no.  But this is our first chance to figure out any connection between 2015 Mount vs. another real power team.  Will ONU keep this remotely competitive?  They couldn't against Mount.  Likewise, I'm not sure that we know UWO/UWW are the usual powerhouse that we've come to expect as the WIAC champs are always national-title-worthy...maybe they are, but the flip side...what if UWO beat UWW this year because UWW just isn't quite as good?  While I expect UWO to roll here, this is the first game where things start to get interesting for me.  If UWO is as good as I think, and ONU is not-good as I think, this should be a romp.  If this is close, perhaps that tells us that the top-WIAC dogs are a hair behind the last few years, or maybe it means Mount is even better than we think.

4) St. John's @ St. Thomas: maybe this should be higher, but the lopsided margin in the first game just has me feeling like the Tommies are too much for the Johnnies.  This is one of the few games that features two real semifinal contenders but I don't know that it's going to be as competitive as the next three.

3) Wesley @ Johns Hopkins: I think this is an important game for the Hopkins program.  They've been so consistently "good" the last decade but have never managed to break through against a top-8 caliber team.  If they're going to beat Wesley, doesn't it have to happen this year, with a Hopkins team that was as dominant as any they've had, against a Wesley team with a few holes in it?

2) Thomas More @ Wabash: definitely one of the most competitive games this week.  I think Wabash is a favorite by about 10, but would not count the Saints out by any stretch.  I look forward to some in-depth analysis from the fans of the respective teams on these boards.  Not sure either team is a Stagg contender but I do expect some solid competition in this game.

1) UWW @ Wheaton: As a neutral fan, hands down my favorite round 2 matchup.  The Wheaties have been very solid this year, even with some injury woes.  UWW is on the road in the playoffs.  You can definitely argue that Wheaton got robbed on the draw here, but them's the breaks.  I think this is a game most everyone looks at and sees the winner as a potential Stagg representative from that quadrant.

This week, let's try a different tack on the questions.  Let's go with some over/unders:

1. Halftime margin in the Mount/Albright game: 34.5 points
2. Rushing yards for Mason Zurek (Wabash): 150
3. Final margin in the Tommie/Johnnie rematch: 14.5 points
4. Total combined score in the Wesley/Johns Hopkins game: 78.5 points
5. Total combined score in the Wheaton/Whitewater game: 39.5 points

Place your bets, folks.

Did you have the most to least flipped? It seems that way in your analysis.

Also, I believe the Johnnies have improved significantly from the first go-round. There was speculation that Dubuque had improved quite a bit since the first game of the season, and had a couple returned from injury/whatever impact players since then. The Johnnies widened the margin of victory. There was also the ESPN On The Road circus at Collegeville the first time, which may have been a distraction. It was 7-7 at the half - although it has been said, the Johnnies were lucky to be that close.

My thoughts are that it will be a one score margin, whoever wins.

Quote from: retagent on November 23, 2015, 12:18:48 PM
Did you have the most to least flipped? It seems that way in your analysis.

Yes, sorry.  I was counting them down from "least" to "most" interesting, haha.  Sorry for the unclear wording.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 23, 2015, 12:23:15 PM

Quote from: retagent on November 23, 2015, 12:18:48 PM
Did you have the most to least flipped? It seems that way in your analysis.

Yes, sorry.  I was counting them down from "least" to "most" interesting, haha.  Sorry for the unclear wording.

Also, Albright has played in alliance this year. Never less, the result will be the same.

Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 23, 2015, 01:29:42 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 23, 2015, 12:23:15 PM

Quote from: retagent on November 23, 2015, 12:18:48 PM
Did you have the most to least flipped? It seems that way in your analysis.

Yes, sorry.  I was counting them down from "least" to "most" interesting, haha.  Sorry for the unclear wording.

Also, Albright has played in alliance this year. Never less, the result will be the same.

The last time Albright played in Alliance, the current seniors on each team would have been sophomores in high school.  I don't really think that has much bearing on Albright's level of experience playing against Mount Union caliber opposition.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 23, 2015, 11:44:33 AM
This week, let's try a different tack on the questions.  Let's go with some over/unders:

1. Halftime margin in the Mount/Albright game: 34.5 points
2. Rushing yards for Mason Zurek (Wabash): 150
3. Final margin in the Tommie/Johnnie rematch: 14.5 points
4. Total combined score in the Wesley/Johns Hopkins game: 78.5 points
5. Total combined score in the Wheaton/Whitewater game: 39.5 points

Place your bets, folks.

My own answers here:

1. OVER
2. OVER
3. UNDER
4. OVER
5. OVER

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2015, 12:53:36 AM
Win you league, or you face the peril of being 9-1 or 8-2 and sitting home. It's that simple.

Pool C was unusually deep this year, so Guilford at 9-1 was left at the altar, and 9-1 Wartburg and Olivet never even had a first date....

I actually finally compiled the spreadsheet on this. 9-1 teams left out is common. Many years there are more 9-1s than at-large bids, and in recent years, we've seen committees really reward strength of schedule and say that all 9-1 records are not created equal, or even equal to a very good 8-2.

Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2015, 07:03:12 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

Some nice Washington Post ink for D3 football, discussing Wabash's Mason Zurek and his victory beverage of choice:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/11/23/the-top-25-its-hard-to-know-where-to-rank-mark-dantonio-seeing-how-he-dislikes-praise/

Quote17. MASON ZUREK IN THE SNOW FOR WABASH. Two weeks ago, the Wabash back gained 278 rushing yards in the rivalry against DePauw, then mentioned possibly drinking some of the six-pack of 3 Floyds Gumballhead in his refrigerator from the Monon Bell that goes to the victor. Last weekend, against Albion in the Division III playoffs, he gained 312, which is going to give some people the impression that these players are so young that beer does not hinder performance.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 23, 2015, 08:20:09 PM

Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2015, 07:03:12 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

I think an expanded bracket, although will not happen, would be great for Division III football and for Division III institutions.  As suggested earlier, it is not about a "participation trophy" or an "everybody is a winner" mentality.  It would be about giving an opportunity to more programs and more players to chase a championship.  I know costs can be a factor and that is the primary reason there are 32 teams in the bracket now.  No one can convince me otherwise that expanding the field would be a bad thing.  The good teams are still going to advance most of the time, but not every time.  Allowing the 9-1's and the 8-2's the shot to advance as well as bringing excitement and vigor to more DIII campuses is a great thing and would promote DIII participation.   It would provide an opportunity for that team that lost early in the season and then plays lights out later in the year a chance to compete for a title or at least make a deep run.  I know, costs and other considerations will never allow it to happen, but my point is that involving more teams in the playoffs, just a 1/4th of all DIII teams in the country, would be beneficial to the division as well as the institutions.  I do believe in a guaranteed path to the tourney with the AQ.  But I also believe that there are more than 6 additional teams that are worthy of the opportunity to have a shot in the tourney as well.   A team could drop 2 or even 3 games and still be a conference champion and qualify, and I believe they should.  But a non-AQ team or a conference runner-up that loses 1 or 2 has a good chance of being on the outside looking in just because the field is limited to 32.  These guys are playing for the love of the game and not for the "next level". Again, if cost weren't a factor.    My opinion. 

Quote from: Royal85 on November 24, 2015, 01:23:40 PM
I think an expanded bracket, although will not happen, would be great for Division III football and for Division III institutions.  As suggested earlier, it is not about a "participation trophy" or an "everybody is a winner" mentality.  It would be about giving an opportunity to more programs and more players to chase a championship.  I know costs can be a factor and that is the primary reason there are 32 teams in the bracket now.  No one can convince me otherwise that expanding the field would be a bad thing.  The good teams are still going to advance most of the time, but not every time.  Allowing the 9-1's and the 8-2's the shot to advance as well as bringing excitement and vigor to more DIII campuses is a great thing and would promote DIII participation.   It would provide an opportunity for that team that lost early in the season and then plays lights out later in the year a chance to compete for a title or at least make a deep run.  I know, costs and other considerations will never allow it to happen, but my point is that involving more teams in the playoffs, just a 1/4th of all DIII teams in the country, would be beneficial to the division as well as the institutions.  I do believe in a guaranteed path to the tourney with the AQ.  But I also believe that there are more than 6 additional teams that are worthy of the opportunity to have a shot in the tourney as well.   A team could drop 2 or even 3 games and still be a conference champion and qualify, and I believe they should.  But a non-AQ team or a conference runner-up that loses 1 or 2 has a good chance of being on the outside looking in just because the field is limited to 32.  These guys are playing for the love of the game and not for the "next level". Again, if cost weren't a factor.    My opinion.

Every team already has the chance to chase a championship.  It starts with this thing we have called the regular season, where teams compete against others in their conference for the right to play for the national championship.  We even have a special bonus that lets a few special snowflakes who don't win their conference championship in on a second-chance bid, like the kids who get voted off the Voice but get "saved" and still gets another chance!

I may be in the minority here, but I happen to believe that an expanded playoff would devalue the regular season.  Some rivalries, like the Johnnie-Tommie game, stand on their own as big stuff no matter what.  But other rivalries have grown out of competition for that league title and playoff berth (Wabash-Wittenberg being one good example) and part of what makes week 9, 10, and 11 so much fun is that you have teams battling it out for those precious AQ tickets to the playoffs; a pair of 8-0 or 7-1 teams playing late in the season with an automatic bid on the line is a really amazing atmosphere.  That same pair of 8-0 and/or 7-1 teams playing in week 8 knowing that the loser probably gets into the playoffs anyway?  Much less special, if you ask me.

We just have a philosophical difference about this.  I don't believe that leaving 9-1 or 8-2 teams out of the tournament is a tragedy.  Those teams that lost early in the season and then played lights out later in the year?  They should have started playing lights out from the beginning of the season (and I say this as a fan of a team that started 1-3 and finished this year on a seven-game winning streak).  Games in week 1 should count just as much as games in week 11. 

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2015, 02:39:00 PM
Every team already has the chance to chase a championship. It starts with this thing we have called the regular season, where teams compete against others in their conference for the right to play for the national championship. 

Exactly what I was about to say. Then I scrolled down and saw you'd already said it!

I would be interested in what the coaches and players think.  DIII is certainly about playing for the love of the game rather than for generating revenue and for a chance for players to get to the league.   Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if there was the feeling among DIII coaches and players that more teams in the field would enhance the DIII experience for the players. I also wouldn't be surprised if fans overall would rather not change.  I would be interested to hear the perspective of those coaches and players when asked, if it were a possibility, would they be in favor of expanding the playoff field.  And again, I'm not saying the current system is wrong or bad or evil.  I only suggest that more teams in the playoffs offers more opportunity for players to play, schools to showcase their campuses and programs to prospective student/athletes and coaches to recruit players.  The best teams will always rise to the top, most of the time.  I don't think it would diminish rivalry games and you would still have intense and exciting games that would determine playoff berths.  All this is moot, I understand, but it's interesting to get perspective on this topic  from those who follow DIII just for the fun of it.

Quote from: Royal85 on November 24, 2015, 03:38:40 PM
I would be interested in what the coaches and players think.  DIII is certainly about playing for the love of the game rather than for generating revenue and for a chance for players to get to the league.   Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if there was the feeling among DIII coaches and players that more teams in the field would enhance the DIII experience for the players. I also wouldn't be surprised if fans overall would rather not change.  I would be interested to hear the perspective of those coaches and players when asked, if it were a possibility, would they be in favor of expanding the playoff field.  And again, I'm not saying the current system is wrong or bad or evil.  I only suggest that more teams in the playoffs offers more opportunity for players to play, schools to showcase their campuses and programs to prospective student/athletes and coaches to recruit players.  The best teams will always rise to the top, most of the time.  I don't think it would diminish rivalry games and you would still have intense and exciting games that would determine playoff berths.  All this is moot, I understand, but it's interesting to get perspective on this topic  from those who follow DIII just for the fun of it.

I would imagine coaches would be favor of expanding the playoffs because it could potentially make them look better. I am interested in the theory that Pat and Keith talked about on the podcast of more post season bowl games like the ECAC. Probably won't ever catch on down here in the South since we play almost everyone already, but I could see that being a fun alternative if schools really want an 11th game.

Ex,
Your ONU @ UWO write-up intrigued me.  From what I read about ONU, it seems they are somewhat of an improved team since their loss to Mt.  The QB, Ricardo Johnson, appears to be quite the athlete.   
I think there may be a third explanation if the game is close, and that is- ONU is a team on the rise. 
I'm curious to hear from anybody that may have seen ONU lately with Ricardo running the show. 

Every player and coach would want another game, sure. Right now, though, they have to really earn it.

Quote from: smedindy on November 24, 2015, 04:58:35 PM
Every player and coach would want another game, sure. Right now, though, they have to really earn it.

That's part of my point.  If the DIII players and coaches would support the idea, then I'm on board with them.  This should be about those who play the game for free and those who support them.

Quote from: crufootball on November 24, 2015, 04:22:22 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 24, 2015, 03:38:40 PM
I would be interested in what the coaches and players think.  DIII is certainly about playing for the love of the game rather than for generating revenue and for a chance for players to get to the league.   Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if there was the feeling among DIII coaches and players that more teams in the field would enhance the DIII experience for the players. I also wouldn't be surprised if fans overall would rather not change.  I would be interested to hear the perspective of those coaches and players when asked, if it were a possibility, would they be in favor of expanding the playoff field.  And again, I'm not saying the current system is wrong or bad or evil.  I only suggest that more teams in the playoffs offers more opportunity for players to play, schools to showcase their campuses and programs to prospective student/athletes and coaches to recruit players.  The best teams will always rise to the top, most of the time.  I don't think it would diminish rivalry games and you would still have intense and exciting games that would determine playoff berths.  All this is moot, I understand, but it's interesting to get perspective on this topic  from those who follow DIII just for the fun of it.

I would imagine coaches would be favor of expanding the playoffs because it could potentially make them look better. I am interested in the theory that Pat and Keith talked about on the podcast of more post season bowl games like the ECAC. Probably won't ever catch on down here in the South since we play almost everyone already, but I could see that being a fun alternative if schools really want an 11th game.

On a few of the other boards (ODAC and PAC) we have discussed the idea of conferences pairing up on their own, as the MAC and Centennial did this year, and staging a bowl game or two for the highest finishing team in the league to miss the playoffs.

My team is currently part of the ECAC and enjoyed an ECAC bowl win this year, and from what I can tell the weekend was well-run (although I did not attend, was otherwise committed for the weekend). I also played an ECAC game as a player. But I think it makes more sense to establish a little rivalry between conferences.

As you noted, down in TX that might be tricky because you already play most everyone in driving distance. What if the ASC paired up for a bowl with the SAA?

Quote from: Royal85 on November 24, 2015, 08:48:20 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 24, 2015, 04:58:35 PM
Every player and coach would want another game, sure. Right now, though, they have to really earn it.

That's part of my point.  If the DIII players and coaches would support the idea, then I'm on board with them.  This should be about those who play the game for free and those who support them.

Ok, let's come back to reality then. "It should be about those who play the game" - yeah, nobody is going to argue with that. But how does that change the economic reality? D3 football playoffs exist thanks to gifted revenue from upper divisions. We already hear enough complaining about the bracket problems - now you want to stretch the budget thinner to add a round? Jeez, man, the ncaa already has the squeeze right enough that flights are a no-go. Where's the money going to come from for a whole additional round of games?

Look, I get the whole "gee, wouldn't it be great if we could have more teams in the playoffs? Let's ask the players and coaches what they think!" but it's not something that can happen just because the kids playing for the love of the game want it to happen.

Quote from: emma17 on November 24, 2015, 04:46:24 PM
Ex,
Your ONU @ UWO write-up intrigued me.  From what I read about ONU, it seems they are somewhat of an improved team since their loss to Mt.  The QB, Ricardo Johnson, appears to be quite the athlete.   
I think there may be a third explanation if the game is close, and that is- ONU is a team on the rise. 
I'm curious to hear from anybody that may have seen ONU lately with Ricardo running the show.

A definite possibility. ONU played Mount awhile ago and definitely may have improved since then.

I expect UWO to win rather easily but the game still holds some intrigue.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2015, 08:57:33 PM


As you noted, down in TX that might be tricky because you already play most everyone in driving distance. What if the ASC paired up for a bowl with the SAA?

Not likely.

Sul Ross State to Belhaven in the ASC is about 900 miles.
Sul Ross State to Millsaps in the SAA is about 902 miles.

In fact the only SAA teams within practical distance from an ASC opponent are Hendrix and Millsaps.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2015, 09:11:04 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 24, 2015, 04:46:24 PM
Ex,
Your ONU @ UWO write-up intrigued me.  From what I read about ONU, it seems they are somewhat of an improved team since their loss to Mt.  The QB, Ricardo Johnson, appears to be quite the athlete.   
I think there may be a third explanation if the game is close, and that is- ONU is a team on the rise. 
I'm curious to hear from anybody that may have seen ONU lately with Ricardo running the show.

A definite possibility. ONU played Mount awhile ago and definitely may have improved since then.

I expect UWO to win rather easily but the game still holds some intrigue.

I know they started another Freshman at QB because he had a great grasp of the entire offense during camp. He put up great numbers but he isn't nearly as mobile as Johnson is.  This mobility has made Magazine a more dangerous threat at RB and made the entire offense more explosive. 

Because of this, ONU is DEFINITELY a better team than they were when they took the field against Mount Union.  Big Picture:  Dean Paul has lacked a playmaking QB like this during most of his time at ONU, save for a couple years of two QBs (whose names I can't remember).  He's had good players in positions other than QB and I feel like this current situation with Johnson is a game changer for the Polar Bears.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2015, 09:08:36 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 24, 2015, 08:48:20 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 24, 2015, 04:58:35 PM
Every player and coach would want another game, sure. Right now, though, they have to really earn it.

That's part of my point.  If the DIII players and coaches would support the idea, then I'm on board with them.  This should be about those who play the game for free and those who support them.

Ok, let's come back to reality then. "It should be about those who play the game" - yeah, nobody is going to argue with that. But how does that change the economic reality? D3 football playoffs exist thanks to gifted revenue from upper divisions. We already hear enough complaining about the bracket problems - now you want to stretch the budget thinner to add a round? Jeez, man, the ncaa already has the squeeze right enough that flights are a no-go. Where's the money going to come from for a whole additional round of games?

Look, I get the whole "gee, wouldn't it be great if we could have more teams in the playoffs? Let's ask the players and coaches what they think!" but it's not something that can happen just because the kids playing for the love of the game want it to happen.

It doesn't change the economic reality.  Funding is the obstacle and therefore expanding the bracket is not going to happen any time soon.  The DIII playoff structure is fine as it is, I just happen to think that if cost wasn't the huge factor that it is it could be better for the coaches, players, fans and institutions via expansion.  Virtually every athletic league, college and professional, has benefited from expansion, i.e. NCAA basketball, NFL, MLB, etc.  I think DIII football would as well, but I understand the restrictions and why, as I've said before, it's a pipe dream.  Interesting to get others perspective, however.

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 24, 2015, 10:10:40 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2015, 09:11:04 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 24, 2015, 04:46:24 PM
Ex,
Your ONU @ UWO write-up intrigued me.  From what I read about ONU, it seems they are somewhat of an improved team since their loss to Mt.  The QB, Ricardo Johnson, appears to be quite the athlete.   
I think there may be a third explanation if the game is close, and that is- ONU is a team on the rise. 
I'm curious to hear from anybody that may have seen ONU lately with Ricardo running the show.

A definite possibility. ONU played Mount awhile ago and definitely may have improved since then.

I expect UWO to win rather easily but the game still holds some intrigue.

I know they started another Freshman at QB because he had a great grasp of the entire offense during camp. He put up great numbers but he isn't nearly as mobile as Johnson is.  This mobility has made Magazine a more dangerous threat at RB and made the entire offense more explosive. 

Because of this, ONU is DEFINITELY a better team than they were when they took the field against Mount Union.  Big Picture:  Dean Paul has lacked a playmaking QB like this during most of his time at ONU, save for a couple years of two QBs (whose names I can't remember).  He's had good players in positions other than QB and I feel like this current situation with Johnson is a game changer for the Polar Bears.

Well then let me be the one to say it:  UWO hasn't seen a team like this.  (Unless Robert Morris had a similar QB).
UWO is strong on the line of scrimmage- I'm not sure how quick they are laterally (I'm not saying they aren't, I just don't know).  This would be a game I might add to last week's question of closer than expected. 

Quote from: Royal85 on November 25, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
It doesn't change the economic reality.  Funding is the obstacle and therefore expanding the bracket is not going to happen any time soon.  The DIII playoff structure is fine as it is, I just happen to think that if cost wasn't the huge factor that it is it could be better for the coaches, players, fans and institutions via expansion.  Virtually every athletic league, college and professional, has benefited from expansion, i.e. NCAA basketball, NFL, MLB, etc.  I think DIII football would as well, but I understand the restrictions and why, as I've said before, it's a pipe dream.  Interesting to get others perspective, however.

If the football gods smiled on D3 and made more money available for the playoffs, then I'd first spend it on fair bracketing with real seeds before even discussing expanding the bracket.  The only reason NCAA D1 expanded their bracket was because too many power teams (with mediocre records)  that drive TV ratings were being left out.  You are kidding yourself if you think there was any other reason.  That being said - good for D1 - I shudder to think what we'd have to suffer through if we did not get to feast off of the crumbs that fell off of the march madness table.  Oh wait-  I don't have to imagine what that would look like (http://www.naia.org/fls/27900/1NAIA/Championships/CoachesCorner/Football/PQ/FCS_Manual.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=27900).

Quote from: wabndy on November 25, 2015, 10:51:01 AM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 25, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
It doesn't change the economic reality.  Funding is the obstacle and therefore expanding the bracket is not going to happen any time soon.  The DIII playoff structure is fine as it is, I just happen to think that if cost wasn't the huge factor that it is it could be better for the coaches, players, fans and institutions via expansion.  Virtually every athletic league, college and professional, has benefited from expansion, i.e. NCAA basketball, NFL, MLB, etc.  I think DIII football would as well, but I understand the restrictions and why, as I've said before, it's a pipe dream.  Interesting to get others perspective, however.

If the football gods smiled on D3 and made more money available for the playoffs, then I'd first spend it on fair bracketing with real seeds before even discussing expanding the bracket.  The only reason NCAA D1 expanded their bracket was because too many power teams (with mediocre records)  that drive TV ratings were being left out.  You are kidding yourself if you think there was any other reason.  That being said - good for D1 - I shudder to think what we'd have to suffer through if we did not get to feast off of the crumbs that fell off of the march madness table.  Oh wait-  I don't have to imagine what that would look like (http://www.naia.org/fls/27900/1NAIA/Championships/CoachesCorner/Football/PQ/FCS_Manual.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=27900).

Agreed.

Quote from: wabndy on November 25, 2015, 10:51:01 AM
  Oh wait-  I don't have to imagine what that would look like (http://www.naia.org/fls/27900/1NAIA/Championships/CoachesCorner/Football/PQ/FCS_Manual.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=27900).

Daytona Beach! 

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 25, 2015, 01:13:07 PM

Quote from: wabndy on November 25, 2015, 10:51:01 AM
  Oh wait-  I don't have to imagine what that would look like (http://www.naia.org/fls/27900/1NAIA/Championships/CoachesCorner/Football/PQ/FCS_Manual.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=27900).

Daytona Beach!

I was more referring to this little gem on p.6

QuoteD. Site Selection The Football Selection Committee along with the NAIA Department of Championships will determine game sites based on the following criteria:
1. Submitted bids (See E. Below)
2. Availability of quality facilities
3. Potential income
4. Comparative cost factors among the available sites
5. Competition from other activities
E. Automatic Host for Higher Seeds
1. If the 1-8 seeds bid at least $22,500 for the first round, they will host first round contests in the Football Championship Series. Seeding is based on the final rating used for selection.
2. Unless a flight could otherwise be eliminated, the four highest remaining seeds that bid at least $33,000 for the quarterfinal round will host quarterfinal contests in the FCS. Seeding is based on the final rating used for selection.
3. Unless a flight could otherwise be eliminated, the two highest remaining seeds that bid at least $47,500 for the semifinal round will host semifinal round contests in the FCS. Seeding is based on the final rating used for selection.

Quote from: emma17 on November 25, 2015, 09:14:42 AM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 24, 2015, 10:10:40 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2015, 09:11:04 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 24, 2015, 04:46:24 PM
Ex,
Your ONU @ UWO write-up intrigued me.  From what I read about ONU, it seems they are somewhat of an improved team since their loss to Mt.  The QB, Ricardo Johnson, appears to be quite the athlete.   
I think there may be a third explanation if the game is close, and that is- ONU is a team on the rise. 
I'm curious to hear from anybody that may have seen ONU lately with Ricardo running the show.

A definite possibility. ONU played Mount awhile ago and definitely may have improved since then.

I expect UWO to win rather easily but the game still holds some intrigue.

I know they started another Freshman at QB because he had a great grasp of the entire offense during camp. He put up great numbers but he isn't nearly as mobile as Johnson is.  This mobility has made Magazine a more dangerous threat at RB and made the entire offense more explosive. 

Because of this, ONU is DEFINITELY a better team than they were when they took the field against Mount Union.  Big Picture:  Dean Paul has lacked a playmaking QB like this during most of his time at ONU, save for a couple years of two QBs (whose names I can't remember).  He's had good players in positions other than QB and I feel like this current situation with Johnson is a game changer for the Polar Bears.

Well then let me be the one to say it:  UWO hasn't seen a team like this.  (Unless Robert Morris had a similar QB).
UWO is strong on the line of scrimmage- I'm not sure how quick they are laterally (I'm not saying they aren't, I just don't know).  This would be a game I might add to last week's question of closer than expected.

I have no doubts that ONU has improved since they played Mount, but don't let the mobile QB fool you into thinking they're ready for the physical nature of a really good WIAC team.   Mount completely dominated the line of scrimmage against the ONU offense to the tune of 13 yards rushing on 19 attempts (0.7 yds/carry).  Magazine is a good D3 back, now helped out by a running QB to keep things honest, but his longest run was 9 yards.   By contrast, Mount had 3 guys go over 100 yards against the ONU defense and rushed for 415 yards on 54 attempts (7.7 yds/carry).   Mount very decidedly won the line of scrimmage and I would expect OWU to do the same or more, especially their O-line.

I would expect ONU to put up a fight, but not to be a legitimate threat to anyone good enough to win the WIAC.

Oshkosh 48
Ohio Northern 13 

Quote from: wabndy on November 25, 2015, 03:13:27 PM
I was more referring to this little gem on p.6

QuoteD. Site Selection The Football Selection Committee along with the NAIA Department of Championships will determine game sites based on the following criteria:
1. Submitted bids (See E. Below)
2. Availability of quality facilities
3. Potential income
4. Comparative cost factors among the available sites
5. Competition from other activities
E. Automatic Host for Higher Seeds
1. If the 1-8 seeds bid at least $22,500 for the first round, they will host first round contests in the Football Championship Series. Seeding is based on the final rating used for selection.
2. Unless a flight could otherwise be eliminated, the four highest remaining seeds that bid at least $33,000 for the quarterfinal round will host quarterfinal contests in the FCS. Seeding is based on the final rating used for selection.
3. Unless a flight could otherwise be eliminated, the two highest remaining seeds that bid at least $47,500 for the semifinal round will host semifinal round contests in the FCS. Seeding is based on the final rating used for selection.

$103K for the joy of the playoffs!

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 23, 2015, 11:44:33 AM

5) ONU @ UWO: here's the first game with just a smidgen of intrigue to me.  I don't think ONU is really national-caliber, no.  But this is our first chance to figure out any connection between 2015 Mount vs. another real power team.  Will ONU keep this remotely competitive?  They couldn't against Mount.  Likewise, I'm not sure that we know UWO/UWW are the usual powerhouse that we've come to expect as the WIAC champs are always national-title-worthy...maybe they are, but the flip side...what if UWO beat UWW this year because UWW just isn't quite as good?  While I expect UWO to roll here, this is the first game where things start to get interesting for me.  If UWO is as good as I think, and ONU is not-good as I think, this should be a romp.  If this is close, perhaps that tells us that the top-WIAC dogs are a hair behind the last few years, or maybe it means Mount is even better than we think.

ETP, thanks for your thoughts on all the games! For me, it's always more fun to read about the actual games than all of the limitless attempts to change a system that really doesn't need major overhaul.

As far as the game above, you provide some interesting thoughts to digest. It really helps me realize the difficulty (for all of us, including pollsters) of interpreting one result. What does the UW-O and UW-W result mean as far as the relative strengths of both teams nationally?

I know UW-O's victory on 10/10/15 means little in terms of the relative strengths of the teams today. First of all, UW-O played the entire second half with their third string QB. Although UW-W has a great defense, it only makes sense that the Titans offense is better than the one I saw that day.  UW-W is in a completely different place as a team than they were on 10/10. It's hard to believe it's even the same team. Too many reasons for the transformation to get into here, but my honest assessment is that UW-W is NOW playing on par with some of their championship teams. I'm not saying they are as good as them, yet.  But they are playing at that level. Some of the reasons for 10/10 have been identified, addressed, and moved on from at UW-W.

UW-O showed a lot of character that does just not go away in beating Whitewater with their QB situation. To not say "hats off to them" would be small in my opinion.  But interpreting the result to try to figure out what happens from here is another matter. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that UW-O beat a UW-W team that, for whatever reason, under achieved. I am comfortable saying that because everyone in the UW-W program knows it. Please dont read this as dissing UW-O's victory. It's simply a fact. I know a UW-O fan could say, "We made you underachieve." I have no way to disprove that. However, I know it's not true. That will be evident enough a week from Saturday IMO.

For clarity, it's probably best to treat two questions separately for UW-O and UW-W:

What have they PROVEN?
How good are they?   

What has UW-O proven?
They have proven a lot. They survived the WIAC undefeated. That is an accomplishment. They beat UW-W. That is an accomplishment, even if UW-W underperformed.  They demolished UW-P.

How good are they?
I can say for sure, as Emma mentioned, they are VERY STRONG, at the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. Ohio Northern apparently isn't based on what HSCoach posted. We all know what happens when two teams like that match up. What I don't see mentioned often is that UW-O has three weapons on offense that have tremendous SPEED. They probably have the best tight end in the country.  Their defense is excellent. How does this stack them up nationally?  It's hard to say. If UW-W was where they are now on 10/10 and UW-O beat them, then I'd say ABSOLUTE national championship contenders. But as it stands today? We have to wait until the quarterfinals to know for sure.  When I say that, I'm not dismissing Wheaton. If they beat UW-W, I believe they are championship contenders and will provide the opponent that will determine the veracity of UW-O as contenders themselves.

What has UW-W proven?
Nothing. Not yet. That's the really, really fun part of what lies ahead.

How good are they?
National Championship quality. Been around great UW-W teams for a long time. I believe this is now one of them. For many who don't believe that based on the UW-O result, I point to UW-RF result last year. Too many people put too much weight on that last year also. This team has an edge about them that I really like. Their psyche is right. Their defensive front seven is dominant ( better than last year due to player development) and their offensive line is peaking. Can they win the championship without a Leipold or a Kumerow? An understandable question that everyone in the Whitewater program is committed to answering.

Bleed

I am interested to know what specifically is different about UWW than it was 6 weeks ago? All teams transform over a season in some way, sometimes dramatically.  How is UWW different?

Huntingdon fans headed to Belton TX

Gasoline at the QT off I-20 exit 501 in Terrell TX (State Hwy 34) is selling for $1.439 a gallon.
If you take the Texas Hwy 31 shortcut thru Tyler TX, we have gas about $1.689 range.

Safe travels.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 23, 2015, 08:20:09 PM

Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2015, 07:03:12 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

Cap overall losses at 2 or 3.

I  think that we are safe at 26 Pool A bids plus one Pool B for the shuffling in the East Region, giving 5 at large.   Even with Pat Coleman's projection, I think that the East Region consolidates so we have 27 Pool A bids and no Pool B bids.

http://www.d3football.com/notables/2015/11/the-race-to-seven

I cannot believe that the NESCAC will join the playoffs.

The SCAC as a potential Pool A conference is off the table.

The UAA teams seem to like how they can fit into their regional neighbors and compete very effectively.  That should spark some life into those programs.  (Wandering mind... Does U Chicago affilate to become the 10th football school in the CCIW when Carroll returns?  Would Wash U go to the Midwest Conference to make the 12th when Carroll leaves?)

FTFY - pcole

Ralph- WashU is in the CCIW in 2017 or 2018.  Chicago is the mystery team at the moment, but there must have been a plan in the works for them to leave the SAA so quickly. My guess is the MWC but the HCAC is a possibility. Maybe MIAA.

MWC makes the most sense, with the conference losing Carroll. But been taking their time about it, apparently.

Wally, thank you. +1!

A boatload of us are tied for 26th place in the D3Challenge. I guess the Cortland win over Salisbury was the miss for most of us.

I should be impressed with the 25 who predicted the Cortland win (but there were probably 20 Red Dragon faithful playing the Challenge.  :-)  )

I will stick with my Challenge picks.  There are three game where I see the road team having a very good chance to win, UWW, Wesley and TMC.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 27, 2015, 01:13:42 PM
A boatload of us are tied for 26th place in the D3Challenge. I guess the Cortland win over Salisbury was the miss for most of us.

I should be impressed with the 25 who predicted the Cortland win (but there were probably 20 Red Dragon faithful playing the Challenge.  :-)  )

I will stick with my Challenge picks.  There are three game where I see the road team having a very good chance to win, UWW, Wesley and TMC.

I missed the ONU win.

Quote from: USee on November 26, 2015, 06:18:22 PM
Bleed

I am interested to know what specifically is different about UWW than it was 6 weeks ago? All teams transform over a season in some way, sometimes dramatically.  How is UWW different?

Fair question. I will do my best to answer it. 

1. The coaches have now had a full season to figure out the true strengths and weaknesses of this roster.  I think this is a natural curve that will take place with any staff. UW-W coaches understandably leaned into last year's staff approach. The 2015 team has now created their own identity based on the talent of the players and the personality of the coaches.
2.  They have finally become consistently healthy. Offensively, the injured linemen and tight-end were a problem when they played UW-O on 10/10. They are now healthier. While still missing two starters, they have now played long enough for the "new group" to develop a cohesiveness among them. The "back-ups" are playing excellent football and the offensive line appears to be peaking.
3. Chris Nelson is gaining more confidence and getting better every week. 10/10 was only his third competitive start. He is now more comfortable going through his progression patiently.  His rapport with OC Smith has developed to a very high level.  On 10/10, he had two starting wide receivers and a starting tight end out. These were newer injuries and he didn't yet have a rapport with some of the others. Now one of the receivers are back in the line up and Nelson has had more time with the entire group.He's had an excellent year, completing over 70% of his WIAC passes with only two interceptions.
4.  The offensive philosophy changed from patiently pounding the rock until the other team wears down to pounding the rock with the intent of doing very bad things to the opponent from the get-go. As a result, their confidence level is much higher and they are playing with an edge.
5.  The defensive front seven's level of play is sick. Significantly stronger than last year IMO because of substantial player development. It's obvious in watching them that there are very special players in that group.
6. The development of the running back position. Starting the year,UW-W had a "three headed monster" at running back. At UW-O, two of the three did not play due to injury and the backups were two freshmen with very little experience. Now Nick Patterson is back and both freshmen have gained experienced and are playing well.
7. Marcus Hudson and Canton Larson have emerged as big play threats. Hudson is a dominant wide-receiver and the athletic Larson is making big plays from several different positions on the field.

In short, they got the Jimmy and Joes. Now the coaches have learned their strengths well and having them playing with confidence and an edge.

So after it is all said and done all #1 seeds make the 1/4's and either 2 or 3's are the others.  Nothing much changes year after year.  Oshkosh is proving the WIAC is strong as some have stated.  UMHB, Wesley, and UWW keep winning despite season loses.  The 1/4's look to be interesting.  The WIAC rematch and the Linfield/UMHB rematch from last year a likely the better 2 games.  Hopefully Wesley will show up and make a game of it.  Wabash may be in trouble against what looks like a strong St. Thomas team.  This week should be fun.

Playoffs update

Upper left bracket

Purple vs Wabash Red


Lower Left bracket

Purple vs purple



Upper Right Bracket

Purple vs Wesley Navy blue



Lower Right Bracket


Purple vs Oshkosh Black Yellow

HS Coach predicts an Oshkosh win by 35 points.

Oshkosh wins by 35 points.

Nobody likes a showoff.  I'm just sayin'.

Quote from: K-Mack on November 26, 2015, 08:15:53 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 23, 2015, 08:20:09 PM

Quote from: K-Mack on November 23, 2015, 07:03:12 PM

Quote from: Royal85 on November 21, 2015, 08:39:24 PM
In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

Cap overall losses at 2 or 3.

Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.  (SOS is supposed to do that, but it is clearly inadequate to the task, besides being a seriously flawed stat in it's own right.)

I'll leave the previous paragraph, but now realize you were talking more about AQ teams than B/C teams (where there has always been de facto a 2-loss limit).  A 2-loss limit would clearly be unfair to balanced conferences with several good teams (E8, ODAC, etc., immediately spring to mind) where even one OOC loss might eliminate the champion from the tourney.  Even 3 might be iffy, though certainly open to discussion.  But I could certainly entertain the possibility of a 4+ loss conference champion losing the AQ for that season for the conference.  (In fact, for the 4+ scenario, I think I would support it even with the current number of B/C teams! :D)

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 28, 2015, 08:55:54 PM

Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.  (SOS is supposed to do that, but it is clearly inadequate to the task, besides being a seriously flawed stat in it's own right.)

"Results against regionally ranked teams" takes care of NCC.  The North RAC and national committee could have put NCC in front of Ohio Northern using that criteria, but they clearly didn't think as much of Platteville as we did.  Maybe if NCC had played Oshkosh or St. Thomas, the extra loss wouldn't have hurt as much.

Quote from: AO on November 28, 2015, 09:30:29 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 28, 2015, 08:55:54 PM

Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.  (SOS is supposed to do that, but it is clearly inadequate to the task, besides being a seriously flawed stat in it's own right.)

"Results against regionally ranked teams" takes care of NCC.  The North RAC and national committee could have put NCC in front of Ohio Northern using that criteria, but they clearly didn't think as much of Platteville as we did.  Maybe if NCC had played Oshkosh or St. Thomas, the extra loss wouldn't have hurt as much.

At 7-3, they were clearly dead in the water regardless of other criteria.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 28, 2015, 08:55:54 PM
Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.

I still don't get what the beef some folks have against who gets in the tournament.  Yes - the WIAC is awesome - whatever.  Bottom line is that if you want a Pool C bid, you kind of have to be able to beat the third best team in a conference - any conference.  Filling out a d3 non conference schedule isn't as easy as picking your opponent out of a catalog and there is only so much creative scheduling one can do to achieve that mythic "credible-but-not-too-tough" schedule.  Besides, we also need to acknowledge that lots of cross-country games like NCC/Wesley- while cool for us - just don't make much sense at this level.  It just costs way too much and for most schools it is an unaffordable luxury.

Quote from: wabndy on November 28, 2015, 11:50:29 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 28, 2015, 08:55:54 PM
Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.

I still don't get what the beef some folks have against who gets in the tournament.  Yes - the WIAC is awesome - whatever.  Bottom line is that if you want a Pool C bid, you kind of have to be able to beat the third best team in a conference - any conference.  Filling out a d3 non conference schedule isn't as easy as picking your opponent out of a catalog and there is only so much creative scheduling one can do to achieve that mythic "credible-but-not-too-tough" schedule.  Besides, we also need to acknowledge that lots of cross-country games like NCC/Wesley- while cool for us - just don't make much sense at this level.  It just costs way too much and for most schools it is an unaffordable luxury.

Agreed, and NCC did not deserve a C this year.  But if they had chosen to beat a Podunk instead of the loss to UWP, and thus been 8-2 (losses only narrowly to Wheaton and Wesley), what would have happened?

My goal (thus far unrealized) is to come up with a system that rewards teams for scheduling tough opponents.  Despite SOS and results vs. RROs, my sense is that the current system penalizes aggressive scheduling unless you are absolutely 'purple-power' quality.

As we know, scheduling Podunk or the anti-Podunk in a given year is a tough challenge. Last year W&L was 2-8. This year they ran the table until the playoffs. How you gonna schedule for that?

In 2012, Olivet went o-fer. This year 9-1.

There are few certainties. Heck, even Hiram has put together back to back 5-5 and 4-6 after going 15-145 from 1999 to 2013.

If NCC had beaten UWP, Wesley and Wheaton,

UWP would not be in the discussion.
Wesley would have been a 2-loss Pool C bubble team.
Wheaton would have been in the Pool C discussion.

And, NCC would be in the discussion for a #1 seed in the Bracket.

And if my aunt had testicles, she's be my uncle.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 29, 2015, 12:25:34 PM
If NCC had beaten UWP, Wesley and Wheaton,

UWP would not be in the discussion.
Wesley would have been a 2-loss Pool C bubble team.
Wheaton would have been in the Pool C discussion.

And, NCC would be in the discussion for a #1 seed in the Bracket.

And Hopkins STILL would've lost to Wesley.  They can't get over that hump with the Wolverines.

Quote from: retagent on November 29, 2015, 02:31:58 PM
And if my aunt had testicles, she's be my uncle.

That can happen, you know?

Bracket challenge is now 2 weeks into the playoffs. I recognize Wabndy, but the real quesiton is how many have picked which of the 8 teams to win it all?

Some interesting stats for DIII playoffs recently posted on Twitter by  Jeffrey Zupanic @JeffZupReview

Total defense ranks of 8 teams: UMU (1), Linfield (2), UST (3), Wabash (5), UWO (16), UMHB (22), UWW (29), Wesley (67)

Total offense ranks of 8 teams: Wesley (1), UMU (2), UST (4), UWO (12), Linfield (19), UMHB (22), Wabash (34), UWW (42)

Combined O+D ranks of 8 teams: UMU (3), UST (7), Linfield (21), UWO (28), Wabash (39), UMHB (44), Wesley (68), UWW (71)

These are pretty similar rankings but I think it shows even more than yardage that these teams know that it is all about the points on the board.

Scoring Offense ranks of 8 teams: UMU (T-1), UST (T-1), Linfield (3), UMHB (4), Wesley (6), UWO (13), Wabash (19), UWW (20)

Scoring Defensive ranks of 8 teams: UMU (1), Linfield (2), UST (T-3). UWO (T-3), Wabash (5), UWW (8), UMHB (22), Wesley (55)

Combined O +D ranks of 8 teams: UMU (2), UST (4), Linfield (5), UW0 (16), Wabash (24), UMHB (26), UWW (28), Wesley (61)

Quarterfinalists represent a rather impressive gathering of Division III's blue-blood programs over the last decade.

St. Thomas
Wabash
Linfield
UMHB
Mount Union
Wesley
UW-Oshkosh
UW-Whitewater

A few fun stats:

- this list includes all 20 Stagg Bowl participants from 2005-2014 (Mount every year, UWW nine times, and 2012 St. Thomas)
- this list includes 34 of the 40 semifinalists from 2005-2014 [except for North Central (2013), Bethel (2010 & 2007), Wheaton (2008), St. John Fisher (2006), Rowan (2005) - I think]
- 7 of the 8 programs (Mount, UWW, St. Thomas, UWO, Wesley, Linfield, and UMHB) have been to the semifinals at least once within the last three seasons

Put another way, Wabash - a program that's been to the playoffs seven of the last 11 seasons, with two quarterfinal appearances and losses to both UWW and Mount along the way - can be viewed as the least accomplished of the eight "programs" remaining.  Truly, this is a gathering of the high priests of Division III football.  It should be fun.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 30, 2015, 10:30:44 AM
Quarterfinalists represent a rather impressive gathering of Division III's blue-blood programs over the last decade.

St. Thomas
Wabash
Linfield
UMHB
Mount Union
Wesley
UW-Oshkosh
UW-Whitewater

A few fun stats:

- this list includes all 20 Stagg Bowl participants from 2005-2014 (Mount every year, UWW nine times, and 2012 St. Thomas)
- this list includes 34 of the 40 semifinalists from 2005-2014 [except for North Central (2013), Bethel (2010 & 2007), Wheaton (2008), St. John Fisher (2006), Rowan (2005) - I think]
- 7 of the 8 programs (Mount, UWW, St. Thomas, UWO, Wesley, Linfield, and UMHB) have been to the semifinals at least once within the last three seasons

Put another way, Wabash - a program that's been to the playoffs seven of the last 11 seasons, with two quarterfinal appearances and losses to both UWW and Mount along the way - can be viewed as the least accomplished of the eight "programs" remaining.  Truly, this is a gathering of the high priests of Division III football.  It should be fun.

but the best thing about it is that even if a committee could have picked it it was decide on the field.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 30, 2015, 10:30:44 AM
Quarterfinalists represent a rather impressive gathering of Division III's blue-blood programs over the last decade.

St. Thomas
Wabash
Linfield
UMHB
Mount Union
Wesley
UW-Oshkosh
UW-Whitewater

A few fun stats:

- this list includes all 20 Stagg Bowl participants from 2005-2014 (Mount every year, UWW nine times, and 2012 St. Thomas)
- this list includes 34 of the 40 semifinalists from 2005-2014 [except for North Central (2013), Bethel (2010 & 2007), Wheaton (2008), St. John Fisher (2006), Rowan (2005) - I think]
- 7 of the 8 programs (Mount, UWW, St. Thomas, UWO, Wesley, Linfield, and UMHB) have been to the semifinals at least once within the last three seasons

Put another way, Wabash - a program that's been to the playoffs seven of the last 11 seasons, with two quarterfinal appearances and losses to both UWW and Mount along the way - can be viewed as the least accomplished of the eight "programs" remaining.  Truly, this is a gathering of the high priests of Division III football.  It should be fun.

Hater.  :)

It also includes the 2004 Stagg Bowl participants.

A couple of months ago I added the semifinalists to our playoff history page -- now that the years are beginning to run together for me I needed a quick and easy reference:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 29, 2015, 12:21:59 AM

Quote from: wabndy on November 28, 2015, 11:50:29 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 28, 2015, 08:55:54 PM
Another option, but be careful not to overly discourage teams from having challenging OOC games.  NCC (just for one example) has already been burned twice in the last four years for overly ambitious scheduling.  I'd like to find a way that encourages scheduling games like NCC/Wesley and NCC/UWP, not potentially making them the 'kiss of death' if you don't win the AQ.

I still don't get what the beef some folks have against who gets in the tournament.  Yes - the WIAC is awesome - whatever.  Bottom line is that if you want a Pool C bid, you kind of have to be able to beat the third best team in a conference - any conference.  Filling out a d3 non conference schedule isn't as easy as picking your opponent out of a catalog and there is only so much creative scheduling one can do to achieve that mythic "credible-but-not-too-tough" schedule.  Besides, we also need to acknowledge that lots of cross-country games like NCC/Wesley- while cool for us - just don't make much sense at this level.  It just costs way too much and for most schools it is an unaffordable luxury.

Agreed, and NCC did not deserve a C this year.  But if they had chosen to beat a Podunk instead of the loss to UWP, and thus been 8-2 (losses only narrowly to Wheaton and Wesley), what would have happened?

My goal (thus far unrealized) is to come up with a system that rewards teams for scheduling tough opponents.  Despite SOS and results vs. RROs, my sense is that the current system penalizes aggressive scheduling unless you are absolutely 'purple-power' quality.

Fair points, Mr. Ypsi, although there are some instances of a strong schedule and a win over someone good working as a reprieve for a team that scheduled tough and lost.

The real measure should be rewards teams for beating tough opponents. That's where the results against regionally ranked opponents should come in to support or otherwise make sense of SoS alone. The ONU selection didn't seem to follow that this year though.

Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 27, 2015, 08:24:29 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 27, 2015, 01:13:42 PM
A boatload of us are tied for 26th place in the D3Challenge. I guess the Cortland win over Salisbury was the miss for most of us.

I should be impressed with the 25 who predicted the Cortland win (but there were probably 20 Red Dragon faithful playing the Challenge.  :-)  )

I will stick with my Challenge picks.  There are three game where I see the road team having a very good chance to win, UWW, Wesley and TMC.

I missed the ONU win.

I don't do the brackets because I do Triple Take, but so far, that Cortland-Salisbury game is my only miss. Not that I didn't get  lucky on some of the other picks ... but this is when the rubber meets the road to Salem.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 30, 2015, 11:59:30 AM
It also includes the 2004 Stagg Bowl participants.

A couple of months ago I added the semifinalists to our playoff history page -- now that the years are beginning to run together for me I needed a quick and easy reference:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index

Pat, any chance the D3 Semi Finals make it to live broadcast this year? I feel like we've been inching closer and closer to getting them on live TV! ;D

Quote from: CruFrenzy on November 30, 2015, 03:35:36 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 30, 2015, 11:59:30 AM
It also includes the 2004 Stagg Bowl participants.

A couple of months ago I added the semifinalists to our playoff history page -- now that the years are beginning to run together for me I needed a quick and easy reference:
http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/index

Pat, any chance the D3 Semi Finals make it to live broadcast this year? I feel like we've been inching closer and closer to getting them on live TV! ;D

I haven't heard anything along those lines and the NCAA still lists them as ESPN3, so I don't know if this will be the year. But if Mount Union and Whitewater play in a semifinal, maybe someone smart would indeed pick that game up.

Just for fun, who would host the Wesley/UWW game is they both won.  They are both 3's and the Wesley bracket is the higher seeded bracket, would Wesley host?

Quote from: wesleydad on November 30, 2015, 08:35:28 PM
Just for fun, who would host the Wesley/UWW game is they both won.  They are both 3's and the Wesley bracket is the higher seeded bracket, would Wesley host?

The hosting sites for the next round aren't made officially until Sunday morning. I believe the national selection committee briefly reconvenes to make such decisions. In your scenario- and assuming we fall back on the playoff selection criteria and final set of regional rankings, whitewater would be the clear choice to host since their loss was to a much more highly ranked regional opponent (basically Oshkosh vs Salisbury). So yes- having to travel through both Alliance and possibly Whitewater before you even get to Salem is - well - ouch. In the words of Miracle Max: "have fun storming the castle"

It's a good question.  We think Wesley was ranked #1 in the East region and Whitewater was #4 in the West region if we go back to the final regional rankings.  I think the game would wind up at the Perk, but it's not a slam dunk choice.  Wesley has some cards to play there.  Particularly if they have a fresh Purple Raider pelt to show off. 

Removing the NESCAC, here's how Massey ranks the remaining D3 teams:

1- Mt. Union
2- St. Thomas
3 - Whitewater
4 - Linfield
5 - Wabash
6 - Oshkosh
7 - UMHB
9 - Wesley

(Thomas More is 8th)

Massey predictions:

Mt. Union 44, Wesley 27 - Mt. Union 88% probability
St. Thomas 34, Wabash 19 - St. Thomas 85% probability
Oshkosh 23, Whitewater 22 - 50 / 50 coin flip
Linfield 35, UMHB 31 - Linfield 62% probability

Quote from: smedindy on December 01, 2015, 01:26:15 PM
Removing the NESCAC, here's how Massey ranks the remaining D3 teams:

1- Mt. Union
2- St. Thomas
3 - Whitewater
4 - Linfield
5 - Wabash
6 - Oshkosh
7 - UMHB
9 - Wesley

(Thomas More is 8th)

Massey predictions:

Mt. Union 44, Wesley 27 - Mt. Union 88% probability
St. Thomas 34, Wabash 19 - St. Thomas 85% probability
Oshkosh 23, Whitewater 22 - 50 / 50 coin flip
Linfield 35, UMHB 31 - Linfield 62% probability

I agree with those, except for Thomas More being ahead of Wesley.  I like the score of the game, flip 1 score the other way and Wesley is within a few to win the game.  One can hope.

Until shown on the field in this year's playoffs my ranking would be:

MUC
Linfield
UWO
UWW
St Thomas
MHB
Wabash
Wesley

Just because, here are my picks. Maybe some others will also pick.

Wesley 26
Mount Union 52

UW-Whitewater 34
UW - Oshkosh 28

Mary Hardin Baylor 21
Linfield 35

Wabash 27
St. Thomas 31

I'm thinking 3 of the 4 will be good games. I hope this is true!

I'll make some guesses:

UWW 24
UWO 21

UMU 63
Wesley 24

St Thomas 38
Wabash 17

Linfield 35
UMHB 31

Well the quarterfinals were as good as could reasonably be expected.  Two nail-biters (in McMinnville and Oshkosh), a very entertaining game in Alliance (though I doubt many thought the final outcome was ever in real jeopardy), and a game in St. Paul that got WAY more out-of-hand than probably anyone expected (but that apparently no one could watch due to internet provider incompetence).

I'm really looking forward to the semis - I currently have no clue how I will pick either game! :o ;D

BTW, every humane fan should feel terrible for the UMHB center.  I certainly hope there are no D3 fans as warped as the U of Michigan 'fans' who posted death threats to the punter whose fumble gave MSU a no-time-remaining win a few weeks ago.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2015, 02:42:43 AM
New thread for the 2015 Playoffs.

Ralph,

1.   Who are the NCAA committee members who decide the playoff games and home teams?   Not names, but who do they represent?

2.   If they are not seeded, why does Mount Union never have to travel?

3.   Who are the NCAA committee members who decide the Regional Rankings?

George
Linfield fan

Quote from: George Thompson on December 06, 2015, 10:07:47 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2015, 02:42:43 AM
New thread for the 2015 Playoffs.

Ralph,

1.   Who are the NCAA committee members who decide the playoff games and home teams?   Not names, but who do they represent?

2.   If they are not seeded, why does Mount Union never have to travel?

3.   Who are the NCAA committee members who decide the Regional Rankings?

George
Linfield fan

About six weeks ago that stuff was all posted -- little late to be sniffing around this now that something has happened you don't like.

By the way, my understanding is nobody on the team is surprised to be traveling. Might be worth taking a page from that book.

The bracket is seeded.

Pat,

Sorry, I did not see that.    Where was it posted?

No, I figured it was seeded.   But, over the years, people (NCAA) says it was seeded, then it wasn't seeded.    It seems like they change their minds over time.

It is my opinion only, I do not represent any college or conference in saying this, that all the NCAA playoffs are slanted to favor midwest schools.    Probably not purposely, but that is where the votes are.  The MIAC and WIAC are clearly strong conferences.   Texas, the deep South and the West coast just do not have enough conferences to have an equal say in the seedings. 

The purpose of my questions was to see who makes these decisions.     If Regional Rankings are the criteria, The West coast will always get shortchanged if teams on paper appear equal.   I do consider Linfield, St. Thomas and Mary Hardin Baylor very close. 

Being in the Midwest, I am sure you do not like to hear this.    But, there are fair ways to give each team an equal chance for a home game beyond the first one or two playoff games.

1.   Flip a coin each Sunday afternoon, visible to all conference reps.  or,
2.   Make each playoff team beyond the first round have to travel at least once, if possible, before the Stagg Bowl.

Any other system is inherently unfair because it is based on people's opinions.    And those opinions are not free from conference and local bias.    Heck, if I had a vote, of course I would vote for the NWC or SCIAC team to get some home field advantage.   

And as a fan, I love a home game, mainly because it is affordable.     I just bought airline tickets for the Stagg Bowl.    There went my Social Security check for December!    But next Sunday, I am sure it would have been even more expensive.   Very few of us can afford to go to St. Paul and the Stagg Bowl.    Heck, few of us can go to even one.

Pat, you and I may never agree on this, but I do appreciate the job you do.    This is one great website.   Thank you so much.

By the way, who is Ralph Turner?   I have seen his name times over the years.    He does not appear to be a typical poster.

Sincerely,

George

Quote from: George Thompson on December 07, 2015, 09:11:07 AM
Pat, you and I may never agree on this, but I do appreciate the job you do.    This is one great website.   Thank you so much.

Glad you said that, because the three back-to-back-to-back posts the other night after the game sure didn't make it sound like it.

I don't think it's necessary to give each team an equal chance at a home game. This is football, it's not a seven-game playoff series. Someone has to host (there's not much support for neutral sites, and that would force the NCAA to travel two schools, which is unlikely).

DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

We should also recognize that trying to rank teams that have little , or no, reference points, due to the lack of common opponents. is a difficult endeavor. They have to take into account the non conference schedules, and, yes, history of teams/programs when ranking teams. We can quibble over the results, but  it's part art and part science, and I think they do as good a job as would any other group of knowledgeable people. If the staff of d3football ranked the teams, it would have a different look for the initial round, but by the semis, I bet it would look the same as it does right now. Correct me if I'm wrong, Pat.

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

Hey, don't let silly things like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

#MidwestBias

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on December 07, 2015, 10:37:32 AM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

Hey, don't let silly things like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

#MidwestBias

+K

Quote from: retagent on December 07, 2015, 10:25:52 AM
We should also recognize that trying to rank teams that have little , or no, reference points, due to the lack of common opponents. is a difficult endeavor. They have to take into account the non conference schedules, and, yes, history of teams/programs when ranking teams. We can quibble over the results, but  it's part art and part science, and I think they do as good a job as would any other group of knowledgeable people. If the staff of d3football ranked the teams, it would have a different look for the initial round, but by the semis, I bet it would look the same as it does right now. Correct me if I'm wrong, Pat.

Presumably, if the teams were set up to make this possible -- this is certainly about as close to the "correct" final four teams as our voters would have had it.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 09:21:10 AM
Glad you said that, because the three back-to-back-to-back posts the other night after the game sure didn't make it sound like it.

Which have since been deleted?  Took a gander to see what was written and couldn't find them. 

Or maybe I was looking in the wrong spot?

I know I was nosy too and didn't find them LOL. I presume someone probably came to their senses. Or not.

George, and a few of his brethren, having been preaching for more than a few years that Mount should have to travel "just because".

It's one of the stranger notions, based on non-facts, and personal feelings, that has been put out there.

To supposed that the only reason Mount is home until the Stagg is based on some conspiracy just spits in the face of their undefeated regular season record in the last nine years.  There have been times when Mount would have had to travel in later rounds if the higher seeded team would have held serve, but in each instance they didn't (which has been referenced many times in the past).

Anyway...back to reality.

Would Mount have traveled had UWO won? UWO would have had the better win and presumably the better resume. This has probably been asked already but I'm late to the party.

Quote from: pg04 on December 07, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
I know I was nosy too and didn't find them LOL. I presume someone probably came to their senses. Or not.

Nope, I decided I wasn't going to take more crap and hit delete three times.

I am confident Mount would have hosted this weekend no matter who advanced. At least the No. 2 overall national seed. (Indeed, UST might be No. 1.)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 11:33:51 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 07, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
I know I was nosy too and didn't find them LOL. I presume someone probably came to their senses. Or not.

I am confident Mount would have hosted this weekend no matter who advanced. At least the No. 2 overall national seed. (Indeed, UST might be No. 1.)

I'm not sure I agree with the committee on that point if that's the case (which if you say it is, I'm sure it is) but it's definitely not something I'd argue more about, especially now.

Quote from: pg04 on December 07, 2015, 11:36:36 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 11:33:51 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 07, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
I know I was nosy too and didn't find them LOL. I presume someone probably came to their senses. Or not.

I am confident Mount would have hosted this weekend no matter who advanced. At least the No. 2 overall national seed. (Indeed, UST might be No. 1.)

I'm not sure I agree with the committee on that point if that's the case (which if you say it is, I'm sure it is) but it's definitely not something I'd argue more about, especially now.

Mount was #1 in its regional rankings, UWO was #3, I'm 99.9% sure UWO wouldn't have hosted as well.

Quote from: MasterJedi on December 07, 2015, 11:40:16 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 07, 2015, 11:36:36 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 11:33:51 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 07, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
I know I was nosy too and didn't find them LOL. I presume someone probably came to their senses. Or not.

I am confident Mount would have hosted this weekend no matter who advanced. At least the No. 2 overall national seed. (Indeed, UST might be No. 1.)

I'm not sure I agree with the committee on that point if that's the case (which if you say it is, I'm sure it is) but it's definitely not something I'd argue more about, especially now.

Mount was #1 in its regional rankings, UWO was #3, I'm 99.9% sure UWO wouldn't have hosted as well.

That's true but the "strength" of the regions are not equal. Alas, this would be the reasoning used.

UWO was No. 1 in its bracket, at least.

Maybe we should have rooted for St. Thomas to be on the same side of Mount instead of UWW. Not that I think sending Mount on the road would considerably change their ability to get the job done.

I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

Quote from: USee on December 07, 2015, 12:16:31 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

Just one vote, but these committee reps discuss these things. And they're smart people. Having a guy with that kind of experience, you can be sure they'll ask him his thoughts. So it even goes beyond just one vote, if that makes sense.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Agreed. Reality has shown this is the case, despite my musings.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 05, 2015, 09:21:13 PM
Well the quarterfinals were as good as could reasonably be expected.  Two nail-biters (in McMinnville and Oshkosh), a very entertaining game in Alliance (though I doubt many thought the final outcome was ever in real jeopardy), and a game in St. Paul that got WAY more out-of-hand than probably anyone expected (but that apparently no one could watch due to internet provider incompetence).

I'm really looking forward to the semis - I currently have no clue how I will pick either game! :o ;D

Same here.

Well, I have a clue, but I'm not decided by any means. What one side lacks brute strength, in both games, it makes up for in heart, grit, versatility, etc.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

So maybe the bracket committee is doing us a favor this year? I'm already on record as saying that it is my opinion that either of the WIAC teams would be able to win in Alliance this year on their way to the Stagg Bowl. If my hunch is correct, then we might see Mt. Union on the road during next years bracket. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Quote from: USee on December 07, 2015, 12:16:31 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

I will point out that Caruso was on the West committee as well....so there's that.  Also, Sandberg had no vote on the regional committee.  Yeah, he's the national rep but I believe he doesn't vote on the West rankings.

However....I think there are many at Linfield that want to be able to get it done on the road in the Midwest.  The 'Cats obviously could very well come up short but part of the program knows that's a December hurdle we have to clear.

Quote from: wildcat11 on December 07, 2015, 02:01:29 PM

Quote from: USee on December 07, 2015, 12:16:31 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

I will point out that Caruso was on the West committee as well....so there's that.

However....I think there are many at Linfield that want to be able to get it done on the road in the Midwest.  The 'Cats obviously could very well come up short but part of the program knows that's a December hurdle we have to clear.

If Linfield wins it all this year and goes undefeated next year it's likely they would finally have home field throughout. Problem until then is probably SOS.

I have a hard time believing an undefeated defending champion would go on the road, so I agree completely.

Quote from: MasterJedi on December 07, 2015, 02:02:52 PM
If Linfield wins it all this year and goes undefeated next year it's likely they would finally have home field throughout. Problem until then is probably SOS.

Quote from: George Thompson on December 07, 2015, 09:11:07 AM
Pat,

Sorry, I did not see that.    Where was it posted?

No, I figured it was seeded.   But, over the years, people (NCAA) says it was seeded, then it wasn't seeded.    It seems like they change their minds over time.

It is my opinion only, I do not represent any college or conference in saying this, that all the NCAA playoffs are slanted to favor midwest schools.    Probably not purposely, but that is where the votes are.  The MIAC and WIAC are clearly strong conferences.   Texas, the deep South and the West coast just do not have enough conferences to have an equal say in the seedings. 

The purpose of my questions was to see who makes these decisions.     If Regional Rankings are the criteria, The West coast will always get shortchanged if teams on paper appear equal.   I do consider Linfield, St. Thomas and Mary Hardin Baylor very close. 

Being in the Midwest, I am sure you do not like to hear this.    But, there are fair ways to give each team an equal chance for a home game beyond the first one or two playoff games.

1.   Flip a coin each Sunday afternoon, visible to all conference reps.  or,
2.   Make each playoff team beyond the first round have to travel at least once, if possible, before the Stagg Bowl.

Any other system is inherently unfair because it is based on people's opinions.    And those opinions are not free from conference and local bias.    Heck, if I had a vote, of course I would vote for the NWC or SCIAC team to get some home field advantage.   

And as a fan, I love a home game, mainly because it is affordable.     I just bought airline tickets for the Stagg Bowl.    There went my Social Security check for December!    But next Sunday, I am sure it would have been even more expensive.   Very few of us can afford to go to St. Paul and the Stagg Bowl.    Heck, few of us can go to even one.

Pat, you and I may never agree on this, but I do appreciate the job you do.    This is one great website.   Thank you so much.

By the way, who is Ralph Turner?   I have seen his name times over the years.    He does not appear to be a typical poster.

Sincerely,

George

With all due respect George, a lot of this is just you saying stuff without taking the time to research how it really works, so I can't respond to all of it. But I'll give you this much.

The national selection committee is made up of eight D-III folks -- either coaches, ADs or conference commissioners. Two from each region. Each two has a regional advisory committee which reports to them. Those RACs are made up of one representative from every conference. So best it can, the NCAA ensures there is no bias, or no extra weight given to any particular bias.

For whatever it's worth, an NWC coach was a member of the national committee.

Furthermore, the committees are given set criteria to interpret for the exact purpose of taking as much subjectivity out of it as possible. I played in the era just before this, and it seemed a lot more subjective.

The best football is played in the West Region. That sounds like an opinion, but frankly, over time it's proven to be a fact. However, if you consider Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota part of the midwest, then yes, the Midwest dominates. (Ohio, for D3 purposes, is North Region).

As with all claims of bias with regards to D3 and the East and Midwest, I suggest you check this out: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NCAA_Division_3_football_map.gif)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/NCAA_Division_3_football_map.gif)

Quote from: MasterJedi on December 07, 2015, 02:02:52 PM

Quote from: wildcat11 on December 07, 2015, 02:01:29 PM

Quote from: USee on December 07, 2015, 12:16:31 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

I will point out that Caruso was on the West committee as well....so there's that.

However....I think there are many at Linfield that want to be able to get it done on the road in the Midwest.  The 'Cats obviously could very well come up short but part of the program knows that's a December hurdle we have to clear.

If Linfield wins it all this year and goes undefeated next year it's likely they would finally have home field throughout. Problem until then is probably SOS.

It has everything to do with SoS. The MIAC is loaded, and on top of that, St. Thomas smartly games the system by playing lower-tier WIAC teams so they get the OOWP bump. The SoS is 2/3 your opponents winning percentage and 1/3 the oppoonents opponents winning percentage, which effectively means even if you schedule a team that's from a strong conference but has a weak record because the whole conference is strong, the SoS still accurately attempts to reflect that.

Linfield would get a huge boost if it opens up with a win over UMHB next season.

Quote from: K-Mack on December 07, 2015, 02:26:18 PM

Quote from: MasterJedi on December 07, 2015, 02:02:52 PM

Quote from: wildcat11 on December 07, 2015, 02:01:29 PM

Quote from: USee on December 07, 2015, 12:16:31 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

I will point out that Caruso was on the West committee as well....so there's that.

However....I think there are many at Linfield that want to be able to get it done on the road in the Midwest.  The 'Cats obviously could very well come up short but part of the program knows that's a December hurdle we have to clear.

If Linfield wins it all this year and goes undefeated next year it's likely they would finally have home field throughout. Problem until then is probably SOS.

It has everything to do with SoS. The MIAC is loaded, and on top of that, St. Thomas smartly games the system by playing lower-tier WIAC teams so they get the OOWP bump. The SoS is 2/3 your opponents winning percentage and 1/3 the oppoonents opponents winning percentage, which effectively means even if you schedule a team that's from a strong conference but has a weak record because the whole conference is strong, the SoS still accurately attempts to reflect that.

Linfield would get a huge boost if it opens up with a win over UMHB next season.

So you're saying that .005 difference in SOS is what made the difference this year?  Seems like they could have gone to the tie breaker in this case.... (and I'm someone who is constantly disagreeing with George Thompson when he goes on these rants).

Quote from: K-Mack on December 07, 2015, 02:26:18 PM

Quote from: MasterJedi on December 07, 2015, 02:02:52 PM

Quote from: wildcat11 on December 07, 2015, 02:01:29 PM

Quote from: USee on December 07, 2015, 12:16:31 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

I will point out that Caruso was on the West committee as well....so there's that.

However....I think there are many at Linfield that want to be able to get it done on the road in the Midwest.  The 'Cats obviously could very well come up short but part of the program knows that's a December hurdle we have to clear.

If Linfield wins it all this year and goes undefeated next year it's likely they would finally have home field throughout. Problem until then is probably SOS.

It has everything to do with SoS. The MIAC is loaded, and on top of that, St. Thomas smartly games the system by playing lower-tier WIAC teams so they get the OOWP bump. The SoS is 2/3 your opponents winning percentage and 1/3 the oppoonents opponents winning percentage, which effectively means even if you schedule a team that's from a strong conference but has a weak record because the whole conference is strong, the SoS still accurately attempts to reflect that.

Linfield would get a huge boost if it opens up with a win over UMHB next season.

St. Thomas' SOS was hurt by La Crosse and winless Eau Claire.  They would have been much better off scheduling St. Scholastica or Monmouth.  OOWP doesn't hurt that much, especially when conferences like the UMAC play 9 conference games and the OOWP moves towards .500 no matter how bad you are.

They could have also seen St. Thomas as better because they had a win against a team with a better regional ranking, and on the road instead of at home. They also could have seen St. Thomas as better because they were 10-0 instead of 9-0 -- don't know how legit that is but it's something I've heard tossed out there. Time to start tapping that alumni base to fund some tenth-game travel.

This was before the time of d3football.com, but I wonder  (and I'm sure someone out there knows) the venues for some of Mt's Playoff games back in the early and mid 90's, prior to the time the Kehres dynasty was in full flower.

Quote from: retagent on December 07, 2015, 03:39:09 PM
This was before the time of d3football.com, but I wonder  (and I'm sure someone out there knows) the venues for some of Mt's Playoff games back in the early and mid 90's, prior to the time the Kehres dynasty was in full flower.

Until 1999 there was a forced rotation of hosting sites for the semifinals -- saved the committee from having to make a call on one region vs. another.

Quote from: MasterJedi on December 07, 2015, 02:02:52 PM

Quote from: wildcat11 on December 07, 2015, 02:01:29 PM

Quote from: USee on December 07, 2015, 12:16:31 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
DIII football is not really interested, nor should it be interested, in making it affordable for fans. What it is interesting in doing is creating the fairest possible tournament given the money bequeathed by the DI basketball tournament. So while that skews the first round for island teams, and sometimes influences second round match ups, the rest of the tournament is relatively dollar blind.

Why is Linfield travelling to Minnesota? Because the Regional Committee, made up of a representative member of every West conference, ranked St Thomas ahead of Linfield and the national committee, made up of two members of each of the regional committees, chose not to over rule that ranking.

As for your favoritism argument, Whitworth's coach sat on the Regional Committee for the NWC and was also one of two West Region reps on the national committee. He will remain on the national committee through the 2017 season I believe. So if anything, the NWC had a greater voice at the table than any West Region conference except the WIAC, which also had a National Committee member. The MIAC did not have its own voice at the national committee this year.

Of some interest, the OAC also did not its own voice at the national committee this year, with north region reps coming from the IIAC and NCAC. So of the four remaining teams, the schools on the road had the extra voice (WIAC and NWC), not the home teams (MIAC and OAC). That should put paid to at least some of your bias concerns.

This.

I should also point out that Whitworth's coach (he of national committee fame) was a coach at Wheaton for almost 20 years before taking over at Whitworth. He knows the level of competition between midwest and west. Though he is just one vote.

I will point out that Caruso was on the West committee as well....so there's that.

However....I think there are many at Linfield that want to be able to get it done on the road in the Midwest.  The 'Cats obviously could very well come up short but part of the program knows that's a December hurdle we have to clear.

If Linfield wins it all this year and goes undefeated next year it's likely they would finally have home field throughout. Problem until then is probably SOS.

they get an early bump in sos when they travel to Belton, tx in September. Early season CATS V CRU, that'll start things off with a bang.

(before people start explaining sos, I mean huge metaphorically not literally)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

K-Mack, I love that D3 map, but it is in some serious need of updating.  Being a wiki open-source file, is that something someone at d3sports.com would be able to do?  (During some sort of a lull - I certainly wouldn't expect it during the playoffs! ;))

Quote from: Westside on December 07, 2015, 05:43:42 PM

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

Alas, Wabash was the #1 seed in the North Region that year and would have hosted Mount Union in the quarterfinals, but lost to Capital in the second round 14-11.  So, Mount got to host Capital and won 34-31 in the quarterfinals.

Mount then got to host Rowan in the semifinals, since Rowan knocked out the East #1 Delaware Valley, and Mount was a higher seed than Rowan.

Quote from: Westside on December 07, 2015, 05:43:42 PM

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

Actually, the 2005 North Region was the Wabash bracket.

http://d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2005/picking-playoff-surprises-disappointments

Wabash lost the Pool C Capital 14-11 in the 3rd round.
Apparently, MUC was the #2 seed in the Region, and hosted Capital and beat the Crusaders, 34-31 the next week in Alliance.

---

Schwami beat me to it.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2015, 06:17:56 PM

Quote from: Westside on December 07, 2015, 05:43:42 PM

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

Actually, the 2005 North Region was the Wabash bracket.

http://d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2005/picking-playoff-surprises-disappointments

Wabash lost the Pool C Capital 14-11 in the 3rd round.
Apparently, MUC was the #2 seed in the Region, and hosted Capital and beat the Crusaders, 34-31 the next week in Alliance.

---

Schwami beat me to it.

Hey, don't go bringing facts into this again.  It's much more fun to pretend that the committee has been scheming for a decade now to make sure Mount Union never goes on the road in the playoffs.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on December 07, 2015, 06:20:35 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2015, 06:17:56 PM

Quote from: Westside on December 07, 2015, 05:43:42 PM

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

Actually, the 2005 North Region was the Wabash bracket.

http://d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2005/picking-playoff-surprises-disappointments

Wabash lost the Pool C Capital 14-11 in the 3rd round.
Apparently, MUC was the #2 seed in the Region, and hosted Capital and beat the Crusaders, 34-31 the next week in Alliance.

---

Schwami beat me to it.

Hey, don't go bringing facts into this again.  It's much more fun to pretend that the committee has been scheming for a decade now to make sure Mount Union never goes on the road in the playoffs.

LOL!  +1!

(Don't you just love the archives feature on this web site!)   ;)

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2015, 06:23:39 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on December 07, 2015, 06:20:35 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 07, 2015, 06:17:56 PM

Quote from: Westside on December 07, 2015, 05:43:42 PM

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

Actually, the 2005 North Region was the Wabash bracket.

http://d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2005/picking-playoff-surprises-disappointments

Wabash lost the Pool C Capital 14-11 in the 3rd round.
Apparently, MUC was the #2 seed in the Region, and hosted Capital and beat the Crusaders, 34-31 the next week in Alliance.

---

Schwami beat me to it.

Hey, don't go bringing facts into this again.  It's much more fun to pretend that the committee has been scheming for a decade now to make sure Mount Union never goes on the road in the playoffs.

LOL!  +1!

(Don't you just love the archives feature on this web site!)   ;)

Yeah, 2005 coulda/shoulda/woulda been the year --- that was the last time Mount lost a game in the regular season (on top of the semifinal loss to UMHB the year before).  Nothing has happened since then that would plausibly keep Mount from hosting all the way to Salem.

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Sigh...as addressed in other posts.  Mount would have had to go on the road potentially TWICE that year, but the higher seeds each time LOST.  How ABOUT those Brownies!  Best NFL team that has just been screwed with bad owners, staff, coaches, players, and obviously a conspiracy against allowing them to ever be good because Mount already gets all the "conspiracy karma"!

Never Really understood all the conspiracies about the committee. I seriously doubt they are going out of their way to "make things easier" in some way that doesn't follow the usual selection criteria for Mount. In the end, I doubt they, as a unit, care very much who wins the tournament when they select the teams.

Quote from: Westside on December 07, 2015, 05:43:42 PM

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

Two things: Criteria different in 2005, secondly Mount Union was the 3 seed in 2005 and the only reason they got all the games at home was because other teams lost.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 08:18:03 PM

Quote from: Westside on December 07, 2015, 05:43:42 PM

Quote from: cover2 on December 07, 2015, 05:28:19 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2015, 12:14:29 PM
I don't think Mount is going on the road in the semifinal until they lose one.

Did they have to go on the road after UMHB beat them at home in 2004?

Here you go: http://d3football.com/teams/Mount_Union/2005/index

It looks like all of their 2005 playoff games were at home.

Two things: Criteria different in 2005, secondly Mount Union was the 3 seed in 2005 and the only reason they got all the games at home was because other teams lost.

He asked if they had to go on the road, I put up a link that showed they played at home in 2005. That is literally correct in its simplest form. I never said anything else. But we get it, they would've been on the road had there not been upsets!  :-*

MAN! You guys are bringing up 2005. STAAAAAAHP!

(Too many dropped passes...)

I don't see anything conspiratorial about the committee's decisions with Mt.
And I sure don't blame Mt, they are located where they are located, and it is their geographical position that creates most of the bracket questions IMO.

In looking at the historical brackets, I only see two years where the committee could have given the higher seed (home field advantage to a team other than Mt)-
2013- NCC (I know, I'm in love with NCC).
2012- St. Thomas- Correction, I meant UMHB. 

Would the committee have been justified in giving UWO or Wheaton the top seed this year?  Tough call as I see arguments on both sides.

The only way MUC is going to get a road playoff game is if they lose in the regular season.  Or they are ranked outside the Top 4 all 2015 because of the following:

a) UWW pounds MUC this weekend
b) the Cat/Tommie game is a great one
c) UWW loses in the Stagg Bowl

You'd have a situation where final rankings are:

St Thomas or Linfield are #1 or 2
UWW is 3
MHB or UWO are 4/5
MUC 6 - yes they made it to the semis but got pounded to a team that lost in the Stagg Bowl

This could lead to 2016 preseason rankings being:

1) Linfield or St Thomas as 1 or 2
2) UWW as 3
3) MHB or UWO as 4/5
4) MUC as 6

We know that MHB/Linfield and UWO/UWW will all have at least one regular season loss as they play each other.  So it is highly unlikely that MUC will finish 2016 outside the Top 4 no matter how 2015 actually turns out.

So as long as Linfield/St Thomas/or UWW end up 2016 undefeated AND are placed on opposite sides of the bracket I can see MUC having to travel for the semi's.  But I don't see any situation where they finish 2016 undefeated and have a road game prior to the semi's.

If MUC wins the title this year they will host all the way thru the semi's.  If MUC makes it to the Stagg Bowl they will host thru the semis. 

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on December 08, 2015, 04:10:36 PM
The only way MUC is going to get a road playoff game is if they lose in the regular season.  Or they are ranked outside the Top 4 all 2015 because of the following:

I think you meandered your way around this later but they have to be in the top 2 to get home playoff games all the way through.

Pat - you mentioned something about NCAA video archives? Are some/all of the D3 football playoff games archived somewhere accessible to watch?

I did indeed meander.. suffice to say to get a road game for MUC they will need to be ranked lower in the eyes of the national committee than the team that they play in the semi's.  This is only going to happen in MUC loses this weekend.  Otherwise they are going to most likely be either the #1 or #2 team to start (and end) 2016 and we are going to have the same amount of bitching.

When a program loses 5 games in 20 years outside the Stagg Bowl they have earned the right to homefield in my opinion.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on December 08, 2015, 06:41:32 PM
Pat - you mentioned something about NCAA video archives? Are some/all of the D3 football playoff games archived somewhere accessible to watch?

I did indeed meander.. suffice to say to get a road game for MUC they will need to be ranked lower in the eyes of the national committee than the team that they play in the semi's.  This is only going to happen in MUC loses this weekend.  Otherwise they are going to most likely be either the #1 or #2 team to start (and end) 2016 and we are going to have the same amount of bitching.

When a program loses 5 games in 20 years outside the Stagg Bowl they have earned the right to homefield in my opinion.

Schools are not supposed to archive playoff broadcasts. Sometimes you can find them shortly after the game, which is when I was able to track down the UMHB-Linfield game. My advice would be to go to the host school's website to check.

I am very interested to see the Hoff versus Simmet matchup on Saturday.  Will the Cats move Hoff around or will they have him lineup against Simmet most downs? 

The TE matchup is going to be a problem for the Cats as historically our D struggles against mobile quarterbacks and very good tight ends.  (at least that is how things seem to me).

I'm also interested to see if Linfield sticks with Payne 100% of the time or goes to Choisser for the tough between the tackles yards that doesn't seem to be Payne's strength.  The zone stretch might work in the early rounds of the playoffs but it sure seems to get stopped by the Quarters. I'd like to see both in the backfield at the same time as that gives the defense Payne to worry as a receiver and Choisser running hard between the tackles. (Ideally something we incorporate for 2016).

At the quarterback position I'm thinking that Knecht will have the opportunity to play even better.  His receivers have been stepping up big time especially Balsiger and Carroll.  Douglas III is due for a breakout game. Knecht should be more relaxed as he has now played 6 quarters in a row, is getting all the first team reps, and has been baptized by the MHB fire (their D line was incredible - huge, rangy, long, and athletic). 

Special teams seems to be a different strength of both teams.  The Cats are solid at punt return but don't do anything special or tricky across the board (or attempt the onside kick or fake punt very rarely).  While the Tommies seem to have made trick special team plays a core part of their philosophy.  Aside from kick-offs wouldn't the Cats be wise to simply leave their base D in the game for both punt returns and field goal/PAT situations.  Give up the field goal/PAT attempt to keep the Tommies from getting momentum stealing plays.  Linfield was killed on fake punts at MHB in 2015 and we seem to be susceptible to those kinds of plays.

What I know is that Linfield is not going to have to adjust to the team speed like we did against MHB.  Speed is scary in football and I'd expect that we match up very well in this department against the Tommies.

The Cats are 2-3 against the MIAC since 2002.  Two losses to St Johns in consecutive seasons.  A win versus CM in 2005.  A win in 2009 versus St Thomas and a loss in 2010.  I'm hoping we get to .500 this weekend!

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on December 08, 2015, 07:02:24 PM
I am very interested to see the Hoff versus Simmet matchup on Saturday.  Will the Cats move Hoff around or will they have him lineup against Simmet most downs? 

The TE matchup is going to be a problem for the Cats as historically our D struggles against mobile quarterbacks and very good tight ends.  (at least that is how things seem to me).

I'm also interested to see if Linfield sticks with Payne 100% of the time or goes to Choisser for the tough between the tackles yards that doesn't seem to be Payne's strength.  The zone stretch might work in the early rounds of the playoffs but it sure seems to get stopped by the Quarters. I'd like to see both in the backfield at the same time as that gives the defense Payne to worry as a receiver and Choisser running hard between the tackles. (Ideally something we incorporate for 2016).

At the quarterback position I'm thinking that Knecht will have the opportunity to play even better.  His receivers have been stepping up big time especially Balsiger and Carroll.  Douglas III is due for a breakout game. Knecht should be more relaxed as he has now played 6 quarters in a row, is getting all the first team reps, and has been baptized by the MHB fire (their D line was incredible - huge, rangy, long, and athletic). 

Special teams seems to be a different strength of both teams.  The Cats are solid at punt return but don't do anything special or tricky across the board (or attempt the onside kick or fake punt very rarely).  While the Tommies seem to have made trick special team plays a core part of their philosophy.  Aside from kick-offs wouldn't the Cats be wise to simply leave their base D in the game for both punt returns and field goal/PAT situations.  Give up the field goal/PAT attempt to keep the Tommies from getting momentum stealing plays.  Linfield was killed on fake punts at MHB in 2015 and we seem to be susceptible to those kinds of plays.

What I know is that Linfield is not going to have to adjust to the team speed like we did against MHB.  Speed is scary in football and I'd expect that we match up very well in this department against the Tommies.

The Cats are 2-3 against the MIAC since 2002.  Two losses to St Johns in consecutive seasons.  A win versus CM in 2005.  A win in 2009 versus St Thomas and a loss in 2010.  I'm hoping we get to .500 this weekend!

WWW - you should post this over on the MIAC board to get some feedback.

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on December 08, 2015, 07:02:24 PM
I am very interested to see the Hoff versus Simmet matchup on Saturday.  Will the Cats move Hoff around or will they have him lineup against Simmet most downs? 

I haven't watched a ton of Linfield, but from what I have seen Hoff generally comes from the left side.  Simmet plays RT, so there may not be a lot of Hoff vs. Simmet action.  Unless Linfield moves him around on the line, which might be a thing.  People who watch Linfield regularly can clarify that point. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 09, 2015, 10:47:43 AM

Quote from: Walla Walla Wildcat on December 08, 2015, 07:02:24 PM
I am very interested to see the Hoff versus Simmet matchup on Saturday.  Will the Cats move Hoff around or will they have him lineup against Simmet most downs? 

I haven't watched a ton of Linfield, but from what I have seen Hoff generally comes from the left side.  Simmet plays RT, so there may not be a lot of Hoff vs. Simmet action.  Unless Linfield moves him around on the line, which might be a thing.  People who watch Linfield regularly can clarify that point.

Oh, he comes from everywhere and nowhere all at once....like a ninja!   ;D

I'll pick the purple team.

Well. My money was not on a pair of Monkey stomps today. How anti-climatic. Here's hoping the Stagg is more compelling.

Quote from: jknezek on December 12, 2015, 07:19:33 PM
Well. My money was not on a pair of Monkey stomps today. How anti-climatic. Here's hoping the Stagg is more compelling.

Yeah, neither outcome surprised me (I could see either game going either way), but the margins were totally out of the blue.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 12, 2015, 07:30:13 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 12, 2015, 07:19:33 PM
Well. My money was not on a pair of Monkey stomps today. How anti-climatic. Here's hoping the Stagg is more compelling.

Yeah, neither outcome surprised me (I could see either game going either way), but the margins were totally out of the blue.

I was really thinking we were going to have our most competitive duo of semi-final games in a long time. Guess not, but maybe that means we'll have a Stagg that's even more dramatic than usual.

The process worked. The two best teams definitely made the Stagg Bowl. You can say Linfield was definitely one of the best four teams, and that Oshkosh and Whitewater could play 100 times and it could go 50/50. So they're probably 4/5 or something. UMHB, Wabash and Wesley are definitely in the Top 10 with probably Wheaton and Johns Hopkins - maybe Thomas More or St. John's. But the playoffs worked as they were supposed to. The best two teams are in Salem.

Maybe St John's? They played the Toms twice. Held them to their second lowest point total so far, and scored more points than anyone else the other time. I'd say that makes them definite Top 10, possibly Top 5. Just looking at point differential (what else do we have?) puts them on par with Linfield.

You gotta have a marquee win to be top 5, I'm afraid. Losing twice, no matter the degree, doesn't -- or shouldn't -- promote a team to the upper echelon of the field.

They beat everybody else they played (a coupe that were ranked at the time) Who else could they beat?l

Quote from: BashDad on December 13, 2015, 04:22:09 PM
You gotta have a marquee win to be top 5, I'm afraid. Losing twice, no matter the degree, doesn't -- or shouldn't -- promote a team to the upper echelon of the field.

I don't think SJU is top 5. But they've definitely played UST tougher than anyone else. They can only play the teams in front of them and the way the bracket set up, they had no chance for one of those 'marquee wins.'

Quote from: retagent on December 13, 2015, 04:26:26 PM
They beat everybody else they played (a coupe that were ranked at the time) Who else could they beat?l

Well, UST.

Quote from: hazzben on December 13, 2015, 05:06:27 PM

Quote from: BashDad on December 13, 2015, 04:22:09 PM
You gotta have a marquee win to be top 5, I'm afraid. Losing twice, no matter the degree, doesn't -- or shouldn't -- promote a team to the upper echelon of the field.

I don't think SJU is top 5. But they've definitely played UST tougher than anyone else. They can only play the teams in front of them and the way the bracket set up, they had no chance for one of those 'marquee wins.'

Yes they did.

You would have to bump linfield and UMHB, to say nothing of UWO or UWW. It's just ridiculous to posit that SJU should be considered for a top 5 placement with no other evidence than losing games against one of the nation's best. All those other teams have wins against much better teams than any SJU opponent.

Quote from: BashDad on December 13, 2015, 04:22:09 PM
You gotta have a marquee win to be top 5, I'm afraid. Losing twice, no matter the degree, doesn't -- or shouldn't -- promote a team to the upper echelon of the field.

I don't look at that as two losses. It's really more like one loss. It's not like anyone else beat UST so far this year.

Quote from: BashDad on December 13, 2015, 05:25:51 PM
You would have to bump linfield and UMHB, to say nothing of UWO or UWW. It's just ridiculous to posit that SJU should be considered for a top 5 placement with no other evidence than losing games against one of the nation's best. All those other teams have wins against much better teams than any SJU opponent.

It all depends on next game. The "much better teams" is speculative. UMHB is a big question mark, and UWO and UWW  have fallen a lot because of what just happened, If UST wins, what does that say about both of them?

All of those teams have much better wins than SJU. I disagree that Friday has anything to do with this conversation.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 13, 2015, 08:53:01 PM

Quote from: BashDad on December 13, 2015, 04:22:09 PM
You gotta have a marquee win to be top 5, I'm afraid. Losing twice, no matter the degree, doesn't -- or shouldn't -- promote a team to the upper echelon of the field.

I don't look at that as two losses. It's really more like one loss. It's not like anyone else beat UST so far this year.

I remember someone I know who is really wise once said it's not who you lost to, it's who you beat.

St Johns = North Central

I didn't try to ascribe a win to St. John's or anything -- I just don't think it's right to consider them a typical two-loss team. They lost to a team nobody has been close to. Just because the NCAA scheduled them for a second outing doesn't change how I view them.

I didn't think it'd be that controversial - and I certainly didn't mean for the homers to come out.

Basically, throw UMHB, Wabash, Wesley, Thomas More, Johns Hopkins, Wheaton, St. John's and Hardin-Simmons (forgot them) into an eight team tournament, run a bunch of simulations, and I think each of those teams would win their share of the simulated tournament. The Top 13 teams in D3 are all pretty stout, with a definite line between 2 and 3 - a line between 5 and 6 - a small line between 8 and 9 (as noted below) down to 13.

Does anyone know how many teams ranked in the top 32 before the play offs started that made the play offs? And how many teams ranked higher than the top 32 before the play offs that made the play offs? Regardless if they were a AQ for a conference.

I will take a crack at it.  Others, please help/correct.  Of those teams finishing in the DIIFB Top 25 for week 11, and of those next receiving votes beginning with #26 through number #33, these teams did not make the playoffs:  (Note that I am not including #28 Amherst, which was ineligible out of NESCAC, so I've gone to #33.)  UWPlatteville, North Central, Texas Lutheran, Wartburg, John Carroll, Guilford, East Texas Baptist, Washing ton and Jefferson, and Case Western Reserve.
      Those making the playoffs but not in the above group down to #33:  St Lawrence, St Scholastica, LaVerne, Lakeland, Albion, Dubuque, Norwich, Hendrix, Huntingdon. 

One correction, Dubuque was ranked #18.  (They got crushed (again) by St. John's, who then got crushed (again) by St. Thomas.)

Thanks, Ypsi.  Missed that one.  Should have caught Dubuque, their being a conference championship and auto bid.

Quote from: RLW on December 14, 2015, 07:40:50 PM
Does anyone know how many teams ranked in the top 32 before the play offs started that made the play offs? And how many teams ranked higher than the top 32 before the play offs that made the play offs? Regardless if they were a AQ for a conference.

RLW - and others,

Take a gander over at the Pool C Thread (page 48) where I posted all the teams in the play-offs with their D3 rankings at the beginning of this year's post season play.

Thanks guys

Just for fun, there were 5 road wins out of the 31 games played in team stadiums. Four of those five wins belonged to traditional powers UMHB, UWW and Wesley. Only ONU beating Franklin in the first round didn't involve at traditional Elite Eight type team. UWW is the only team to win two games on the road this year. Two out of the five road wins were rematches, UMHB at HSU and UWW at UWO.

Three of the road wins were by 5 points or less. Wesley over JHU 42-37, ONU over Franklin 27-22, UWW over UWO 31-29. Only UMHB beating HSU by 18 and UWW beating Wheaton by 14 were more than 1 score games.

Conclusions? The committee did a really good job, with the possible exception of having UWW a bit low. Or DIII is just so non-competitive top to bottom it wasn't that hard to set up the tournament properly.

For myself? I think the biggest problem is my use of "or" in the conclusion statements. Probably better to say "and"...

Quote from: jknezek on December 17, 2015, 09:59:30 AM
Just for fun, there were 5 road wins out of the 31 games played in team stadiums. Four of those five wins belonged to traditional powers UMHB, UWW and Wesley. Only ONU beating Franklin in the first round didn't involve at traditional Elite Eight type team. UWW is the only team to win two games on the road this year. Two out of the five road wins were rematches, UMHB at HSU and UWW at UWO.

Three of the road wins were by 5 points or less. Wesley over JHU 42-37, ONU over Franklin 27-22, UWW over UWO 31-29. Only UMHB beating HSU by 18 and UWW beating Wheaton by 14 were more than 1 score games.

Conclusions? The committee did a really good job, with the possible exception of having UWW a bit low. Or DIII is just so non-competitive top to bottom it wasn't that hard to set up the tournament properly.

For myself? I think the biggest problem is my use of "or" in the conclusion statements. Probably better to say "and"...

I would disagree with this.  I don't know where else you would have put UWW.  The teams placed ahead of them in the brackets: UMU, UWO, UST, Linfield, JHU, Wabash, Wheaton, HSU all earned their spots in the top two of a region.  Maybe just maybe you could have justified UWW ahead of HSU, but that geography never would have worked.  UWW was always going to get lumped in with some combination of UWO, UST, Wheaton, UMU, and Wabash and they were never going to be seeded ahead of any of those teams, nor should they have been, based on the selection/seeding criteria. 

I think the Committee did very well, from the intro rounds right down to picking St. Thomas as the 2nd best team and giving them the home game in the semis.

Now, for this week. I see mostly everyone picking Mount (outside of the Tommie fans) - and some in a rout. Is there anyone who isn't a St. Thomas fan that thinks they will win?

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 10:44:40 AM

I would disagree with this.  I don't know where else you would have put UWW.  The teams placed ahead of them in the brackets: UMU, UWO, UST, Linfield, JHU, Wabash, Wheaton, HSU all earned their spots in the top two of a region.  Maybe just maybe you could have justified UWW ahead of HSU, but that geography never would have worked.  UWW was always going to get lumped in with some combination of UWO, UST, Wheaton, UMU, and Wabash and they were never going to be seeded ahead of any of those teams, nor should they have been, based on the selection/seeding criteria.

yeah. I probably didn't phrase that right. There wasn't much else you could do with UWW, I 100% agree. Just based on what happened they were probably a bit low in reality as opposed to a bit low based on what the committee could work with.

I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Where do you think Mount Union would finish in the MIAC?  Probably sandwiched between Concordia and Gustavus, no?  Or Gustavus and Bethel?  Tough call. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 01:22:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Where do you think Mount Union would finish in the MIAC?  Probably sandwiched between Concordia and Gustavus, no?  Or Gustavus and Bethel?  Tough call. 

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but would 2nd be out of the question? Maybe it's just that I recall 2003 when Mt was a prohibitive favorite, and had won their semi-final by something like 60 points.

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 02:40:40 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 01:22:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Where do you think Mount Union would finish in the MIAC?  Probably sandwiched between Concordia and Gustavus, no?  Or Gustavus and Bethel?  Tough call. 

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but would 2nd be out of the question? Maybe it's just that I recall 2003 when Mt was a prohibitive favorite, and had won their semi-final by something like 60 points.

Players in tomorrow's game were what...7-10 years old in 2003?  Why would that have anything at all to do with anything? 

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 02:40:40 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 01:22:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Where do you think Mount Union would finish in the MIAC?  Probably sandwiched between Concordia and Gustavus, no?  Or Gustavus and Bethel?  Tough call. 

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but would 2nd be out of the question? Maybe it's just that I recall 2003 when Mt was a prohibitive favorite, and had won their semi-final by something like 60 points.

I suppose we'll find out on Friday, but I'd imagine it'd be pretty safe to say that Mount is better than St John's and Wabash both this year.  Whether they rank above St Thomas is TBD.

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 17, 2015, 02:56:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 02:40:40 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 01:22:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Where do you think Mount Union would finish in the MIAC?  Probably sandwiched between Concordia and Gustavus, no?  Or Gustavus and Bethel?  Tough call. 

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but would 2nd be out of the question? Maybe it's just that I recall 2003 when Mt was a prohibitive favorite, and had won their semi-final by something like 60 points.

I suppose we'll find out on Friday, but I'd imagine it'd be pretty safe to say that Mount is better than St John's and Wabash both this year.  Whether they rank above St Thomas is TBD.

Tell it to a Johnnie, man.  Some seem convinced that SJU might be better than everybody except for UST.  It's ridiculous. 

Must be because the committee stacked the deck in favor of Mount again, you know, those cheeky bastards gave Mount all home games against those crummy East teams yet again.  If only they had to play a real team to get to the Stagg Bowl, like Wisconsi-...oh.

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 02:58:32 PM

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 17, 2015, 02:56:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 02:40:40 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 01:22:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Where do you think Mount Union would finish in the MIAC?  Probably sandwiched between Concordia and Gustavus, no?  Or Gustavus and Bethel?  Tough call. 

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but would 2nd be out of the question? Maybe it's just that I recall 2003 when Mt was a prohibitive favorite, and had won their semi-final by something like 60 points.

I suppose we'll find out on Friday, but I'd imagine it'd be pretty safe to say that Mount is better than St John's and Wabash both this year.  Whether they rank above St Thomas is TBD.

Tell it to a Johnnie, man.  Some seem convinced that SJU might be better than everybody except for UST.  It's ridiculous.

You might be reading into something that I haven't seen on here.  The SJU fans have made a case that they are better than Wabash.  You and the Wabash fans have done the opposite.  Nobody really knows for sure.  As much as it pains me, the SJU fans might be right but it's all speculative.

It's so hard to now how either St. Thomas or Mount Union are going to do against each other this year, because they have no common opponents, or even opponents-opponents. For my part, I didn't think too highly of Mount Union, because it was too hard to get a read for what they could really do until they met Whitewater. Because of last week's games we have a better understanding of what each of these teams in the final can do.

From an experience angle, Mount is a winner hands-down. From a dominating o-line point of view, St. Thomas has the edge there. I'm a long time Bethel Alumnus, so I don't have a dog in the fight, as both teams have ended seasons for the Royals over the last 10 to 12 years. I have already mentioned on the MIAC board that I think the Tommies edge this one out because their defence contains the Purple Raiders in a bend but don't break kind of way. I really don't think there'll be a run-away scoring frenzy and neither will I be surprised if both teams are held to less than 35 points a piece.

My sense is that Mount would be the #2 team in the MIAC this year, but Johnnie fans would probably disagree. And of course if Mount wins, then they'd be #1.

Quote from: art76 on December 17, 2015, 03:15:09 PM
It's so hard to now how either St. Thomas or Mount Union are going to do against each other this year, because they have no common opponents, or even opponents-opponents. For my part, I didn't think too highly of Mount Union, because it was too hard to get a read for what they could really do until they met Whitewater. Because of last week's games we have a better understanding of what each of these teams in the final can do.

From an experience angle, Mount is a winner hands-down. From a dominating o-line point of view, St. Thomas has the edge there. I'm a long time Bethel Alumnus, so I don't have a dog in the fight, as both teams have ended seasons for the Royals over the last 10 to 12 years. I have already mentioned on the MIAC board that I think the Tommies edge this one out because their defence contains the Purple Raiders in a bend but don't break kind of way. I really don't think there'll be a run-away scoring frenzy and neither will I be surprised if both teams are held to less than 35 points a piece.

My sense is that Mount would be the #2 team in the MIAC this year, but Johnnie fans would probably disagree. And of course if Mount wins, then they'd be #1.

St Thomas will really have to put the screws to Mount for me to believe that St John's would be better than them.  I don't see that happening.

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 17, 2015, 03:11:08 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
Tell it to a Johnnie, man.  Some seem convinced that SJU might be better than everybody except for UST.  It's ridiculous.

You might be reading into something that I haven't seen on here.  The SJU fans have made a case that they are better than Wabash.  You and the Wabash fans have done the opposite.  Nobody really knows for sure.  As much as it pains me, the SJU fans might be right but it's all speculative.

So here's a Johnnie fan telling us that SJU maybe should be in the top 5. 

Quote from: retagent on December 13, 2015, 03:56:04 PM
Maybe St John's? They played the Toms twice. Held them to their second lowest point total so far, and scored more points than anyone else the other time. I'd say that makes them definite Top 10, possibly Top 5. Just looking at point differential (what else do we have?) puts them on par with Linfield.

This reasoning is lunacy.  And the idea that SJU can ride UST's coattails up the rankings is lunacy.  There are plenty of teams here that actually have quality wins that SJU doesn't.  Who you beat matters more than who we think you might beat.  Or at least it should. 

And the idea that St. John's losing a non-competitive game (twice!) by a couple of points less than anybody else lost a non-competitive game to UST is the tiebreak is just dumb.   It's dumb to pretend that 38-19 wasn't 31-7 when the remainder of the game stopped being relevant.  That is not a valid reason for St. John's > Wabash and it is not a valid reason for St. John's to be in the top 5.  And yet, here we are waiting with baited breath to see how UST vs. UMU goes so that we might have an idea of what to do with St. John's.  What to do with St. John's has already been settled. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 02:47:34 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 02:40:40 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 01:22:30 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
I'm a Johnnie fan, and after seeing them manhandle some very good teams this year (4 games). I not only think they will win, I think it won't be that close.

Where do you think Mount Union would finish in the MIAC?  Probably sandwiched between Concordia and Gustavus, no?  Or Gustavus and Bethel?  Tough call. 

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but would 2nd be out of the question? Maybe it's just that I recall 2003 when Mt was a prohibitive favorite, and had won their semi-final by something like 60 points.

Players in tomorrow's game were what...7-10 years old in 2003?  Why would that have anything at all to do with anything? 

Maybe you're also too young to have heard the adage; "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

I didn't think I'd have to explain the parallel between a year where just about everyone thought that one team was far superior to the other, and actually had evidence in the series of lopsided scores Mt racked up, to this year. I don't think there is overwhelming evidence that either team is greatly outmatched. It appears to be a fairly even game. Time will tell. Maybe you should look at the d3.com rankings to see that "experts" can get it wrong.Would you rank St Thomas 4th right now?

Although I often wear my red tinted glasses, there is very little evidence that shows,other than UMU and UST, there are many teams better than SJU this year. If UST loses, and the differential is larger than I anticipate, I will reassess based on new evidence.

St John's beat Dubuque soundly twice. They were ranked #18 in the Week 11 d3.com poll. They beat Concordia who at the time had votes putting them in 28th, and got as high as 17. They beat Gustavus, who had votes putting them 26th at the time. They beat Bethel ho had been ranked as high as 23.

They beat everyone they played except for St Thomas, who will be either #1 or #2.

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 03:29:03 PM

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 17, 2015, 03:11:08 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
Tell it to a Johnnie, man.  Some seem convinced that SJU might be better than everybody except for UST.  It's ridiculous.

You might be reading into something that I haven't seen on here.  The SJU fans have made a case that they are better than Wabash.  You and the Wabash fans have done the opposite.  Nobody really knows for sure.  As much as it pains me, the SJU fans might be right but it's all speculative.

So here's a Johnnie fan telling us that SJU maybe should be in the top 5. 

Quote from: retagent on December 13, 2015, 03:56:04 PM
Maybe St John's? They played the Toms twice. Held them to their second lowest point total so far, and scored more points than anyone else the other time. I'd say that makes them definite Top 10, possibly Top 5. Just looking at point differential (what else do we have?) puts them on par with Linfield.

This reasoning is lunacy.  And the idea that SJU can ride UST's coattails up the rankings is lunacy.  There are plenty of teams here that actually have quality wins that SJU doesn't.  Who you beat matters more than who we think you might beat.  Or at least it should. 

And the idea that St. John's losing a non-competitive game (twice!) by a couple of points less than anybody else lost a non-competitive game to UST is the tiebreak is just dumb.   It's dumb to pretend that 38-19 wasn't 31-7 when the remainder of the game stopped being relevant.  That is not a valid reason for St. John's > Wabash and it is not a valid reason for St. John's to be in the top 5.  And yet, here we are waiting with baited breath to see how UST vs. UMU goes so that we might have an idea of what to do with St. John's.  What to do with St. John's has already been settled.

I guess I read that giving retagent the benefit of the doubt. His comment is filled with maybe's and I don't believe he is suggesting that the polls SHOULD put St John's #5, but is merely suggesting that there is nothing definitive to suggest that St John's couldn't be one of the best 5 teams.  As you say, the polls are done based on your resume - based on who you beat.  If St Thomas were to blow out Mount Union (again, not likely, purely hypothetical), one COULD say that the next best teams in the country are Wabash, St John's, Linfield.  The polls would not show that, but there wouldn't be anything to say that couldn't be true.
Likewise, if Mount Union wins in a landslide, one could make an argument that Wesley and UWW are the 2nd and 3rd best teams.

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 03:49:02 PM
St John's beat Dubuque soundly twice. They were ranked #18 in the Week 11 d3.com poll. They beat Concordia who at the time had votes putting them in 28th, and got as high as 17. They beat Gustavus, who had votes putting them 26th at the time. They beat Bethel ho had been ranked as high as 23.

So what you're telling me is that St. John's didn't beat a single team that was ever ranked as high as teams that were beaten by: Mount Union, St. Thomas, Linfield, UMHB, Wabash, Wheaton, Hardin-Simmons, UWO, UWW, Wesley, or UWP.  Why would St. John's be ranked ahead of any of those teams?  Because losing by 19 and 21 points to UST is...a positive?  No way.  Just no way. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 04:11:27 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 03:49:02 PM
St John's beat Dubuque soundly twice. They were ranked #18 in the Week 11 d3.com poll. They beat Concordia who at the time had votes putting them in 28th, and got as high as 17. They beat Gustavus, who had votes putting them 26th at the time. They beat Bethel ho had been ranked as high as 23.

So what you're telling me is that St. John's didn't beat a single team that was ever ranked as high as teams that were beaten by: Mount Union, St. Thomas, Linfield, UMHB, Wabash, Wheaton, Hardin-Simmons, UWO, UWW, Wesley, or UWP.  Why would St. John's be ranked ahead of any of those teams?  Because losing by 19 and 21 points to UST is...a positive?  No way.  Just no way.

I don't think everyone has to rank the poll using the criteria of "good wins" or strength of schedule.  I would rank them based upon who I think would win at a neutral site. 

Quote from: AO on December 17, 2015, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 04:11:27 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 03:49:02 PM
St John's beat Dubuque soundly twice. They were ranked #18 in the Week 11 d3.com poll. They beat Concordia who at the time had votes putting them in 28th, and got as high as 17. They beat Gustavus, who had votes putting them 26th at the time. They beat Bethel ho had been ranked as high as 23.

So what you're telling me is that St. John's didn't beat a single team that was ever ranked as high as teams that were beaten by: Mount Union, St. Thomas, Linfield, UMHB, Wabash, Wheaton, Hardin-Simmons, UWO, UWW, Wesley, or UWP.  Why would St. John's be ranked ahead of any of those teams?  Because losing by 19 and 21 points to UST is...a positive?  No way.  Just no way.

I don't think everyone has to rank the poll using the criteria of "good wins" or strength of schedule.  I would rank them based upon who I think would win at a neutral site.

I would hope that the pollsters would be given some guidelines and criteria for how to rank, but perhaps not.  If they aren't using a consistent methodology, then that gives less credibility to the rankings in my mind. 

It's similar to some of the arguments I've seen on here about what teams are elite. Everyone is using wildly different methodology.  Some are using a short view of 1 particular year, others are looking at a 5, 10, or 15 year view to identify the elite programs (not just individual teams year to year).

Quote from: AO on December 17, 2015, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 04:11:27 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 03:49:02 PM
St John's beat Dubuque soundly twice. They were ranked #18 in the Week 11 d3.com poll. They beat Concordia who at the time had votes putting them in 28th, and got as high as 17. They beat Gustavus, who had votes putting them 26th at the time. They beat Bethel ho had been ranked as high as 23.

So what you're telling me is that St. John's didn't beat a single team that was ever ranked as high as teams that were beaten by: Mount Union, St. Thomas, Linfield, UMHB, Wabash, Wheaton, Hardin-Simmons, UWO, UWW, Wesley, or UWP.  Why would St. John's be ranked ahead of any of those teams?  Because losing by 19 and 21 points to UST is...a positive?  No way.  Just no way.

I don't think everyone has to rank the poll using the criteria of "good wins" or strength of schedule.  I would rank them based upon who I think would win at a neutral site.

I think that's an easy out that winds up leading people to vote for what's familiar. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 05:01:05 PM

Quote from: AO on December 17, 2015, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 17, 2015, 04:11:27 PM

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 03:49:02 PM
St John's beat Dubuque soundly twice. They were ranked #18 in the Week 11 d3.com poll. They beat Concordia who at the time had votes putting them in 28th, and got as high as 17. They beat Gustavus, who had votes putting them 26th at the time. They beat Bethel ho had been ranked as high as 23.

So what you're telling me is that St. John's didn't beat a single team that was ever ranked as high as teams that were beaten by: Mount Union, St. Thomas, Linfield, UMHB, Wabash, Wheaton, Hardin-Simmons, UWO, UWW, Wesley, or UWP.  Why would St. John's be ranked ahead of any of those teams?  Because losing by 19 and 21 points to UST is...a positive?  No way.  Just no way.

I don't think everyone has to rank the poll using the criteria of "good wins" or strength of schedule.  I would rank them based upon who I think would win at a neutral site.

I think that's an easy out that winds up leading people to vote for what's familiar.

Wouldn't it tend to favor the better conferences if you did vote based upon ranked wins and strength of schedule? 

jamto understands what I'm getting at. There is precious little head to head to go on. I'm just trying to find a way to distinguish the indistinguishable.

It's easy  to criticize. What's your criteria, wally, and how do you rank those teams that don't play head to head?

And there's my good buddy Art!  Art, if I was so inclined (which I am not), I could go back and show where you have NEVER picked Mount in almost any significant game they played.  It's always been "overrated..resting on their laurels...not fair that they always play at home".
Dude..to say you are not biased is the biggest crock of crap out there.

And Retagent, you have made it very clear where you stand over the past few years.  I just love when guys get on here and pontificate how "unbiased" they are, but yet you can read previous posts and their bias is fairly obvious.

I think this game will be very good, and what makes it so is that the match-ups are really intriguing.  STT's O-line & big back against Mount's aggressive/fast D-line.  Mount's skill players vs. STT's D-backs.  STT's cheap shots vs......oh wait...never mind.  :-)  (That was a D3 board "dig", and didn't represent my true feelings).

Well, I, for one, tend to use data from a neutral observer, like Massey - who factors in offense and defense and MOV (with diminishing returns).

Who, BTW, if you discount the NESCAC (which I don't want to go over WHY it's ok the NESCAC's in there because it's all relative to each other anyway and you can just throw them out because they're a closed data set...) the rankings are:

1. Mt. Union
2. St. Thomas
3. Whitewater
4. Linfield
5. Wabash
6. St. John's
7. UMHB
8. Oshkosh
9. Wesley
10. Thomas More

However, a read of the actual ratings show that Wabash through Thomas More is quite close, and probably that any game between those teams would be toss-ups or slight home favorites.

Data > 'the so-called eye test'

Well I think one person actually answered that they think UST will win and are not a UST fan before the topic ran amok AGAIN on where ST John's should be ranked ::)

Quote from: retagent on December 17, 2015, 05:11:19 PM
jamto understands what I'm getting at. There is precious little head to head to go on. I'm just trying to find a way to distinguish the indistinguishable.

It's easy  to criticize. What's your criteria, wally, and how do you rank those teams that don't play head to head?

I get that, but the problem with what you're claiming as a distinguishable criteria- namely UST's MOV vs. SJU and Wabash- doesn't resolve anything in my view.  You're trying to convince me that 38-19 (in what was a 31-7 game) is any different than Wabash's 37-7 game.  Those games aren't very different in my mind- certainly not to an extent that makes SJU appear a superior team.  In blowouts, there are diminishing returns on score margins.  It's different if the game was 24-19 in the 4th quarter and UST pick sixed you and then punched one more in to get to 38-19.  But that didn't happen. 

In the front let's say half to two-thirds of the season, I think it's fair to speculate and rank teams based on who you think would win the hypothetical game on a neutral field (which never happens by the way...how many neutral field games get played in D3?  It's basically just the one, right?).  But at the end of the season, I think you have to take what's been done by each team and evaluate those accomplishments.  For me, who you beat matters an awful lot.  In this instance, Wabash beat at least one team better than anybody St. John's beat (reflected in the rankings), and maybe two or three teams better than anybody St. John's beat (not reflected in the rankings...Wabash's opponents aren't the beneficiaries of pollster confirmation bias the way SJU's opponents are).   I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play. 

A case can be made for both our trains of thought. In the end, however, it gets pretty subjective. I'll respect your opinion, if you respect mine.

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?   

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

I think you guys have beaten this to death. I hardly think there is much evidence to put one over the other. If I was voting I'd probably have Wabash in front with one loss. But if Wabash played UST twice, there isn't much doubt in my mind they'd have two losses. So it is splitting hairs. There are thin differences and I think each fan base has a case. In the end, I think 1 loss is better than 2, and that's just unfortunate for SJU as far as it matters. Which is not very much at all...

Quote from: jknezek on December 18, 2015, 01:12:06 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

I think you guys have beaten this to death. I hardly think there is much evidence to put one over the other. If I was voting I'd probably have Wabash in front with one loss. But if Wabash played UST twice, there isn't much doubt in my mind they'd have two losses. So it is splitting hairs. There are thin differences and I think each fan base has a case. In the end, I think 1 loss is better than 2, and that's just unfortunate for SJU as far as it matters. Which is not very much at all...

It's forest and trees, jk.  That's my point.  The entire pro-SJU argument orbits around the results vs. UST.  And those results don't differentiate anything.  It's the rest of the results that do.

This is the annoying part of this part of the year.  The tournament games, and specifically the very last one you play, tends to trump everything that happened in the previous 2+ months.  That shouldn't be happening. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

Of course we're guessing.  Who is bigger, faster, stronger, smarter?  The objective statistics help a bit, but there just aren't enough common opponents to separate teams that are so close.  The computers couldn't tell that St. Thomas and Mount Union were 30 points better than Linfield or Whitewater.

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 01:26:26 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

Of course we're guessing.  Who is bigger, faster, stronger, smarter?  The objective statistics help a bit, but there just aren't enough common opponents to separate teams that are so close.  The computers couldn't tell that St. Thomas and Mount Union were 30 points better than Linfield or Whitewater.

They aren't that close though. That's what I'm saying.

 

Quote from: jknezek on December 18, 2015, 01:12:06 PM

I think you guys have beaten this to death.

Beaten to death is probably the biggest understatement ever made on these boards.

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 01:45:28 PM

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 01:26:26 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 12:02:11 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

Of course we're guessing.  Who is bigger, faster, stronger, smarter?  The objective statistics help a bit, but there just aren't enough common opponents to separate teams that are so close.  The computers couldn't tell that St. Thomas and Mount Union were 30 points better than Linfield or Whitewater.

They aren't that close though. That's what I'm saying.

There aren't that many people that are going to join you barking up that tree. There is a reason that most ranking programs use head to head and common opponent data at the top of their criteria list. Sure head to head is better, but common opponent is SIGNIFICANTLY more relevant than uncommon opponent data. You are trying to argue the opposite. That uncommon opponent data is at least, if not more, significant than common opponent. That is a very difficult argument to make.

Based on the single common opponent, I lean toward SJU a hair. Don't get me wrong, neither game was great, 21-7 deficit at home and 31-7 on the road the end of the third aren't exactly close games, but 38-0 at the end of the third is indisputably worse. Two touchdowns worse. That is somewhat significant regardless your argument. Up by 3 scores, yeah keep the starters in for a bit. Comeback isn't likely, but 3 possessions in the 4th quarter isn't unheard of. Up by 5 possessions? Game is a blowout.

Balance that out with your uncommon opponents however you want. It's certainly mitigating. TMC is most likely better than Gustie, but SJU beat Gustie and you beat TMC. You did make it a round deeper. You do have one fewer loss. Skimming the info? I'd probably put Wabash ahead of SJU just because winning does count. But is it a slam dunk? No.

And the SJU crowd clearly has a statistically significant argument for saying you are wrong. Skimming the data, Wabash ranks ahead. Looking at the most relevant data we have, a common opponent, I'm not so sure...

But there is definitely no right or wrong, and "they aren't that close" is something only a Wabash fan could think...

TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.  St. John's has brand name cachet and they come from a league that most people think is the best (I agree with that, btw...I just don't think that designation is worth very much).  That's a debate ender for most people.  For me it isn't- that's where the debate starts. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 02:20:51 PM
TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.  St. John's has brand name cachet and they come from a league that most people think is the best (I agree with that, btw...I just don't think that designation is worth very much).  That's a debate ender for most people.  For me it isn't- that's where the debate starts.

TMC beat my boys like a drum. You don't have to talk them up to me. That being said, I think you are short-changing people's ability to look at relevant information in your zeal for your team.

Quote from: jknezek on December 18, 2015, 02:28:08 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 02:20:51 PM
TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.  St. John's has brand name cachet and they come from a league that most people think is the best (I agree with that, btw...I just don't think that designation is worth very much).  That's a debate ender for most people.  For me it isn't- that's where the debate starts.

TMC beat my boys like a drum. You don't have to talk them up to me. That being said, I think you are short-changing people's ability to look at relevant information in your zeal for your team.

Pots and kettles and what not, right? 

If the argument that SJU is better than Wabash hinges on 38-19 being significantly different than 37-7, I reject that argument.  Those scores don't mean anything by themselves and completely free of game context. 

If the argument is that SJU's wins in their league are significantly better than wins Wabash had during the season, I reject that, too.  I don't know how different Gustavus, Bethel, Concordia, or Dubuque really are from DePauw, Wittenberg, Thomas More, Hampden-Sydney, or Albion.  Jumble all of those teams up and divvy them out in whatever way you want, you've got pretty similar schedule qualities. 

Quote from: jknezek on December 18, 2015, 02:15:08 PM
And the SJU crowd clearly has a statistically significant argument for saying you are wrong. Skimming the data, Wabash ranks ahead. Looking at the most relevant data we have, a common opponent, I'm not so sure...

What statistical argument is there for this?  Outside of the margin of defeat vs. UST, which is fool's gold, what else is there that SJU is a better team? 

Wabash stats (http://stats.ncaa.org/team/index/12240?org_id=747.0)

Saint John's stats (http://stats.ncaa.org/team/index/12240?org_id=602.0)

Take a look.  You let me know where the stats tell us that SJU > Wabash.  Frankly, the statistical argument is weaker than the exceptionally weak MOV vs. UST argument. 

If they both played the same teams, that would be a lot more dispositive. But, they didn't. And we're back where we started. Another thing you're missing is that the results vs UST is not the ONLY argument we're making. And, I'm done.

Wally... only you, and probably some other Wabash posters, want to completely ignore a 2 TD difference at the end of a 3rd quarter against a common opponent. That's significant. Only you want to ignore the fact that Wabash was incapable of scoring on STU's first team defense, something that SJU did in both games. Only you want to ignore the fact that Wabash gave up more points to STU's first team offense. Wabash got 12 first downs and 226 yards of offense against STU. SJU got 25% more first downs, and 40 more yards. SJU gave up fewer yards than Wabash. This is relevant "game context". 

You are simply ignoring the relevant COMMON opponent information you don't like in favor of UNCOMMON opponent information you do like. Common opponent information is better, and you are simply tossing it out. That's ludicrous.

I understand WAF and you won't give in on this. That's fine. If you can't face some of the most relevant facts, and only want to trade in the less relevant facts, that is your business.

As a non-partisan, I can look at both and decide these teams are probably pretty close in ability.

Quote from: jknezek on December 18, 2015, 02:28:08 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 02:20:51 PM
TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.  St. John's has brand name cachet and they come from a league that most people think is the best (I agree with that, btw...I just don't think that designation is worth very much).  That's a debate ender for most people.  For me it isn't- that's where the debate starts.

TMC beat my boys like a drum. You don't have to talk them up to me. That being said, I think you are short-changing people's ability to look at relevant information in your zeal for your team.

The Wabash SJU fight is certainly interesting. The back and forth is validated by Massey, what I believe to be the strongest computer rankings out there. It has held true to form for all but two games in the D3 playoffs and those were games where win probability was a little over 50% for the eventual loser, so it has been a very good barometer on who teams measure up. In this case Wabash is ahead by the tiny margin of .01, validating the back and forth going on here.

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cf&sub=NCAA-D3

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 02:20:51 PM
TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.

I can accept this if we also say that TMC is actually better than Wabash. A case can be made, maybe even a strong one based on standard home team differentials.

guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better. 

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 18, 2015, 11:05:36 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 02:20:51 PM
TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.

I can accept this if we also say that TMC is actually better than Wabash. A case can be made, maybe even a strong one based on standard home team differentials.

Um, no.  I don't know of anyone who gives a SIX point differential for home field.  Three seems pretty much the norm.

Of course by the attitude of some posters, it doesn't matter anyway.  UST is no better than whoever is the worst team this year in D3, since 2nd place is just the first loser (or as is invariably the case with such posters, the first 'looser', which may tell you all you need to know about such posters. :o ;D)

On my final posters' poll ballot I will have Wabash and SJU VERY close together, but haven't yet studied enough to decide where, but both will be above TMC.

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Did you forget you lost to Salisbury?  Nearly every play in that game says Wesley isn't #2.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 18, 2015, 11:23:22 PM

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 18, 2015, 11:05:36 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2015, 02:20:51 PM
TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.

I can accept this if we also say that TMC is actually better than Wabash. A case can be made, maybe even a strong one based on standard home team differentials.

Um, no.  I don't know of anyone who gives a SIX point differential for home field.  Three seems pretty much the norm

I presume that applies to regulation? Add 3 to TMC at regulation. Note that I am not seriously suggesting this, just presenting it for my amusement

Quote from: AO on December 18, 2015, 11:23:46 PM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Did you forget you lost to Salisbury?  Nearly every play in that game says Wesley isn't #2.

No, did not forget and not happy with it.  But maybe only 1 play in that game says that.

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.

I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

Quote from: pg04 on December 19, 2015, 06:10:50 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.



I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

having fun with it pg.  I know they will not jump to #2 in the rankings.  you are right the salisbury loss is bad.  as far as comparing games they are similar.  each team got smoked in a half, does it really matter which half?  STT will be ranked #2.  It will be interesting how the rest of it falls into place.

Quote from: wesleydad on December 19, 2015, 07:58:43 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 19, 2015, 06:10:50 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.



I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

having fun with it pg.  I know they will not jump to #2 in the rankings.  you are right the salisbury loss is bad.  as far as comparing games they are similar.  each team got smoked in a half, does it really matter which half?  STT will be ranked #2.  It will be interesting how the rest of it falls into place.

I think it does matter a bit which half it was, but you are right getting run off the field didn't look good for either.

Having seen a few of Wesley's games, I know they are in the elite status this year, so perhaps they are deserving of 3 (at highest although I doubt this will be it either). The case of Wesley vs. Linfield or Wesley vs. UWW seems more compelling to me. Now I really wish Wesley had been placed elsewhere in the bracket, just to see. Ah well, Wesley should be very proud of their season for sure.

Quote from: wesleydad on December 19, 2015, 07:58:43 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 19, 2015, 06:10:50 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.



I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

having fun with it pg.  I know they will not jump to #2 in the rankings.  you are right the salisbury loss is bad.  as far as comparing games they are similar.  each team got smoked in a half, does it really matter which half?  STT will be ranked #2.  It will be interesting how the rest of it falls into place.

That's what I don't get abou this. Your basing a LEAP to #2 based on a game in which Wesley was getting absolutely rolled 49-14 at the half and ended up still losing by 21. Never mind the lack of quality wins and a loss to Salisbury. Whitewater beat Morningside, Platteville, and Oshkosh. UST drubbed Wabash, Linfield, and SJU x2.

Might be want of the strangest arguments I've seen for leaping over teams I've seen. We were getting beat by 35 at halftime to a team and lost by 21, but it looked so cute in the process that we should jump 5-6 other teams.

Quote from: miac952 on December 19, 2015, 09:30:23 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 19, 2015, 07:58:43 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 19, 2015, 06:10:50 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.



I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

having fun with it pg.  I know they will not jump to #2 in the rankings.  you are right the salisbury loss is bad.  as far as comparing games they are similar.  each team got smoked in a half, does it really matter which half?  STT will be ranked #2.  It will be interesting how the rest of it falls into place.

That's what I don't get abou this. Your basing a LEAP to #2 based on a game in which Wesley was getting absolutely rolled 49-14 at the half and ended up still losing by 21. Never mind the lack of quality wins and a loss to Salisbury. Whitewater beat Morningside, Platteville, and Oshkosh. UST drubbed Wabash, Linfield, and SJU x2.

Might be want of the strangest arguments I've seen for leaping over teams I've seen. We were getting beat by 35 at halftime to a team and lost by 21, but it looked so cute in the process that we should jump 5-6 other teams.

Again,  does it really matter which half? Wesley outscored Mount 21-7 in the second half with a chance to make it a 7 pt game with 6 mins to go in the 4th, but was outplayed in the first. Just like UST was outplayed in the second half.

And you say lack of quality wins, but you failed to recall that Wesley beat NCC, who's top 15-20, and JHU who was top 10. Both of those games on the road.

Quote from: thewaterboy on December 19, 2015, 10:13:50 AM

Quote from: miac952 on December 19, 2015, 09:30:23 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 19, 2015, 07:58:43 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 19, 2015, 06:10:50 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.



I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

having fun with it pg.  I know they will not jump to #2 in the rankings.  you are right the salisbury loss is bad.  as far as comparing games they are similar.  each team got smoked in a half, does it really matter which half?  STT will be ranked #2.  It will be interesting how the rest of it falls into place.

That's what I don't get abou this. Your basing a LEAP to #2 based on a game in which Wesley was getting absolutely rolled 49-14 at the half and ended up still losing by 21. Never mind the lack of quality wins and a loss to Salisbury. Whitewater beat Morningside, Platteville, and Oshkosh. UST drubbed Wabash, Linfield, and SJU x2.

Might be want of the strangest arguments I've seen for leaping over teams I've seen. We were getting beat by 35 at halftime to a team and lost by 21, but it looked so cute in the process that we should jump 5-6 other teams.

Again,  does it really matter which half? Wesley outscored Mount 21-7 in the second half with a chance to make it a 7 pt game with 6 mins to go in the 4th, but was outplayed in the first. Just like UST was outplayed in the second half.

And you say lack of quality wins, but you failed to recall that Wesley beat NCC, who's top 15-20, and JHU who was top 10. Both of those games on the road.

My point was to use a game that was over at halftime for your argument to jump in the rankings is fruitless. And those two wins are nice but NC lost two other games and was not a playoff team. It's not beating a Wabash, Linfield, SJU, or Oshkosh. It's even more true looking at a really bad loss on the schedule to Salisbury. Does Wesley measure with teams 2-4? Yes, they would give each a ballgame. But a 2 loss team can't use a 21 point loss as the sole basis to jump a few teams.

Quote from: miac952 on December 19, 2015, 10:25:06 AM

Quote from: thewaterboy on December 19, 2015, 10:13:50 AM

Quote from: miac952 on December 19, 2015, 09:30:23 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 19, 2015, 07:58:43 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 19, 2015, 06:10:50 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.



I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

having fun with it pg.  I know they will not jump to #2 in the rankings.  you are right the salisbury loss is bad.  as far as comparing games they are similar.  each team got smoked in a half, does it really matter which half?  STT will be ranked #2.  It will be interesting how the rest of it falls into place.

That's what I don't get abou this. Your basing a LEAP to #2 based on a game in which Wesley was getting absolutely rolled 49-14 at the half and ended up still losing by 21. Never mind the lack of quality wins and a loss to Salisbury. Whitewater beat Morningside, Platteville, and Oshkosh. UST drubbed Wabash, Linfield, and SJU x2.

Might be want of the strangest arguments I've seen for leaping over teams I've seen. We were getting beat by 35 at halftime to a team and lost by 21, but it looked so cute in the process that we should jump 5-6 other teams.

Again,  does it really matter which half? Wesley outscored Mount 21-7 in the second half with a chance to make it a 7 pt game with 6 mins to go in the 4th, but was outplayed in the first. Just like UST was outplayed in the second half.

And you say lack of quality wins, but you failed to recall that Wesley beat NCC, who's top 15-20, and JHU who was top 10. Both of those games on the road.

My point was to use a game that was over at halftime for your argument to jump in the rankings is fruitless. And those two wins are nice NC lost two other games and east a playoff team. It's not beating a Wabash, Linfield, SJU, or Oshkosh. It's even more true looking at a really bad loss on the schedule to Salisbury. Does Wesley measure with 2-4? Yes, they would give each a ballgame. But a 2 loss team can't use a 21 point loss as the sole basis to jump a few teams.

Sorry but that game was not over at half. If it was, Wesley would have never played the second half the way they did. The Salisbury loss hurts but is not indicative of the overall quality of Wesley. 9 times out of 10 that result goes to Wesley based on the fact that they rolled up 600+ yards off offense in that game and that there were 2 drops by open receivers on Wesleys last drive. SJU didnt beat anyone, so how can you say with any certainty that the Tommies wins over them were better quality than Wesleys over NCC or JHU? Ill give you the other 2, even though Linfield played that game with a hurt Sam Riddle.

Sometimes all you have is the transitive property. UST did not show anything yesterday that proved they were better quality than Wesley 

Quote from: thewaterboy on December 19, 2015, 10:46:51 AM

Quote from: miac952 on December 19, 2015, 10:25:06 AM

Quote from: thewaterboy on December 19, 2015, 10:13:50 AM

Quote from: miac952 on December 19, 2015, 09:30:23 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 19, 2015, 07:58:43 AM

Quote from: pg04 on December 19, 2015, 06:10:50 AM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 18, 2015, 11:15:17 PM
guess the silly talk about st johns as a top 5 can stop.  and the real talk about where does Wesley end up start.  If UST is 2 than Wesley is 3, but I would flip them.  Nothing tonight says that UST is better.

Honestly just no. If you are going to make one game the end all be all (a game that Wesley was LOSING 49-14 at the half, as opposed to being tied at 14), the Salisbury game automatically disqualifies Wesley from being part of the conversation to be ahead of or equal to the Tommies. Even so, STT probably had 4 wins better than anything Wesley had (STJ twice, Wabash, Linfield). St Thomas and Mount were clearly the two best teams in the country.



I love the fire but this is just complete homer bluster.

having fun with it pg.  I know they will not jump to #2 in the rankings.  you are right the salisbury loss is bad.  as far as comparing games they are similar.  each team got smoked in a half, does it really matter which half?  STT will be ranked #2.  It will be interesting how the rest of it falls into place.

That's what I don't get abou this. Your basing a LEAP to #2 based on a game in which Wesley was getting absolutely rolled 49-14 at the half and ended up still losing by 21. Never mind the lack of quality wins and a loss to Salisbury. Whitewater beat Morningside, Platteville, and Oshkosh. UST drubbed Wabash, Linfield, and SJU x2.

Might be want of the strangest arguments I've seen for leaping over teams I've seen. We were getting beat by 35 at halftime to a team and lost by 21, but it looked so cute in the process that we should jump 5-6 other teams.

Again,  does it really matter which half? Wesley outscored Mount 21-7 in the second half with a chance to make it a 7 pt game with 6 mins to go in the 4th, but was outplayed in the first. Just like UST was outplayed in the second half.

And you say lack of quality wins, but you failed to recall that Wesley beat NCC, who's top 15-20, and JHU who was top 10. Both of those games on the road.

My point was to use a game that was over at halftime for your argument to jump in the rankings is fruitless. And those two wins are nice NC lost two other games and east a playoff team. It's not beating a Wabash, Linfield, SJU, or Oshkosh. It's even more true looking at a really bad loss on the schedule to Salisbury. Does Wesley measure with 2-4? Yes, they would give each a ballgame. But a 2 loss team can't use a 21 point loss as the sole basis to jump a few teams.

Sorry but that game was not over at half. If it was, Wesley would have never played the second half the way they did. The Salisbury loss hurts but is not indicative of the overall quality of Wesley. 9 times out of 10 that result goes to Wesley based on the fact that they rolled up 600+ yards off offense in that game and that there were 2 drops by open receivers on Wesleys last drive. SJU didnt beat anyone, so how can you say with any certainty that the Tommies wins over them were better quality than Wesleys over NCC or JHU? Ill give you the other 2, even though Linfield played that game with a hurt Sam Riddle.

Sometimes all you have is the transitive property. UST did not show anything yesterday that proved they were better quality than Wesley

49-14 at the half to Mount is all she wrote. Down 35 at the half to the #1 team in the country is as over as it can get. Great for Wesley to keep fighting. Shows some mettle. But they still got walloped by 21 points. If that's our sole resume bullet point then there isn't much.

Agree that UST showed little to get excited about in the 2nd half. But once again I wasn't aware rankings throw out the previous 14 GAMES. And we want to jump a team with 2 losses over a team with one loss because there 21 point loss was cuter than UST's 14 point loss.

Never mind the fact that Linfield, Whitewater, and MHB also have some stronger arguments too. If #2 is some big goal of Wesley's than don't lose to Salisbury and don't worked over by the mighty Mount before the teams even get tot the locker room at halftime.

Here's an interesting set of numbers:

D1 Semifinals
Alabama 38 - 0 Michigan State
Clemson 37- 17 Oklahoma

FCS Semifinals
Jacksonville St 58 - Charleston Southern 38
North Dakota St 23 - UNI 13

D2 Semifinals
N'west Mo St  38 -- 23 West Georgia
Shepherd 34 -- Grand Valley St 32

D3 Semifinals
Mount Union 36 - 6 UWW
St. Thomas 38 - 17 Linfield

Only one of these games was a really good game, and the winner of that game was shellacked in the finals (DII -- Shepherd got creamed). Otherwise, not one other semifinal was within one score. Interesting how that happened this year, but it seems like throughout college football the finalist teams are a significant cut above everyone else.

Quote from: jknezek on January 04, 2016, 09:57:19 AM
Only one of these games was a really good game, and the winner of that game was shellacked in the finals (DII -- Shepherd got creamed). Otherwise, not one other semifinal was within one score. Interesting how that happened this year, but it seems like throughout college football the finalist teams are a significant cut above everyone else.

As fan of the college football and no real rooting interests, this was just a very depressing weekend.  There weren't any good games to speak of, certainly not the marquee games.  The one or two that were competitive weren't particularly compelling (hard to get geared up for a day full of exhibition games the day after the semifinals). 

As far as the scores of the semis go, I think you see a clear line of demarcation in the FCS/D2/D3 levels.  With the FBS semis, it's a bit harder to decide if these scores are functions of team talent/coaching gaps or a function of any of the who-knows-what happens when you take a month off between games.  In the tournament divisions, you don't get the time off which I think is a better way of doing this business. 

There were some truly pitiful FBS games this weekend. But I enjoyed the TCU game and the Penn State game. Other than that, kind of a dud. Oklahoma was a disappointment, Michigan St was about as competitive as I expected. Iowa was ugly, much to my brother-in-law's dismay (he's an Iowa grad). Michigan killing FL was interesting if not entertaining. Ohio St - Notre Dame should have been better. But yeah, it's an odd system and I think what FBS feared is coming to pass. All the casual fans care about are the semifinal games and the rest of the bowls are more time fillers. But I'd rather watch the time fillers than most of what else is on TV...

Quote from: jknezek on January 04, 2016, 09:57:19 AM
Here's an interesting set of numbers:

D1 Semifinals
Alabama 38 - 0 Michigan State
Clemson 37- 17 Oklahoma

FCS Semifinals
Jacksonville St 58 - Charleston Southern 38
North Dakota St 23 - UNI 13

D2 Semifinals
N'west Mo St  38 -- 23 West Georgia
Shepherd 34 -- Grand Valley St 32

D3 Semifinals
Mount Union 36 - 6 UWW
St. Thomas 38 - 17 Linfield

Only one of these games was a really good game, and the winner of that game was shellacked in the finals (DII -- Shepherd got creamed). Otherwise, not one other semifinal was within one score. Interesting how that happened this year, but it seems like throughout college football the finalist teams are a significant cut above everyone else.

Those were the FCS quarters.  The Semis were bigger blowouts. 
Jacksonville State 62-10 Sam Houston State
NDSU 33-7 Richmond.

A lot of blowouts, but the teams are close enough in talent that if they played again, they might not be blowouts.  Personally, I could watch Iowa getting stomped all day. :D

There are obviously too many of these games.  But if we're going to insist on having these games, they need to wrap up the entirety of the undercard then let the semis and the championship be the last three games of the season. 

And this Oregonian did NOT enjoy the TCU game.  Buh-rutal.  Not sure how a major FBS team doesn't have more than one guy on the roster that can execute a shotgun snap, but Oregon doesn't and they lost because of it. 

Quote from: AO on January 04, 2016, 11:04:06 AM
Those were the FCS quarters.  The Semis were bigger blowouts. 
Jacksonville State 62-10 Sam Houston State
NDSU 33-7 Richmond.

A lot of blowouts, but the teams are close enough in talent that if they played again, they might not be blowouts.  Personally, I could watch Iowa getting stomped all day. :D

Interestingly, Iowa is playing NDSU next year for reasons that make, like, negative sense.  I understand that the Iowa AD is a NDSU grad (or vice versa), but that's a no-win situation for Iowa.  Win (by whatever margin), and nobody cares.  Lose, and you're the new Michigan from the Michigan/App State debacle.  Not smart. 

Quote from: AO on January 04, 2016, 11:04:06 AM

Quote from: jknezek on January 04, 2016, 09:57:19 AM
Here's an interesting set of numbers:

D1 Semifinals
Alabama 38 - 0 Michigan State
Clemson 37- 17 Oklahoma

FCS Semifinals
Jacksonville St 58 - Charleston Southern 38
North Dakota St 23 - UNI 13

D2 Semifinals
N'west Mo St  38 -- 23 West Georgia
Shepherd 34 -- Grand Valley St 32

D3 Semifinals
Mount Union 36 - 6 UWW
St. Thomas 38 - 17 Linfield

Only one of these games was a really good game, and the winner of that game was shellacked in the finals (DII -- Shepherd got creamed). Otherwise, not one other semifinal was within one score. Interesting how that happened this year, but it seems like throughout college football the finalist teams are a significant cut above everyone else.

Those were the FCS quarters.  The Semis were bigger blowouts. 
Jacksonville State 62-10 Sam Houston State
NDSU 33-7 Richmond.

A lot of blowouts, but the teams are close enough in talent that if they played again, they might not be blowouts.  Personally, I could watch Iowa getting stomped all day. :D

I thought those FCS scores weren't what I remembered. +K for the correction. As for Iowa, I really don't care, but my B-I-L sure does!

Quote from: wally_wabash on January 04, 2016, 11:14:12 AM
Interestingly, Iowa is playing NDSU next year for reasons that make, like, negative sense.  I understand that the Iowa AD is a NDSU grad (or vice versa), but that's a no-win situation for Iowa.  Win (by whatever margin), and nobody cares.  Lose, and you're the new Michigan from the Michigan/App State debacle.  Not smart.

Any non-conference game against an bottom half team in the FBS is a no-win situation.  Nobody is impressed with beating North Texas.  You at least get better by playing NDSU.

As an SEC fan, the Alabama Mich State game was totally what I expected.

I may have SEC blinders on, but I think that Urban Meyer beat Alabama last year by playing knowing how to play SEC-football.

I don't think that MSU was quite ready for an SEC opponent of Alabama's caliber.

Alabama Clemson should be fun!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 08, 2016, 05:24:46 PM
As an SEC fan, the Alabama Mich State game was totally what I expected.

I may have SEC blinders on, but I think that Urban Meyer beat Alabama last year by playing knowing how to play SEC-football.

I don't think that MSU was quite ready for an SEC opponent of Alabama's caliber.

Alabama Clemson should be fun!

Then how do you explain Michigan blowing out Florida far worse than Alabama did?  Jim Harbaugh has no SEC experience.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 08, 2016, 07:03:59 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 08, 2016, 05:24:46 PM
As an SEC fan, the Alabama Mich State game was totally what I expected.

I may have SEC blinders on, but I think that Urban Meyer beat Alabama last year by playing knowing how to play SEC-football.

I don't think that MSU was quite ready for an SEC opponent of Alabama's caliber.

Alabama Clemson should be fun!

Then how do you explain Michigan blowing out Florida far worse than Alabama did?  Jim Harbaugh has no SEC experience.

Because Harbaugh is a really good coach, Michigan got better almost every week, and the Wolverines had something to prove in that bowl game (yes, everyone else is tired of hearing how good the SEC is and wants to take them down a peg!). Florida, on the other hand, was not that good a team on average (really good defense, really awful offense), and the defense, which absolutely carried them every game this year, had zero desire to play a bowl game all by themselves. They got up for the SEC title game, it was a (very low) chance to make the playoffs, prove a conference point, and win a meaningful trophy. The WhoCares.com bowl was just standing in the way of a veteran and tired defense going pro that knew it would get no help from the offense.

But was the Florida/Michigan game a real indicator of all SEC teams versus all Big10 teams? No. Just the same way AL/Mich State wasn't either. Or the embarrassment for the Big10 that was Iowa in the Rose Bowl. Or the massive difference in quality between the SEC East, which isn't any better than any other Power 5 division in any other conference, and the SEC West, which is, unfortunately, the deepest division in college football.

SEC East is getting better. when Saban retires East will have a shot at a NC. About five years down the road