D3boards.com

Thought that starting a new thread specific to the 2016 playoffs would make sense...

It is looking to me like there are any number of teams truly in the hunt for the national title... right now we have zero idea of how good is MUC but their resume speaks for itself... 3 teams from the WIAC are title contenders but it doesn't look all that good for UWP to get in... The MIAC has St Thomas who hasn't been as impressive this season as last and then St Johns and Concordia look to be battling for a Pool C spot... UMHB and HSU battled to a 5 point game.. North Central and Wheaton are from the traditionally tough CCIW.  Linfield is going to be tough, Johns Hopkins has had all sorts of success in the regular season and might this be the year that translates into a run in the playoffs...

I agree. This season feels more wide open than years previous. I was just looking through tournaments past, and typically there were only two or three teams that would have better than 10% odds of winning the championship based on my ratings, but right now (and this could change drastically based on draws) there are 5 teams with better than 10% odds: IST, UMU, UWW, UWO, and UMHB, with Linfield and some others hovering around 5%.

Could this be the year a Pool B/C wins it all?

Was the NWC an auto-bid conference when PLU and Linfield won? I know they had some years they weren't.

With 2 Top 5 teams coming from B/C, it seems more likely than most years.

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 04, 2016, 03:49:04 PM
It is looking to me like there are any number of teams truly in the hunt for the national title... right now we have zero idea of how good is MUC but their resume speaks for itself... 3 teams from the WIAC are title contenders but it doesn't look all that good for UWP to get in... The MIAC has St Thomas who hasn't been as impressive this season as last and then St Johns and Concordia look to be battling for a Pool C spot... UMHB and HSU battled to a 5 point game.. North Central and Wheaton are from the traditionally tough CCIW.  Linfield is going to be tough, Johns Hopkins has had all sorts of success in the regular season and might this be the year that translates into a run in the playoffs...

JHU's road would go through Alliance and I don't think that's conducive to a "run" for them. 

If you're looking for a team nobody is talking about, I'll take Saint John's or an E8 team.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 04, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Was the NWC an auto-bid conference when PLU and Linfield won? I know they had some years they weren't.

With 2 Top 5 teams coming from B/C, it seems more likely than most years.

I'm fairly sure the NWC was not an auto-bid league until at least 2006.

back in the day ,  1999,  PLU was the second place team in the NWC that year 4-1, 
they beat EVERYBODY ON the road to salem, OR and Salem , VA. :-* even the NWC Champ.bearkitties.. 5-0   :)  ture road warrior's.. 8-)

thats what it was like on the Island back then..  "Life was a beach" 8-)

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 04, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Was the NWC an auto-bid conference when PLU and Linfield won? I know they had some years they weren't.

With 2 Top 5 teams coming from B/C, it seems more likely than most years.

Autobids started the year PLU won it but they (as has been said) were the 2nd place team that year and the NWC had no autobid.  In 2004, the NWC may have had the autobid--that year we had two teams (in a 28 team field) make the playoffs and Menlo had been part of the conference for a 3 years by then---so I think we had an autobid but can't find anywhere to confirm it.....

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2016, 08:31:24 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 04, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Was the NWC an auto-bid conference when PLU and Linfield won? I know they had some years they weren't.

With 2 Top 5 teams coming from B/C, it seems more likely than most years.

Autobids started the year PLU won it but they (as has been said) were the 2nd place team that year and the NWC had no autobid.  In 2004, the NWC may have had the autobid--that year we had two teams (in a 28 team field) make the playoffs and Menlo had been part of the conference for a 3 years by then---so I think we had an autobid but can't find anywhere to confirm it.....

Part of the reason I only went back to 2005 when I was trying to find trends for Pool C teams. I know they had an auto-bid on 2005 and lost it after Lewis and Clark dropped football for a year.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 04, 2016, 08:55:12 PM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 04, 2016, 08:31:24 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 04, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Was the NWC an auto-bid conference when PLU and Linfield won? I know they had some years they weren't.

With 2 Top 5 teams coming from B/C, it seems more likely than most years.

Autobids started the year PLU won it but they (as has been said) were the 2nd place team that year and the NWC had no autobid.  In 2004, the NWC may have had the autobid--that year we had two teams (in a 28 team field) make the playoffs and Menlo had been part of the conference for a 3 years by then---so I think we had an autobid but can't find anywhere to confirm it.....

Conferences have needed to have 7 members to earn an Auto-bid. (The 7 may be be comprised of 4 full members and 3 affiliates). The Northwest

Part of the reason I only went back to 2005 when I was trying to find trends for Pool C teams. I know they had an auto-bid on 2005 and lost it after Lewis and Clark dropped football for a year.

Conference did not have 7 full members until the 2006 season.  I think that is the first year for Pool A for the NWC

Quote from: pirat on November 11, 2007, 01:40:52 PM
Yes Bob next year they will have AQ status.  But, I am greedy and want to get 2 or maybe 3 (E8 this year?????? wow) of our teams in.

From the 2007 Playoff Message Board

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2016, 08:50:15 PM

Quote from: pirat on November 11, 2007, 01:40:52 PM
Yes Bob next year they will have AQ status.  But, I am greedy and want to get 2 or maybe 3 (E8 this year?????? wow) of our teams in.

From the 2007 Playoff Message Board

Should've saved that for #TBT, Ralph!  WOW, 9 years!

So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Well,since everyone disagrees on the polls and what polls to use, then I think we have the best system in all of football. Of course seeding would be great. It would be in all sports. Alas.

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

On the other hand, obviously we all wish money were not a factor and the field would be bracketed appropriately.  Also, when it comes to Pool C teams, personally I would prefer a system that puts the best (most competitive) 6 teams in after the conference champions (although I guess my exception would be an undefeated non Pool A/B).  I think both the criteria and the process used to fill the Pool C spots is suspect at best.

With so little data points between conferences, it's really hard to do a comparison, especially since many 10-team (or more) leagues play their non-conference game as their first game of the season. You really shouldn't penalize teams for playing their league schedule, especially since I think most all conferences are great fits for their institutions in location and degree of athletics importance.

I think many of us think we KNOW, but do we? (I mean, it's 90% probability that Platteville is better than Muhlenberg, but we can't be totally certain, and I'd be more cautious really before putting down money on it.)

But the OWP / OOWP thing isn't a real SOS. I'm sure with people like Logan Hansen around, we could get them a better one...

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 07, 2016, 09:48:48 PM

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

On the other hand, obviously we all wish money were not a factor and the field would be bracketed appropriately.  Also, when it comes to Pool C teams, personally I would prefer a system that puts the best (most competitive) 6 teams in after the conference champions (although I guess my exception would be an undefeated non Pool A/B).  I think both the criteria and the process used to fill the Pool C spots is suspect at best.

Centre was 10-0 2 years ago and left on the table..FYI. But well said

Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 07, 2016, 10:12:37 PM

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 07, 2016, 09:48:48 PM

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

On the other hand, obviously we all wish money were not a factor and the field would be bracketed appropriately.  Also, when it comes to Pool C teams, personally I would prefer a system that puts the best (most competitive) 6 teams in after the conference champions (although I guess my exception would be an undefeated non Pool A/B).  I think both the criteria and the process used to fill the Pool C spots is suspect at best.

Centre was 10-0 2 years ago and left on the table..FYI. But well said

In 2014 Center was indeed 10-0 but they were in the playoffs and lost to John Carroll in the first round

I don't think we've had a non-NESCAC undefeated team miss the playoffs since the pool system was started.

My fault, some reason thought they were left out

Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2016, 09:56:22 PM
But the OWP / OOWP thing isn't a real SOS. I'm sure with people like Logan Hansen around, we could get them a better one...

Logan has a good blog post on this topic, actually. 

Quote from: HansenRatings on October 19, 2016, 10:50:52 AM
As an aside, here's why the NCAA SoS metric is garbage (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/single-post/2016/03/13/A-Treatise-on-Strength-of-Schedule).

Quote from: smedindy on November 07, 2016, 10:28:45 PM
I don't think we've had a non-NESCAC undefeated team miss the playoffs since the pool system was started.

No, I think you have to go way, way back to when the field was really small and there were no AQs.  Certainly, in the current format, an undefeated team has not been left out, nor should they be. 

Quote from: RtSLl3100 on November 07, 2016, 10:29:09 PM
My fault, some reason thought they were left out

There was cause for concern about Centre in 2014 when the last published regional rankings had Centre lingering far enough back that they probably would not have gotten in (indeed, my projection from that week (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2014/projected-bracket-version-one) had Centre not even making the at-large conversation).  Fortunately sanity prevailed in the final rankings and Centre was rightly in, even if they got thumped in Round 1. 

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

And applaud the nearly 20 + programs that have added D3 football to gain access to a conference's Pool A bid.

It is an achievable goal to win a conference championship against your peer institutions.

Less than 2% of D3 programs have won a National Championship in the 21st Century.

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.

Which would effectively abolish the AQs. To me, if you do that, it feels like you're making winning non-conference games (to build a strong resume) more important than winning conference games (to win an AQ), which is the opposite of how I feel it should be.

And actually, this year I think there will only be one AQ with 3+ losses, and usually there's at least a few. (Incidentally, if they take care of business next week, it will be my team! ;D)

Hansen's citation of 2011 Illinois College is a bitter memory as they were presumably selected over 9-1 CWRU. I wonder what CWRU'S 2011 SoS would have been using his method?

I have to agree that the current method of selecting teams is probably the best used by any division. NAIA has the Top 25 stipulation, but they have only about a third as many teams as DIII, so for a conference champion to be unranked, they have to be truly awful. DII doesn't have any AQ's, and some years half of the conferences in the country are left without a playoff team.

While I like computer model to try to figure out which teams are probably better, I'm a huge believer in letting the teams decide by their play on the field. Give every team a path to the playoffs, have established criteria for selection, and let the resumes speak for themselves. Yeah, if there's a consensus among more advanced models that UW-Platteville is better than Muhlenberg, we probably have a pretty good idea who would win in a matchup, but we also know that there's going to be at least two teams in the field who have already proven on the field that they're better than UW-Platteville.

I have a friend who coaches HS in South Dakota, which uses some sort of "Quality of Wins Index" as their first criteria for playoff selection. My friends team had two losses, and a 3-loss team who they had beaten H2H got in ahead of them. Simply relying on spreadsheets to do your selections for you is more likely to have baffling results like this.

(I have slightly tweaked my SOS numbers since that post, and CWRU would have had an SOS of 0.470 with an NCAA SOS of 0.481, Ill. Col. is at 0.343/0.493)

I shared this on the ER Playoff discussion board. I think that we should have an extra week with the top seeds having a bye-week. I think we should increase from 7 to 8 teams for automatic bid. However, I think 1st round games should be paid by the schools and the 1st round should definitely be under a certain mileage. If a school doesn't want to pay for the 1st round, they forfeit. Although I think schools would be less likely more than ever to schedule OOC games outside of their region, this process would award top teams and teams that schedule strong OOC games.

Quote from: D3MAFAN on November 08, 2016, 09:48:27 AM
I shared this on the ER Playoff discussion board. I think that we should have an extra week with the top seeds having a bye-week. I think we should increase from 7 to 8 teams for automatic bid. However, I think 1st round games should be paid by the schools and the 1st round should definitely be under a certain mileage. If a school doesn't want to pay for the 1st round, they forfeit. Although I think schools would be less likely more than ever to schedule OOC games outside of their region, this process would award top teams and teams that schedule strong OOC games.

Pay to play is pretty offensive, isn't it?  You can play for a national championship if you can buy your way in?  Hard pass. 

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 07, 2016, 09:48:48 PM

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 07, 2016, 09:04:43 PM
So do we gripe this year about the AQ's for teams from non-competitive conferences who provide first round speed bumps (or in some cases 2nd round speed bumps when they are paired against each other in Round 1) or simply accept that is the nature of D3 and move on?

I will always be of the belief that an AQ should only count if a team is ranked in the Top 25 (from whatever polls are in use).  If a team isn't ranked then the AQ goes to pool C.  I'd be much happier with the AQ system if the teams were seeded 1-32 and the bracket was scheduled accordingly.  As it is right now we have a system that is set up for for many great early round matchups that should be in the quarters at worst (but that won't happen unless I win the Powerball and pay for it myself :) ).

Actually, the first half of your preferred system won't happen even if you DO pay for it. I think the value of access is strong. So much of this depends of viewpoint.  While it would be possible to put together a far more COMPETITIVE bracket than the current system produces, there is something really cool (to me) about every team in the country having a path to the national championship when the season begins.  Has there ever been an undefeated team that did not make the tournament? I hope not. No matter how non-competitive you and I may believe they will be against the big boys, if they have never been beaten on the football field, I want them to have their shot. Teams 33 and 34 and others will always be disappointed and may have a great case as to why they should have been in the playoffs. But complain as they may, they have at least one loss on the field to point to as to why they really didn't get in. 

Absolutely.  The AQ is one of the best things about the D3 playoffs for exactly this reason: every single team starts the season with a path to the playoffs (and, in theory, the title).  Sure, actually winning the national title is a pipe dream for all but about 5 schools, but that's no reason to exclude everyone else from the playoffs entirely, and most can at least dream of winning a game before they run into a buzzsaw.  Every alternative system or modification proposed has one or more things that I dislike far more than the current Pool A system:

- teams must be ranked in the top 25 or in the regional rankings to get an AQ bid: I think we all recognize the subjectivity inherent in either of these options.  It's hard to pin down a good "top 25" poll to use, and the simple fact is that there's not nearly enough inter-regional play in Division III to have a meaningful idea how to rank, say, Case Western versus Redlands versus Hobart versus Frostburg State as the season draws to a close.  The top 25 is a fun exercise and we all enjoy reading it, but if those last handful of spots became crucial to the playoff selection process you'd start to see some funky voting behavior, methinks.  If a team like Redlands (likely to win the SCIAC) sits in the others-receiving-votes section behind Case Western and Frostburg State, it's not like we really have any data to support that; there are zero common opponents and probably not even any two-degrees-of-separation results.  It's a complete guess, and I'm completely uncomfortable with the idea that a league champion teetering on the edge of the top 25 could be left out because we just can't figure out whether to rank them ahead of teams with absolutely no common data.

And while the RR's are already part of the Pool C process, requiring an RR to get an AQ seems like it would encourage further monkey business around the bottom of the rankings.  Take this week's justifiably controversial ranking of Northwestern (Minn) in the West RR's.  The committee would now, in the back of their minds at least, know that the decision of whether to rank Northwestern or a strong runner-up from a different league has profound implications for both AQ (does the UMAC champ actually get a bid?) and the at-large picture (by giving or not giving an RRO result to one of the teams at the top jockeying for position in overall seeding).  Instead of focusing on just ranking the teams, they would know for certain that their decision to rank or not rank Northwestern in the final RR's would determine Northwestern's playoff fate.  Not a big fan of that becoming part of the regional committee's responsibility.

- minimum number of losses: my biggest problem with this is that it would discourage teams in those lesser leagues from playing up.  We've seen a nice trend from the MIAA recently where teams like Albion and Adrian have been willing to step up a class and play teams like Wabash, St. John Fisher, UW-Stevens Point, some other WIAC and CCIW teams.  As one of the more evenly-matched leagues in D3, the MIAA also tends to have some league-play carnage (seriously, check out the standings from one year to the next...) and occasionally ends up with a champion that's carrying one or two losses in league play.  If they know that being 6-4 or 7-3 is a disqualifier for receiving an auto-bid, doesn't that turn them back into filling the schedule with other creampuffs to make sure that they finish at least 8-2 or 9-1 should they win the league.

Quote from: D3MAFAN on November 08, 2016, 09:48:27 AM
I shared this on the ER Playoff discussion board. I think that we should have an extra week with the top seeds having a bye-week. I think we should increase from 7 to 8 teams for automatic bid. However, I think 1st round games should be paid by the schools and the 1st round should definitely be under a certain mileage. If a school doesn't want to pay for the 1st round, they forfeit. Although I think schools would be less likely more than ever to schedule OOC games outside of their region, this process would award top teams and teams that schedule strong OOC games.

Some schools are stretched on budgets already, and an extra travel day would kill them.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 08, 2016, 10:57:54 AM
- minimum number of losses: my biggest problem with this is that it would discourage teams in those lesser leagues from playing up.  We've seen a nice trend from the MIAA recently where teams like Albion and Adrian have been willing to step up a class and play teams like Wabash, St. John Fisher, UW-Stevens Point, some other WIAC and CCIW teams.  As one of the more evenly-matched leagues in D3, the MIAA also tends to have some league-play carnage (seriously, check out the standings from one year to the next...) and occasionally ends up with a champion that's carrying one or two losses in league play.  If they know that being 6-4 or 7-3 is a disqualifier for receiving an auto-bid, doesn't that turn them back into filling the schedule with other creampuffs to make sure that they finish at least 8-2 or 9-1 should they win the league.

I agree totally. If you win the league, you're in. I'd rather schedule aspirationally than defensively.

I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?
 

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?

It depends precisely what the "change" is.

Reference my earlier post: if the change was "No team with three or more losses can get an AQ" then no, I think those leagues would absolutely not start scheduling better non-conference opponents.  Why would Albion, typically an MIAA contender, schedule games with Wabash and UW-Stevens Point if that put them at risk of going 7-3 or 6-4 and missing out even if they won their league?  It would have the direct opposite effect.  Nobody would ever want to step out and play tough non-league games because, without the safety net of guaranteed Pool A for winning a league, staying above that cutoff would be critical.

If the change was "A team must appear in the final regional rankings" or something of that nature...much tougher to tell.

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?

All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 01:22:24 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?m

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?

All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by.

Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 01:22:24 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?m

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?

All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by.

Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.

If they wanted to enjoy the playoffs that badly, they were welcome to go play for Lakeland.

*edited for clarity

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:38:28 PM
Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.

Denison beat Wittenberg, but Wittenberg is going to play in the tournament and Denison is not.  Is that fair?  Of course it is.  Does it suck for the players that get that close but don't get in?  Sure does, but that's the game. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 01:22:24 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?m

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?

All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by.

Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.

First of all, I thought we all agreed never to speak of that awful day ever again. ;D

But Platteville also enjoys advantages in that scenario. A second place team in the WIAC is very likely to get in, where a Lakeland or a Benedictine has no such safety net. And that second place WIAC team, due to the strong conference they play in, won't have to play a powerhouse on the road in the 1st round, while Lakeland is likely headed to Whitewater (and rightfully so).

You have to be careful to qualify your examples. The John Carroll one hard to quantify because there are probably 220 teams that could lose to UWO and UMU the way John Carroll did (and is about to presumably). That's why we have to focus on who you beat as well. Just because JCU lost to only those two teams doesn't make any kind of argument they should be considered in a playoff field. It seems to me a team like Wabash, should they win this weekend, has only one loss to a playoff team (Witt) and will have defeated 2 other teams that are better than any of the wins that JCU has put up. The current system isn't recognizing that either. The Lakeland example is much more illustrative but also limiting, as Wally points out, because there are going to be teams in the playoffs that lost to other teams that are not in the playoffs. hopefully not 0-56.  (e.g. Ohio State may well be in the CFP after losing to Indiana). For the purpose it serves, the AQ system currently seems fairly efficient in establishing a playoff field. There is nothing wrong with conversation and trying to find a better solution though, admittedly, I haven't seen one yet.

Tons of great conversation which is great!

Is there a minimum number of Pool C bids that should always be available out of the 32 teams?  If more schools add football that would seem to potentially increase the number of AQ conferences to the point that there are few if any Pool C bids.

And many of the current AQ conferences have had terrible results in the playoffs year after year. I'm not sure that winning a conference is good enough of a criteria by itself when there are going to be fewer and fewer Pool C bids.

Do we shorten the regular season to 9 games? Add an extra round to the playoffs?  Give the Top 6 seeds of each bracket a bye.  Add 16 more teams to the bracket. It would seem highly unlikely that any of the last 16 teams would play more than 2 extra games (if teams were seeded relatively accurately.. UWP this year would be at worst a 3 seed for example...). 

Maybe teams pay to host in the Play-in Round as well as Round 1?

Doesn't the NCAA have a desired ratio in terms of teams and playoff berths?

UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
Tons of great conversation which is great!

Is there a minimum number of Pool C bids that should always be available out of the 32 teams?  If more schools add football that would seem to potentially increase the number of AQ conferences to the point that there are few if any Pool C bids.

And many of the current AQ conferences have had terrible results in the playoffs year after year. I'm not sure that winning a conference is good enough of a criteria by itself when there are going to be fewer and fewer Pool C bids.

Do we shorten the regular season to 9 games? Add an extra round to the playoffs?  Give the Top 6 seeds of each bracket a bye.  Add 16 more teams to the bracket. It would seem highly unlikely that any of the last 16 teams would play more than 2 extra games (if teams were seeded relatively accurately.. UWP this year would be at worst a 3 seed for example...). 

Maybe teams pay to host in the Play-in Round as well as Round 1?

Doesn't the NCAA have a desired ratio in terms of teams and playoff berths?

UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

As long as there are 2 pool C bids I don't have a problem with the current format. Do you need some breathing room? Yes. But how much do you need? UWP is going to be 3rd in their conference. Not really needed to determine a National Champion when you are third in your conference. Don't care they are top 10 in the polls, if you finish 3rd in your conference you aren't really part of the national title chase. Sure a lot of the Pool A bids aren't either, but we don't KNOW that. They won their conference, so no one in their conference, let alone 2 teams in their conference, aren't already demonstrably better on the field.

We aren't going to 9 games. It's not fair to the vast majority of student athletes to play fewer games so only a small percentage can play one more. Not a good concept.

Pay to play sucks. How does that have anything to do with how good a team is and whether they have done enough to compete in the tournament? It doesn't. It's a horrible idea that has nothing to do with sports.

A desired ratio? I don't know. An access ratio, yes. Conference needs 7 teams. I expect that number will go up by 2 in the next decade or so if we keep expanding. That will set off another round of combinations and free up a few spots once it becomes critical.

Earned Access has some merit, but I'm not sure how to define it. I could easily see the Regional Ranking Committee's making sure this concept doesn't work well by playing with the bottom of the regions. No region has more than 10 conferences, so it would be easy to do. Using Polls is a bad idea. The polls simply aren't accountable and each one is different. That's why the BCS did away with them and turned to a committee.

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

We don't have any idea whether or not this is true.  We don't know who the ten best teams are and we won't know even after the tournament is over.   We're just guessing.  Platteville lost two games in a universe where win percentage is one of the 2-3 biggest slices of selection criteria.  Platteville didn't win a game against anybody who is going to be ranked.  They finished in third place in their own league.  I happen to be of the opinion that Platteville probably should be in the tournament, but if they aren't, it is hardly a travesty. 

You keep wanting to make this tournament something that it is not.  You want the best 32 teams, whatever "best" means (as far as I can tell, it means teams that play in the 4-5 leagues that you think are good and basically nobody else).  But that's not the goal of this tournament.  It is a tournament of champions, no matter how much you think somebody else's champion stinks.  It's not the best 32 teams, it's never aspired to be the best 32 teams, and it's never posed as the best 32 teams. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 04:38:14 PM

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

We don't have any idea whether or not this is true.  We don't know who the ten best teams are and we won't know even after the tournament is over.   We're just guessing.  Platteville lost two games in a universe where win percentage is one of the 2-3 biggest slices of selection criteria.  Platteville didn't win a game against anybody who is going to be ranked.  They finished in third place in their own league.  I happen to be of the opinion that Platteville probably should be in the tournament, but if they aren't, it is hardly a travesty. 

You keep wanting to make this tournament something that it is not.  You want the best 32 teams, whatever "best" means (as far as I can tell, it means teams that play in the 4-5 leagues that you think are good and basically nobody else).  But that's not the goal of this tournament.  It is a tournament of champions, no matter how much you think somebody else's champion stinks.  It's not the best 32 teams, it's never aspired to be the best 32 teams, and it's never posed as the best 32 teams.

I think everybody's missing the consequences to the regular season.  We've had some great matchups between Whitewater-Oshkosh-Platteville and St. Thomas-St. John's-Concordia, but they wouldn't have near the importance or fun if all six teams made it to the playoffs.

Quote from: jknezek on November 08, 2016, 04:15:17 PM

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
Tons of great conversation which is great!

Is there a minimum number of Pool C bids that should always be available out of the 32 teams?  If more schools add football that would seem to potentially increase the number of AQ conferences to the point that there are few if any Pool C bids.

And many of the current AQ conferences have had terrible results in the playoffs year after year. I'm not sure that winning a conference is good enough of a criteria by itself when there are going to be fewer and fewer Pool C bids.

Do we shorten the regular season to 9 games? Add an extra round to the playoffs?  Give the Top 6 seeds of each bracket a bye.  Add 16 more teams to the bracket. It would seem highly unlikely that any of the last 16 teams would play more than 2 extra games (if teams were seeded relatively accurately.. UWP this year would be at worst a 3 seed for example...). 

Maybe teams pay to host in the Play-in Round as well as Round 1?

Doesn't the NCAA have a desired ratio in terms of teams and playoff berths?

UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

As long as there are 2 pool C bids I don't have a problem with the current format. Do you need some breathing room? Yes. But how much do you need? UWP is going to be 3rd in their conference. Not really needed to determine a National Champion when you are third in your conference. Don't care they are top 10 in the polls, if you finish 3rd in your conference you aren't really part of the national title chase. Sure a lot of the Pool A bids aren't either, but we don't KNOW that. They won their conference, so no one in their conference, let alone 2 teams in their conference, aren't already demonstrably better on the field.

We aren't going to 9 games. It's not fair to the vast majority of student athletes to play fewer games so only a small percentage can play one more. Not a good concept.

Pay to play sucks. How does that have anything to do with how good a team is and whether they have done enough to compete in the tournament? It doesn't. It's a horrible idea that has nothing to do with sports.

A desired ratio? I don't know. An access ratio, yes. Conference needs 7 teams. I expect that number will go up by 2 in the next decade or so if we keep expanding. That will set off another round of combinations and free up a few spots once it becomes critical.

Earned Access has some merit, but I'm not sure how to define it. I could easily see the Regional Ranking Committee's making sure this concept doesn't work well by playing with the bottom of the regions. No region has more than 10 conferences, so it would be easy to do. Using Polls is a bad idea. The polls simply aren't accountable and each one is different. That's why the BCS did away with them and turned to a committee.

Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.
 

Quote from: AO on November 08, 2016, 05:08:12 PM
I think everybody's missing the consequences to the regular season.  We've had some great matchups between Whitewater-Oshkosh-Platteville and St. Thomas-St. John's-Concordia, but they wouldn't have near the importance or fun if all six teams made it to the playoffs.

Outstanding.  Totally agreed.  If we just want to replay the WIAC and MIAC title games in the playoffs and then let the winner play the OAC champion, why bother with D3 playoffs at all?  Just let the WIAC and MIAC hold a season-long series and declare the winner the national champion.  Part of what makes the regular season so great is the fact that the chase for a conference title matters to your playoff hopes, right?

Likewise, part of the fun of the playoffs is testing yourself against other leagues and regions; as wally put it, a "tournament of champions" for the best from any and all leagues to battle until only one team is left standing.  Kicking the UMAC and NACC out of the playoffs might mean a more competitive field from 1-32 this year, but that isn't the point of the playoffs.  The only way to know when the balance of power starts to shift is for those teams to be allowed into the playoffs, right?  This touches on another key point, which is that we should minimize the use of data from a past season to influence who makes the playoffs this season.

(I am fine with using past season's playoff results to break what are effectively ties at the top of the rankings between undefeated teams for seeding purposes, but not for using past season's data to actually select the teams).

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 04:38:14 PM

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

We don't have any idea whether or not this is true.  We don't know who the ten best teams are and we won't know even after the tournament is over.   We're just guessing.  Platteville lost two games in a universe where win percentage is one of the 2-3 biggest slices of selection criteria.  Platteville didn't win a game against anybody who is going to be ranked.  They finished in third place in their own league.  I happen to be of the opinion that Platteville probably should be in the tournament, but if they aren't, it is hardly a travesty. 

^This. 

It's not quite a perfect example, but one of my favorite cautionary tales from the "We just KNOW who the best teams are" files was the 2013 Illinois Wesleyan team, runner-up of the CCIW, ranked #14 in the Week 11 D3football.com Top 25, with a lone loss to #4 North Central, hosting 8-2 IIAC champion Wartburg (ranked 33rd in the final poll, receiving just 13 total points) in the first round.  Hell, CCIW bronze medalist Wheaton was #19 in the poll, a situation not that far removed from this year's purported WIAC-has-three-of-the-top-10-teams-and-it's-so-awful-that-one-of-them-will-miss-the-playoffs sorrow.  Here, let's go back in time to the 2013 CCIW board and check out some of the chatter:

Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2013, 07:21:07 PM
Interesting bracket.   Round 1 is cupcakes (as they should be), but Round 2 has quality matchups.   NCC vs Platteville and Bethel vs Ill Wesleyan could be some good games.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2013, 07:28:37 PM
Hosting Wartburg is as good a draw as we could reasonably hope for.  Going in, I figured it was no better than 50-50 that we would host at all.  Bethel in round two would definitely be an uphill climb, but all in all, I'm very pleased.

Sadly I don't think we had started a Pool C thread back then, but I'm sure it would also have given some choice quotes about how strong the CCIW was and what a shame it was that Wheaton, with only losses against #4 and #14 in the country, could be left out, and surely we should have kept those losers from Wartburg, not even ranked in the final top 25, out to make space for...wait, what?

Wartburg 41, Illinois Wesleyan 7.

That, folks, is why it's bull**** to say that "we know" who the best teams are or that being unranked should DQ a team from receiving their auto-bid to make way for more Pool C's.  We can guess, but we don't know.  And that's why it is better to settle this on the field than to start drawing lines about which league can have an auto-bid and which doesn't deserve one.  Everyone gets an auto-bid.  Beyond that, all bets are off.

No. I'm sure UWP is better than Lakeland. I don't think either is a title threat.  But one won their conference, an achievement worthy of reward, and the other, quite frankly, proved themselves third best in their conference. This isn't everyone gets a medal time. Finish third? Sitting home isn't a problem. It's a logical outcome. Does anyone think a one loss runner up to Lakeland sniffs the playoffs? No. Does anyone think a one loss runner up in the WIAC isn't a serious playoff possibility?  What do you know, the WIAC does get extra consideration for being really darn good. I'm not sad that extra consideration doesn't extend to a third team. That's just unnecessary.

I am not so sure quoting Mr. Ypsi gives much credence to your rant, but I get it. and HS Coach is an OAC guy who didn't watch a single snap of CCIW football in 2013 before the playoffs.

Quote from: USee on November 08, 2016, 06:39:40 PM
I am not so sure quoting Mr. Ypsi gives much credence to your rant, but I get it. and HS Coach is an OAC guy who didn't watch a single snap of CCIW football in 2013 before the playoffs.

Of course, I know Ypsi is an IWU guy and that HScoach is an OAC guy, and tbh the smack talk was fairly light.  They're just a couple quotes I could find that showed IWU was considered a pretty heavy favorite in that game (I should try to find the first-round picks from the 2013 playoffs, too) and no one really seemed to think of Wartburg as anything more than a speed bump en route to a second-round showdown with Bethel.  It wasn't quite three-WIAC-teams-in-the-top-10 like this year but the CCIW had three (presumed) heavy hitters that year and certainly few expected that Wartburg would win.  It's one example of why we probably shouldn't just say "Well, we know who the best teams are, so if you're not ranked in the top 25, no soup for you!" or assume that just because one league has three teams we think are really good, we should start kicking other conference champions out to make more room for them.

Quote from: USee on November 08, 2016, 06:39:40 PM
I am not so sure quoting Mr. Ypsi gives much credence to your rant, but I get it. and HS Coach is an OAC guy who didn't watch a single snap of CCIW football in 2013 before the playoffs.

Et tu, USee. :o

That result was even more painful than two years earlier when Alex Tanney's Monmouth team edged IWU (who was IMO much better than the 2013 team).

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 08, 2016, 06:27:13 PM

Sadly I don't think we had started a Pool C thread back then, but I'm sure it would also have given some choice quotes about how strong the CCIW was and what a shame it was that Wheaton, with only losses against #4 and #14 in the country, could be left out, and surely we should have kept those losers from Wartburg, not even ranked in the final top 25, out to make space for...wait, what?

Wartburg 41, Illinois Wesleyan 7.

That, folks, is why it's bull**** to say that "we know" who the best teams are or that being unranked should DQ a team from receiving their auto-bid to make way for more Pool C's.  We can guess, but we don't know.  And that's why it is better to settle this on the field than to start drawing lines about which league can have an auto-bid and which doesn't deserve one.  Everyone gets an auto-bid.  Beyond that, all bets are off.

Pool C thread for the 2013 season is posted below.  I am so grateful that Pat keeps the old threads alive on these boards.  There is so much "corporate memory" stored there....
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8060.0

Coach Mora said it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHipzGL4dwM

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 06:15:50 PM
Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.

Thomas More ahead of Franklin is fair given Franklin's other results.  While it's a flattering piece of validation of how good Wabash has been for a decade or so, I don't think people should be ranking Wabash in front of Wittenberg.  I'm not sure Wabash has earned that this season compared directly to Wittenberg.  Not complaining though.   :)

I believe in earned access.  How to make a workable definition is the problem given how little teams play against other conferences...

And come on guys... we do "know" that the top teams in the WIAC and MIAC are good as they have repeatedly proven it in the playoffs year in and year out.  Until proven otherwise any team that hangs with UWW is a very good team.  Any team that plays with St Thomas or St Johns is really good (although not at the same level as the WIAC year in year out). 

Saying that we don't "know" which teams are good is bull****.  We know that the following teams are good - Top 2-3 teams in the MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, Mary Hardin Baylor, Linfield, of course Mt Union, and normally Wesley, maybe JHU... These are teams and leagues that have proven time and again in the playoffs that they have good programs that reload each season.  Doesn't D3 do a ranking of each team each season...surely this gives us an idea of what teams are good on an average basis...

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 08:01:00 PM
I believe in earned access.  How to make a workable definition is the problem given how little teams play against other conferences...

And come on guys... we do "know" that the top teams in the WIAC and MIAC are good as they have repeatedly proven it in the playoffs year in and year out.  Until proven otherwise any team that hangs with UWW is a very good team.  Any team that plays with St Thomas or St Johns is really good (although not at the same level as the WIAC year in year out). 

Saying that we don't "know" which teams are good is bull****.  We know that the following teams are good - Top 2-3 teams in the MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, Mary Hardin Baylor, Linfield, of course Mt Union, and normally Wesley, maybe JHU... These are teams and leagues that have proven time and again in the playoffs that they have good programs that reload each season.  Doesn't D3 do a ranking of each team each season...surely this gives us an idea of what teams are good on an average basis...

Under your proposed system (must be ranked in the Top 25 to get an AQ bid), the Wartburg team that got a Pool A bid, went on the road, and hosed 14th-ranked Illinois Wesleyan (#2 in the CCIW) 41-7 would not have been allowed into the playoffs.

Yes, we generally know which teams are good in a given season.  We don't know for sure that a Pool A team from some league that's not part of the Cool Kids Club you just named will not beat one of those teams in a given season. 

*Clarification: the problem isn't whether the teams in the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, etc named are good.  We do know that they're almost always going to be good.  But you're looking at this from the wrong angle: what we don't know (and as you pointed out, usually don't have enough true inter-regional play to guess)  is what about that second tier of teams, and when one of them is good enough to make a surprising run.  Using an earlier example, if we were making a rule that one had to be ranked in the top 25 to receive an AQ to the playoffs, how are we supposed to meaningfully compare teams like Redlands and Thomas More and Franklin (those lingering near the bottom of the Top 25) when there is nothing resembling a common opponent, or even two-degrees-of-separation?  If that's going to be used as a standard for who gets in, how reasonable is it that voters' (almost none of whom would have actually seen all of these teams play) determination about whether Frostburg State is better than Redlands could determine whether Redlands stays in the top 25 and gets a Pool A bid?

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 07:44:30 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 06:15:50 PM
Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.

Thomas More ahead of Franklin is fair given Franklin's other results.  While it's a flattering piece of validation of how good Wabash has been for a decade or so, I don't think people should be ranking Wabash in front of Wittenberg.  I'm not sure Wabash has earned that this season compared directly to Wittenberg.  Not complaining though.   :)

You've ignored the point though. Obviously many voters believe that both Thomas More and Wabash can beat teams they lost to.

Quote from: jknezek on November 08, 2016, 06:33:59 PM
No. I'm sure UWP is better than Lakeland. I don't think either is a title threat.  But one won their conference, an achievement worthy of reward, and the other, quite frankly, proved themselves third best in their conference. This isn't everyone gets a medal time. Finish third? Sitting home isn't a problem. It's a logical outcome. Does anyone think a one loss runner up to Lakeland sniffs the playoffs? No. Does anyone think a one loss runner up in the WIAC isn't a serious playoff possibility?  What do you know, the WIAC does get extra consideration for being really darn good. I'm not sad that extra consideration doesn't extend to a third team. That's just unnecessary.

As expected this discussion gets laser focused to the WIAC. I guess it's my fault for using UWP as an example, I had hoped we could be objective enough to discuss the concept and stay clear of the conference.
As a reminder, the point simply is that players from a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion (that might have been smoked in a non con game) get the AQ playoff game while players from a second or third place team with a dramatically stronger schedule sit home.
This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 10:39:07 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 07:44:30 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 06:15:50 PM
Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.

Thomas More ahead of Franklin is fair given Franklin's other results.  While it's a flattering piece of validation of how good Wabash has been for a decade or so, I don't think people should be ranking Wabash in front of Wittenberg.  I'm not sure Wabash has earned that this season compared directly to Wittenberg.  Not complaining though.   :)

You've ignored the point though. Obviously many voters believe that both Thomas More and Wabash can beat teams they lost to.

No, I got your point, I just don't know what else I can say that adds to the conversation.  You and some others see different classes of teams in Division III and think what's best is to actively exclude those that you deem as unworthy from the postseason.  I think Division III is great because everybody has access.  We're probably not going to find common ground on this. 

This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.

Of course players are affected. That's the problem with subjective measures. The great thing about the AQ is it is completely objective.  Every player on all 230 plus playoff eligible teams starts the season knowing they have a shot at the dream. Win your conference.  It is as open as it gets. There is nothing fairer than that system. Win on the field and no one can take away your shot.  It blows my mind that people think smoky back room decisions are somehow more fair and less impacting to players than the simple concept of win on the field, where the game is actually played, and you can keep going until you lose. Somehow we should take away the champions right to keep playing and give it to more teams that are already losers? How does that make sense? I don't think I will ever get the logic of let's let someone decide it off the field, not on it.

+1! Wally and JK.

D3 is about local experiences. The conferences and peer institutions are strengthened by common mission and visions. Participation in D3 athletics in all sports has blossomed since the Pool System was implemented across the board nearly 20 years ago.

My two cents:

I agree with Ralph & Wally--the mission of Division III is that of inclusion, and the student-athlete experience. Removing auto-bids from conferences, for a reason other than insufficient membership, is contrary to what DIII sports are supposed to stand for.

In my ideal world, we would see an expansion of Pool C, by maybe about 4 teams. I would propose this mostly as a means to further include deserving teams. I think of Muhlenberg, where it's not inconceivable that a player could go 36-4 over their tenure, and never get a chance at the playoffs.

As a last note, a lot of people have been talking about the Wartburg/IWU game from 2013 as an example of why removing Pool A bids from "undeserving" conferences is a bad idea. The concept that the IIAC, or any conference champion from there, is on the same level as the Lakelands, Hussons, and Northwesterns of the world is unbelievably aggravating to me. That game was barely an upset. My model gave Wartburg 1-in-3 odds to win.

You earn access by winning your league.

If you are posting here under the belief that the NCAA would pay for a 32 team field without the vast majority of teams being AQs then you are fooling yourself.  In 15 of the 17 years long AQ era, the national champion was (probably) the 1 or 2 overall seed in the tournament.  In only one year, the first year in 1999 did we get an oddball result that probably wouldn't have happened in the invitation only bracket.    After 1999, you could have held an eight team tournament and come up with the same result.  Scrap the hard AQs and you'll get at least a 16 team tourney.  The D3 philosophy is to primarily promote intra-region and intra-conference play.  The fact that we have at large bids at all is in deference to the fact that your John Carroll's and W-Oshkoshes of the world deserve something to play for too, as do non Pool A conferences and those that don't do full round robin.  Anybody else lucky enough to get in is gravy.  That's why I probably won't be crying too much if Wabash doesn't get an invite on Sunday. 

Quote from: jknezek on November 08, 2016, 11:06:42 PM

This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.

Of course players are affected. That's the problem with subjective measures. The great thing about the AQ is it is completely objective.  Every player on all 230 plus playoff eligible teams starts the season knowing they have a shot at the dream. Win your conference.  It is as open as it gets. There is nothing fairer than that system. Win on the field and no one can take away your shot.  It blows my mind that people think smoky back room decisions are somehow more fair and less impacting to players than the simple concept of win on the field, where the game is actually played, and you can keep going until you lose. Somehow we should take away the champions right to keep playing and give it to more teams that are already losers? How does that make sense? I don't think I will ever get the logic of let's let someone decide it off the field, not on it.

I wholeheartedly agree with all the bolded parts of your post.
September 24, 2016:  The game on the field.  UWP 56, Lakeland 0.

Bummer that UWP doesn't play in the NACC.  They probably could have won that league and qualified.  Instead, they get to sweat it out this weekend. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
September 24, 2016:  The non-conference game on the field.  UWP 56, Lakeland 0.

Lakeland: 1st place in its conference (assuming they beat Rockford this weekend)
UWP: 3rd place in its conference

If your argument is that non-conference games should be considered more important than conference games, you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point.

(edited to correct a misspelling)

I am amused at the contrast of D-3 folks complaining about the way we have a tournament for champions and its not being the "Best D3 Teams" in the country, like FBS.

Then, in the next internet meme that the person sees is someone complaining how the head football coach at the state university is the highest paid official in the state.  Well DUH, the head football coach for the Texas Longhorns is responsible for $60-80Million in revenue to the athletic department alone!

In the WIAC, I am excited for the Student-Athletes at UW-Superior moving to the UMAC. Perhaps they will be more competitive in that league.

Finally, in the final year of the 16-team playoff, 1998, one undefeated South Region team did not receive one of the 4 bids!  THAT is an injustice.

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 11:12:30 AM

Quote from: jknezek on November 08, 2016, 11:06:42 PM

This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.

Of course players are affected. That's the problem with subjective measures. The great thing about the AQ is it is completely objective.  Every player on all 230 plus playoff eligible teams starts the season knowing they have a shot at the dream. Win your conference.  It is as open as it gets. There is nothing fairer than that system. Win on the field and no one can take away your shot.  It blows my mind that people think smoky back room decisions are somehow more fair and less impacting to players than the simple concept of win on the field, where the game is actually played, and you can keep going until you lose. Somehow we should take away the champions right to keep playing and give it to more teams that are already losers? How does that make sense? I don't think I will ever get the logic of let's let someone decide it off the field, not on it.

I wholeheartedly agree with all the bolded parts of your post.
September 24, 2016:  The game on the field.  UWP 56, Lakeland 0.

The games on the field. UWP, 2 conference losses, not a champion. Lakeland, no likely conference losses, likely a champion. It's just time to disagree. We aren't subjectively making a 32 team "supposed best" tournament. Every year this comes up, and every year it's debated by the same people. The conferences in all of DIII aren't going to pay for a 32 team tournament populated by schools from less than 1/2 the conferences. And you can't blame them. It isn't going to happen in football or any other sport. If everyone is going to pay, and they do even though most is financed by DI Basketball, then everyone needs a way to have access. Complain and moan how crappy it is for UWP or anyone else all you want, it's a dead issue. You want to get in the playoffs? Win your conference.

I'm a big believer we need at least 2 C possibilities to make sure that no real championship quality competitors are likely to be left out. But the moaning and groaning that occurs has me believing it might be better to do away with everything but the A and B bids. Then there is no ambiguity. You want in? Win your conference.

Quote from: jknezek on November 09, 2016, 12:37:46 PM
Lakeland, no likely conference losses, likely a champion.

For the sake of accuracy, Lakeland has 1 conference loss and will win a head-to-head tiebreaker if they take care of business. But the fact that they are likely the weakest team who will make the playoffs isn't the point.

But the question becomes then, where and how do you draw the line? How do you decide which conference Champions "deserve" to get in and which "don't"? And then, in the interest of "fairness", don't you have to apply the same logic to other sports as well?

UW-P had two chances to make the playoffs, realistically. That's a lot more than many teams have.

The NCAA Division III Philosophy statement is clear:  "Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships."
     Beyond in-season regional play and conference championships everything else is gravy (and in DIII certainly results from  the generosity of the NCAA such as it is).  I know there is a long-ago decided well-established national championship competition in Division III that sort of mirrors the other, scholarship permitting, divisions.  OK.  But with the emphasis on conference championships, it is logical that those champions go to the playoffs no matter the many first-round blow outs.  This arrangement grows right out of the philosophy statement.  I'm on the wrong side of history here, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if after the regular season student-athletes would hand in their equipment and go on to do what else interests them.  We're way too far down the road for that to happen given that for many schools recruiting in part relies on the potential for making post-season play, even when that possibility is remote.  And student-athletes from early on, high school and before, are accustomed to post-season play. 
    While the yearly debate is fine, the Division III football playoffs are in line with Division III philosophy.  While the powers that be might decide to tinker with some aspects of what they are now doing, we are just not going to see a change to someone's idea of who the best teams are ever come seriously into play.  I don't think such a proposal would ever even make it to the NAA Convention floor for a vote--and that's how change comes about.   

Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Dude, no.  No it isn't.  The D-III philosophy as noted literally 20 minutes ago on this very same page is:

Quote from: sigma one on November 09, 2016, 01:34:09 PM
The NCAA Division III Philosophy statement is clear:  "Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships."

Nowhere does it say "the best teams".  It does say conference champions very specifically.  Winning your conference matters more.  That's what D3 is.  You want something completely different. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Except it doesn't work very well. Care to guess how many 7 team conferences are left? There's the ODAC and the MIAA. Add that to the LL remnants and you have 20 teams. Add the 2 remaining independents, I think Alfred State has a new home soon, and that gives you 22 teams. With an 8:1 ratio, you have two Pool B bids and have earned 1 Pool C back by killing two AQs and combining that with the one Pool B currently available. 3 to 2. You have to go to 9 team leagues to make real hay. Of course, that then throws the WIAC and NWC into the non-AQ mix. While I have no doubt those league champions get a "B" bid all things being equal, it will get a lot more difficult for the West Regional Committee to have all those 2nd, and 3rd teams ranked compared to other regions so that they keep getting in over other champions. But it might happen.

All of that presupposes that you wouldn't get a whole lot of mixing and matching, which I think is very likely. We saw it happen with the first access ratio, I think you'd see it again with conferences distilling to get the magic number. But a conference like the WIAC is going to be left out. Because there simply isn't anyone else to add easily. So then you have no AQ for the WIAC, a small Pool B that they probably win, or at least scrap over with the NWC champion who also has no easy addition, and then back into Pool C you go.

Regardless, you aren't getting rid of the weak "A" bids, or at least not many of them, this way. Many of those "A" conferences have 9 or 10 teams. The UMAC has 10. The MWC has 11!

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 09:11:01 AM
As a last note, a lot of people have been talking about the Wartburg/IWU game from 2013 as an example of why removing Pool A bids from "undeserving" conferences is a bad idea. The concept that the IIAC, or any conference champion from there, is on the same level as the Lakelands, Hussons, and Northwesterns of the world is unbelievably aggravating to me. That game was barely an upset. My model gave Wartburg 1-in-3 odds to win.

"A lot of people" has just been me, and I just want to clarify why I brought that game up.

I know Wartburg was/is not on the same level as a generic NACC, UMAC, or ECFC champion.

I'm using it as an example because that does hit a couple of the check boxes that walla walla wildcat threw out there - Pool A team with two losses, ranked outside the top 25 (in fact, barely receiving any votes - does anyone know where the 2013 RR's were archived?  Would love to see if that Wartburg team was RR'd, I am guessing they scraped in but probably at #9 or #10).  That's one of the ideas floated in this thread, that you should have to be ranked in the top 25 to receive an AQ.

Meanwhile, Illinois Wesleyan was the classic "strong Pool C" as a 9-1 team from a traditionally-powerful conference with a signature win over a traditionally-powerful team and the lone loss vs. the #4 team in the country.  Although your model may have barely registered this as a mismatch, this is a pairing of exactly the type of team we're arguing about putting more of into the tournament (IWU, the strong-Pool-C) against the type of team that supposedly doesn't belong (Wartburg, the unranked-Pool-A).

It is fair to point out that Wartburg is several leagues better than the Lakeland / Northwestern / Husson tier.  If you want to let the Wartburgs in but throw the Lakelands out, though...

Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on November 09, 2016, 12:43:14 PM
But the question becomes then, where and how do you draw the line? How do you decide which conference Champions "deserve" to get in and which "don't"? And then, in the interest of "fairness", don't you have to apply the same logic to other sports as well?

Apologies for aggravating you, Hansen.

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Personally, I think my student-athlete experience would have been enhanced much more by the presence of hotter cheerleaders.

Can we look into the NCAA regulations on that one?

I should know the answer to this, but I don't. Are the criteria used by the National Committee in "arranging the bracket" the same as the criteria used in selecting Pool C candidates? I know the NCAA doesn't admit to seeding, so I avoided that word. But it seems like they have arranged 8 team pods around four #1's the last few years.

If the same criteria is used, then does that mean it could be a big deal to UMHB that East Texas Baptist is no longer regionally ranked?  I ask this solely in terms of where they might be ranked among #1 teams. If the top four teams in the d3football.com poll are the top four seeds, will the dropping out of ETBU (if it stays unranked in the secret ranking) affect how the CRU stacks up against UW-W, St. Thomas, and Mount? I know  Mount, STU, and UW-W all have the "previous year playoff performance" edge over UMHB. 

Or does the committee just do what they want and with everything so secret and complicated, they can always find one piece of criteria to justify it.   ;)

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 09, 2016, 04:06:04 PM
I should know the answer to this, but I don't. Are the criteria used by the National Committee in "arranging the bracket" the same as the criteria used in selecting Pool C candidates? I know the NCAA doesn't admit to seeding, so I avoided that word. But it seems like they have arranged 8 team pods around four #1's the last few years.

If the same criteria is used, then does that mean it could be a big deal to UMHB that East Texas Baptist is no longer regionally ranked?  I ask this solely in terms of where they might be ranked among #1 teams. If the top four teams in the d3football.com poll are the top four seeds, will the dropping out of ETBU (if it stays unranked in the secret ranking) affect how the CRU stacks up against UW-W, St. Thomas, and Mount? I know  Mount, STU, and UW-W all have the "previous year playoff performance" edge over UMHB. 

Or does the committee just do what they want and with everything so secret and complicated, they can always find one piece of criteria to justify it.   ;)

Yes, it's the same criteria used for selection and seeding with one addition- the committee may use the results of last year's championship tournament to break ties amongst undefeated teams. 

I still don't think Mount Union's criteria is good enough that you can reasonably stretch it to say they are in a "tie" with UW-W or UMHB.  I also still think Mount Union is going to wind up being the top seed in the tournament in spite of their criteria. 

We were told in a past Committee Chair interview that basically they try to pair the best 1-2 per region and build out from there. Should be interesting depending on certain school locations, e.g., in 2012 Hobart was effectively the two in the UST region, which worked bc Bart was far enough west to get schools like Witt up / over for example. Maybe we'll see something similar with Alfred, if they finish 10-0 and have a very high SOS.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 09, 2016, 03:20:01 PM


Personally, I think my student-athlete experience would have been enhanced much more by the presence of hotter cheerleaders.

Can we look into the NCAA regulations on that one?

Whew!  Gotta be careful about that one!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/sports/harvard-mens-soccer-season-canceled.html

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2016, 02:06:36 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 01:52:14 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 09, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Dude, no.  No it isn't.  The D-III philosophy as noted literally 20 minutes ago on this very same page is:

Quote from: sigma one on November 09, 2016, 01:34:09 PM
The NCAA Division III Philosophy statement is clear:  "Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships."

Nowhere does it say "the best teams".  It does say conference champions very specifically.  Winning your conference matters more.  That's what D3 is.  You want something completely different.

-I think the more student-athletes that experience the playoffs (or bowl games), the better their college experience.
-NCAA D3 Philosophy Statement #17

QuoteGive primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and

doesn't specifically refer to the playoffs.  You and others have used the statement as though it is specific to the rules of playoff participation, it is not.  I could easily argue this statement has nothing to do with playoffs and its primary intent is to encourage regional play and allow for the season to conclude with a conference championship, much like the NESCAC.     
-Philosophy Statement 17 is followed by Statement 18:   

QuoteSupport student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.

"Which may include participation in national championships".

Is there is a D3 Philosophy Statement that links "conference champion with auto birth in a national championship playoff", especially for those student athletes that have reached "high levels of athletics performance"? 

 

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 07:11:05 PM
-I think the more student-athletes that experience the playoffs (or bowl games), the better their college experience.
-NCAA D3 Philosophy Statement #17

QuoteGive primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and

doesn't specifically refer to the playoffs.  You and others have used the statement as though it is specific to the rules of playoff participation, it is not.  I could easily argue this statement has nothing to do with playoffs and its primary intent is to encourage regional play and allow for the season to conclude with a conference championship, much like the NESCAC.     
-Philosophy Statement 17 is followed by Statement 18:   

QuoteSupport student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.

"Which may include participation in national championships".

Is there is a D3 Philosophy Statement that links "conference champion with auto birth in a national championship playoff", especially for those student athletes that have reached "high levels of athletics performance"? 

I'm glad that you mentioned the NESCAC, because that's exactly where you're kind of telling on yourself here a bit.  You haven't said it directly, but invoking the NESCAC is revealing.  You want these smaller leagues that are noncompetitive to just kind of get out of the way and play in their own sandbox separate from what you think is legitimate championship competition.  That's been the undercurrent of this entire 2-3 season rant you've been on.  What you want is Division IV, basically. 

I'm not going to parse the DIII manual to find specific language about conference championships and postseason participation.  But I think the fact that the NCAA so directly and overwhelmingly ties a conference championship to tournament access (win and you're in) clears up whatever loose/strict construction argument you're trying to make.  Of course the Division thinks that a conference champion deserves to play in the national championship tournament- we know this because every league gets a ticket.  I don't think this philosophy is ambiguous in any way. 

emma17, I see that you registered in 2010.

Back in 2005 thru 2009, we had the Division IV discussions in which D3 finally realized who it was.

Here is the link beginning in October 2005.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.0

At this point, we really should change the name of this thread to portray what the posts are about.

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2016, 11:13:47 PM
At this point, we really should change the name of this thread to portray what the posts are about.

Sorry for the diversions.  We will get back on track after Sunday...

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2016, 12:17:22 AM

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 09, 2016, 11:13:47 PM
At this point, we really should change the name of this thread to portray what the posts are about.

Sorry for the diversions.  We will get back on track after Sunday...

Haha. No worries; everyone is welcome to talk about whatever they want. I just keep getting suckered into checking new posts expecting them to be about, you know, the 2016 playoffs.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 09, 2016, 08:24:00 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 09, 2016, 07:11:05 PM
-I think the more student-athletes that experience the playoffs (or bowl games), the better their college experience.
-NCAA D3 Philosophy Statement #17

QuoteGive primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and

doesn't specifically refer to the playoffs.  You and others have used the statement as though it is specific to the rules of playoff participation, it is not.  I could easily argue this statement has nothing to do with playoffs and its primary intent is to encourage regional play and allow for the season to conclude with a conference championship, much like the NESCAC.     
-Philosophy Statement 17 is followed by Statement 18:   

QuoteSupport student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.

"Which may include participation in national championships".

Is there is a D3 Philosophy Statement that links "conference champion with auto birth in a national championship playoff", especially for those student athletes that have reached "high levels of athletics performance"? 

I'm glad that you mentioned the NESCAC, because that's exactly where you're kind of telling on yourself here a bit.  You haven't said it directly, but invoking the NESCAC is revealing.  You want these smaller leagues that are noncompetitive to just kind of get out of the way and play in their own sandbox separate from what you think is legitimate championship competition.  That's been the undercurrent of this entire 2-3 season rant you've been on.  What you want is Division IV, basically. 

I'm not going to parse the DIII manual to find specific language about conference championships and postseason participation.  But I think the fact that the NCAA so directly and overwhelmingly ties a conference championship to tournament access (win and you're in) clears up whatever loose/strict construction argument you're trying to make.  Of course the Division thinks that a conference champion deserves to play in the national championship tournament- we know this because every league gets a ticket.  I don't think this philosophy is ambiguous in any way.

And you want to tell me what I think.  That's your style.  I have almost zero knowledge of the NESCAC except that they don't participate in the playoffs.  For their player's sake, I wish they would.  And I certainly have no interest in a Division 4.

What I do think is that several of you have wrapped yourself in an incorrect interpretation of a D3 Philosophy Statement- and you've attached your incorrect interpretation to the D3 playoffs.  I think they are two separate issues.  I don't believe Statement 17 acts as a "requirement" for how a playoffs should be structured, as many of you seem to think.  I think Statement 17 stands on its own, and I think a playoff structure stands on its own as well.  I think Statement 18 indicates such.   

If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits. 
If it's acceptable to point to D3 Philosophy Statements to support an opinion, I point to Statement 18.

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
And you want to tell me what I think.  That's your style.  I have almost zero knowledge of the NESCAC except that they don't participate in the playoffs.  For their player's sake, I wish they would.  And I certainly have no interest in a Division 4.

The second that a NESCAC team played in the tournament and lost a game by 30, you'd want to throw them right back out and keep them out forever.  That's your style. 

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 11:26:21 AM


If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits. 
If it's acceptable to point to D3 Philosophy Statements to support an opinion, I point to Statement 18.

The members of the ECAC do have "bowl games". I cannot remember a case in which the ECAC eligible member which had earned a  conference Pool A bid or a Pool B recipient declined the NCAA bid and opted for the ECAC bowl game.

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits.

I would argue that a team has already proven its merits by proving itself the best team in its conference over the course of the conference season.

This isn't just a Division III football thing - it goes across sports and across divisions. You win your conference, you get a berth in the NCAA tournament. Why do you feel that Division III football alone should be different?

Incorrect interpretation--in your judgment.  Wally doesn't know what you think, but you know what the NCAA philosophy statement means.  No, in your judgment the NCAA philosophy statement means whatever supports your point of view; in mine, and perhaps others, the statement means what supports our argument.  Only the NCAA knows what they think it means, maybe. We are just going to disagree on the basic premise that governs playoff selections.  Despite your believe that only the "best" teams should compete in the playoffs, that's not what is going to happen, all interpretations of the philosophy statement aside.  If there are future adjustments to the system it will be at best to slightly widen the field while keeping the conference champions in the mix.  And I'm not all all sure that given the NCAA's tightfisted approach to sponsoring DIII even a small expansion is likely to happen because of what other complications, in season and post season, such a change would entail.  Reduce to nine (or for a few schools eight) games:  won't happen.  Talk about denying competition access for member schools.  Add a week to the playoffs:  won't happen because of the calendar.  Start the season a week earlier to make space for a six-week playoff:  doubtful.  Make schools themselves pay for the first round opportunity to host a game (or for more than the first round):  a pipe dream.    Many schools already have financial problems making that untenable, and most schools would have to defend paying for those games vis a vis what they do to fund other sports.  (The NAIA already has a pay for play in the post season; the NCAA is not the NAIA).  (As an aside, in a worst case scenario I can see the NCAA powers deciding to reduce funding to Division III, not increase it.)
     Emma, really, I understand your side of it.  In a "perfect system" your way makes a lot of sense.  But we are not talking about a "perfect system"; too much human input is involved in picking the "best" teams.  Further, I don't see anyone saying the system is perfect; it is equitable.    With the human input we have now with Pool C, there's already enough disagreement on the last couple of schools included.    However the playoff teams are selected good players, some more talented than others, will be left looking through the fence at the end of the regular season.  We all agree, I hope, that (most) DIII players care just as much about their sport as (most) DI players.  It would hurt the players from the winner of a "lesser" conference not to make the playoffs just as much as it would for players from a non-conference-winner not to make the playoffs.  Who is going to be the person to tell those conference winners that they just don't count as much as players from teams who have not done as well in other conferences?   
     From the beginning, the idea of DIII has been to promote an egalitarian approach to sports, and this is what the current playoff selection system, with its several flaws, provides. 
     
     
         
 

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2016, 11:36:33 AM

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
And you want to tell me what I think.  That's your style.  I have almost zero knowledge of the NESCAC except that they don't participate in the playoffs.  For their player's sake, I wish they would.  And I certainly have no interest in a Division 4.

The second that a NESCAC team played in the tournament and lost a game by 30, you'd want to throw them right back out and keep them out forever.  That's your style.

You got me.  My whole sinister plan is to create a WIAC only national championship tournament.   

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 01:25:21 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 10, 2016, 11:36:33 AM

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
And you want to tell me what I think.  That's your style.  I have almost zero knowledge of the NESCAC except that they don't participate in the playoffs.  For their player's sake, I wish they would.  And I certainly have no interest in a Division 4.

The second that a NESCAC team played in the tournament and lost a game by 30, you'd want to throw them right back out and keep them out forever.  That's your style.

You got me.  My whole sinister plan is to create a WIAC only national championship tournament.

We all know that's not true. You'd never forget about UMU.

Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on November 10, 2016, 11:54:28 AM

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits.

I would argue that a team has already proven its merits by proving itself the best team in its conference over the course of the conference season.

This isn't just a Division III football thing - it goes across sports and across divisions. You win your conference, you get a berth in the NCAA tournament. Why do you feel that Division III football alone should be different?

From the get-go I stated that I'm not opposed to the AQ for conference champions. 
From the get-go I've tried to express that my primary concern is for the player.
You argue that a team has "already proved its merits...".  Ok, in the sense of winning their conference, yes, they proved it.  They also got beat 56-0 by a team of  players that feel "they proved their merits". 
The point of all this was simply to ask, is there another way to accomplish all we want to accomplish?  I don't care how other divisions do it.  Can D3 make changes that make it even better for the student athletes?

I've done my best to explain what I think and why I think it, I'll let it go at that.     

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 01:34:53 PM

Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on November 10, 2016, 11:54:28 AM

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits.

I would argue that a team has already proven its merits by proving itself the best team in its conference over the course of the conference season.

This isn't just a Division III football thing - it goes across sports and across divisions. You win your conference, you get a berth in the NCAA tournament. Why do you feel that Division III football alone should be different?

From the get-go I stated that I'm not opposed to the AQ for conference champions. 
From the get-go I've tried to express that my primary concern is for the player.
You argue that a team has "already proved its merits...".  Ok, in the sense of winning their conference, yes, they proved it.  They also got beat 56-0 by a team of  players that feel "they proved their merits". 
The point of all this was simply to ask, is there another way to accomplish all we want to accomplish?  I don't care how other divisions do it.  Can D3 make changes that make it even better for the student athletes?

I've done my best to explain what I think and why I think it, I'll let it go at that.     

The trouble is that we don't agree on "what is best for the student athlete." I think, and DIII clearly agrees, the current system is best for the student athlete. I certainly can't think of anything better and don't believe that your ideas are better than what we have.

I believe I've made my feelings clear, so I'm going to step out as well before I become too emotionally invested in it that I can only spout off angry gibberish.

But thanks everyone, there's been more discussion of Lakeland's season in this thread than there probably has been in the actual NACC thread all year! ;D

Quote from: emma17 on November 10, 2016, 01:34:53 PM

From the get-go I stated that I'm not opposed to the AQ for conference champions. 
From the get-go I've tried to express that my primary concern is for the player.
You argue that a team has "already proved its merits...".  Ok, in the sense of winning their conference, yes, they proved it.  They also got beat 56-0 by a team of  players that feel "they proved their merits". 
The point of all this was simply to ask, is there another way to accomplish all we want to accomplish?  I don't care how other divisions do it.  Can D3 make changes that make it even better for the student athletes?

I've done my best to explain what I think and why I think it, I'll let it go at that.     

Just so I'm clear- you think the current system is disenfranchising the student-athlete, very specifically those that play at UW-Platteville, and your solution is to....build an alternative system that disenfranchises the student-athletes at Lakeland?  Or from your POV, you wouldn't disenfranchise Lakeland's players, but you would have them go play in a completely meaningless exhibition game in Week 12, at the institution's own expense no doubt, and pretend like that's the same as playing in the national championship tournament.  The "good" teams get to play with Transformers.  The Lakelands of the world get to play with Go-Bots and you think that's equitable?  Tell me that you're not totally oblivious to the zero-sum game you're playing here. 

Somebody's going to be bummed out when the tournament field gets selected.  Division III's member institutions have agreed that the group of people that get to be bummed out are not conference champions- it's going to be the team that finished second or third.  That's what the Division has agreed on.  This isn't in dispute. 

We've had this same argument in 2014 and 2015 (at least), and I've spent all I care to spend on it. The system could be better, but the AQ's aren't going anywhere, and if you don't win your league, you get what you deserve.

Here is some statistical information regarding the recent playoff projection by the D3 gurus:

Rankings are D3 preseason and Top 25 current - if no Top 25 ranking I used the preseason ranking (and not votes received)

MHB

17.75/14.625 average

St. Thomas bracket

80.75/70.125

UWW

46/43.375

MUC

47/44.875

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 10, 2016, 06:35:21 PM
Here is some statistical information regarding the recent playoff projection by the D3 gurus:

Rankings are D3 preseason and Top 25 current - if no Top 25 ranking I used the preseason ranking (and not votes received)

MHB

17.75/14.625 average

St. Thomas bracket

80.75/70.125

UWW

46/43.375

MUC

47/44.875

Interesting numbers.
When it comes to actual teams to get through, the MUC bracket looks to be the toughest w UWO, St. John's/NCC.
I'd rank the UMHB bracket as the third hardest and the St. Thomas bracket as the least difficult.

The MUC bracket has 3 unranked teams but does include the 1, 5, 6, and 8 ranked teams... the 1st round game of St J and North Central would be one of the best games of the round... HSU and MHB being the other.

Is Wesley a dark horse with the way that they've been playing since two early losses?  They and JHU seem to be two teams that at some point will make serious runs in the playoffs.

It would seem that the St Thomas bracket is pretty light but the UWW bracket is just as light... lots of unranked teams..

This bracket would give us likely quarters of UWW vs Linfield, MUC vs UWO, St Thomas vs Alfred, and MHB vs Wesley/Johns Hopkins.

Quote from: sigma one on November 10, 2016, 12:38:49 PM
Incorrect interpretation--in your judgment.  Wally doesn't know what you think, but you know what the NCAA philosophy statement means.  No, in your judgment the NCAA philosophy statement means whatever supports your point of view; in mine, and perhaps others, the statement means what supports our argument.  Only the NCAA knows what they think it means, maybe. We are just going to disagree on the basic premise that governs playoff selections.  Despite your believe that only the "best" teams should compete in the playoffs, that's not what is going to happen, all interpretations of the philosophy statement aside.  If there are future adjustments to the system it will be at best to slightly widen the field while keeping the conference champions in the mix.  And I'm not all all sure that given the NCAA's tightfisted approach to sponsoring DIII even a small expansion is likely to happen because of what other complications, in season and post season, such a change would entail.  Reduce to nine (or for a few schools eight) games:  won't happen.  Talk about denying competition access for member schools.  Add a week to the playoffs:  won't happen because of the calendar.  Start the season a week earlier to make space for a six-week playoff:  doubtful.  Make schools themselves pay for the first round opportunity to host a game (or for more than the first round):  a pipe dream.    Many schools already have financial problems making that untenable, and most schools would have to defend paying for those games vis a vis what they do to fund other sports.  (The NAIA already has a pay for play in the post season; the NCAA is not the NAIA).  (As an aside, in a worst case scenario I can see the NCAA powers deciding to reduce funding to Division III, not increase it.)
     Emma, really, I understand your side of it.  In a "perfect system" your way makes a lot of sense.  But we are not talking about a "perfect system"; too much human input is involved in picking the "best" teams.  Further, I don't see anyone saying the system is perfect; it is equitable.    With the human input we have now with Pool C, there's already enough disagreement on the last couple of schools included.    However the playoff teams are selected good players, some more talented than others, will be left looking through the fence at the end of the regular season.  We all agree, I hope, that (most) DIII players care just as much about their sport as (most) DI players. It would hurt the players from the winner of a "lesser" conference not to make the playoffs just as much as it would for players from a non-conference-winner not to make the playoffs.  Who is going to be the person to tell those conference winners that they just don't count as much as players from teams who have not done as well in other conferences?   
     From the beginning, the idea of DIII has been to promote an egalitarian approach to sports, and this is what the current playoff selection system, with its several flaws, provides. 
   

The fun of March Madness is to watch the #4 /#13 and #3/#14 games. The effect of the tournament has to bring parity the Men's D1 hoops.

Husson vs Alfred a few years ago was just that.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2016, 11:08:06 PM

Quote from: sigma one on November 10, 2016, 12:38:49 PM
Incorrect interpretation--in your judgment.  Wally doesn't know what you think, but you know what the NCAA philosophy statement means.  No, in your judgment the NCAA philosophy statement means whatever supports your point of view; in mine, and perhaps others, the statement means what supports our argument.  Only the NCAA knows what they think it means, maybe. We are just going to disagree on the basic premise that governs playoff selections.  Despite your believe that only the "best" teams should compete in the playoffs, that's not what is going to happen, all interpretations of the philosophy statement aside.  If there are future adjustments to the system it will be at best to slightly widen the field while keeping the conference champions in the mix.  And I'm not all all sure that given the NCAA's tightfisted approach to sponsoring DIII even a small expansion is likely to happen because of what other complications, in season and post season, such a change would entail.  Reduce to nine (or for a few schools eight) games:  won't happen.  Talk about denying competition access for member schools.  Add a week to the playoffs:  won't happen because of the calendar.  Start the season a week earlier to make space for a six-week playoff:  doubtful.  Make schools themselves pay for the first round opportunity to host a game (or for more than the first round):  a pipe dream.    Many schools already have financial problems making that untenable, and most schools would have to defend paying for those games vis a vis what they do to fund other sports.  (The NAIA already has a pay for play in the post season; the NCAA is not the NAIA).  (As an aside, in a worst case scenario I can see the NCAA powers deciding to reduce funding to Division III, not increase it.)
     Emma, really, I understand your side of it.  In a "perfect system" your way makes a lot of sense.  But we are not talking about a "perfect system"; too much human input is involved in picking the "best" teams.  Further, I don't see anyone saying the system is perfect; it is equitable.    With the human input we have now with Pool C, there's already enough disagreement on the last couple of schools included.    However the playoff teams are selected good players, some more talented than others, will be left looking through the fence at the end of the regular season.  We all agree, I hope, that (most) DIII players care just as much about their sport as (most) DI players. It would hurt the players from the winner of a "lesser" conference not to make the playoffs just as much as it would for players from a non-conference-winner not to make the playoffs.  Who is going to be the person to tell those conference winners that they just don't count as much as players from teams who have not done as well in other conferences?   
     From the beginning, the idea of DIII has been to promote an egalitarian approach to sports, and this is what the current playoff selection system, with its several flaws, provides. 
   

The fun of March Madness is to watch the #4 /#13 and #3/#14 games. The effect of the tournament has to bring parity the Men's D1 hoops.

Husson vs Alfred a few years ago was just that.

Yes and the rare #15 over #2 upsets. ;D  #16 has put a scare in #1 several times, but I'm not sure I'll live long enough to see that much desired upset actually happen.

And THAT is why no AQ (however bad the beat-down will PROBABLY be) should be excluded.  It would take away the possibility of the greatest moment in sports - the 'Bad News Bears' 'Rocky Balboa' upset! :o 

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 10, 2016, 08:43:28 PM
The MUC bracket has 3 unranked teams but does include the 1, 5, 6, and 8 ranked teams... the 1st round game of St J and North Central would be one of the best games of the round... HSU and MHB being the other.

Is Wesley a dark horse with the way that they've been playing since two early losses?  They and JHU seem to be two teams that at some point will make serious runs in the playoffs.

It would seem that the St Thomas bracket is pretty light but the UWW bracket is just as light... lots of unranked teams..

This bracket would give us likely quarters of UWW vs Linfield, MUC vs UWO, St Thomas vs Alfred, and MHB vs Wesley/Johns Hopkins.

I think UWO @ NCC is a pickem game. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see NCC in the quarters.

North Central is going to be a tough out... Would seem that they could do some damage in the playoffs... It will be interesting to see how good they WIAC schools are this year if the bracket allows 3 into the tourney and has them playing other teams early...

Has D3 ever had two teams from the same conference in the semis or finals? Would have to be prior to MUC's dominance....

John Carroll won a region in 2002 and lost to Mount Union in the semis.

Thanks WW! Was the OAC a tougher conference in the past? It would seem that with all the talent in that general area that getting good players wouldn't be all that difficult...

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 11, 2016, 12:49:55 AM
John Carroll won a region in 2002 and lost to Mount Union in the semis.

+1!  You beat me to it!  LOL

(The toughest thing about getting old is not being able to burn the candle at both ends!  Gotta sleep at some time.)

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 11, 2016, 02:26:33 AM
Thanks WW! Was the OAC a tougher conference in the past? It would seem that with all the talent in that general area that getting good players wouldn't be all that difficult...

John Carroll was sent to the East Region as a #7 and rolled thru the region. IMHO, that was after the decline of Rowan dominance had begun, the MAC was still in the South and the ACFC had Wesley, Salisbury and Frostburg, also in the South Region.

---

Correction: Not necessarily rolled, but went on the road.

10/19   at Mount Union * •   L, 35-16 (Regular season)

11/23   at Hobart   W, 27-7   
11/30   at Muhlenberg   W, 21-10   (A South Region team)
12/7           at Brockport   W, 16-10   
12/14   at Mount Union   L, 57-19

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 11, 2016, 12:32:02 AM

Has D3 ever had two teams from the same conference in the semis or finals? Would have to be prior to MUC's dominance....

In 1978 (8 team field) two then OAC teams, B-W and Wittenberg met in the Stagg Bowl.

Quote from: jknezek on November 10, 2016, 01:40:07 PMI think, and DIII clearly agrees, the current system is best for the student athlete. I certainly can't think of anything better and don't believe that your ideas are better than what we have.

So true.  This is something that is being forgotten by us DIII fans.  We tend to forget about the big picture from time to time.

-Ski

Mike Swider, Wheaton HC, on his post game comments, said the following about the playoff scenario:

"The automatic qualifier system is killing the division 3 playoffs. There are teams getting automatic bids that are just not competitive in the post season. There are going to be some great teams that don't get to play. Until the NCAA creates a system that rewards excellence we will continue to have a problem"

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 11, 2016, 02:26:33 AM
Thanks WW! Was the OAC a tougher conference in the past? It would seem that with all the talent in that general area that getting good players wouldn't be all that difficult...

The D3 Ohio Schools have ALOT of competition for the recruits, with FCS, D2 and NAIA schools in Ohio. 

That said, Mount Union, Ohio Northern and Heidelberg also go to Florida for kids.

So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:03:02 PM
So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Texas

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2016, 06:24:00 PM

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:03:02 PM
So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Texas

Not necessarily a foregone conclusion.  Sometimes an island team can actually get the weirdest first-round matchup (like, getting sent all the way across the country to Linfield or something) because they have to fly anyway and it's the easiest way to get everyone else paired up.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2016, 06:31:57 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2016, 06:24:00 PM

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:03:02 PM
So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Texas

Not necessarily a foregone conclusion.  Sometimes an island team can actually get the weirdest first-round matchup (like, getting sent all the way across the country to Linfield or something) because they have to fly anyway and it's the easiest way to get everyone else paired up.

There are three travel orphans and the Texas Pair

Linfield
Redlands
Huntingdon
UMHB and HSU

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2016, 06:43:43 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2016, 06:31:57 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2016, 06:24:00 PM

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:03:02 PM
So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Texas

Not necessarily a foregone conclusion.  Sometimes an island team can actually get the weirdest first-round matchup (like, getting sent all the way across the country to Linfield or something) because they have to fly anyway and it's the easiest way to get everyone else paired up.

There are three travel orphans and the Texas Pair

Linfield
Redlands
Huntingdon
UMHB and HSU

Maybe they send Redlands to Alabama and send someone else to Linfield? Just trying to figure out a way to get a home game folks. ;)

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:56:09 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2016, 06:43:43 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2016, 06:31:57 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2016, 06:24:00 PM

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:03:02 PM
So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Texas

Not necessarily a foregone conclusion.  Sometimes an island team can actually get the weirdest first-round matchup (like, getting sent all the way across the country to Linfield or something) because they have to fly anyway and it's the easiest way to get everyone else paired up.

There are three travel orphans and the Texas Pair

Linfield
Redlands
Huntingdon
UMHB and HSU

Maybe they send Redlands

First Round  (2 flights)

Redlands to Linfield   one flight
Huntingdon somewhere  one flight
HSU/UMHB no flights

Second round  (1.5 flights)

Linfield/Redlands    vs HSU/UMHB  on flight

If Huntingdon wins, one flight

I think that one pod is the "west of the 97th meridian" pod.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2016, 06:31:57 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2016, 06:24:00 PM

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:03:02 PM
So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Texas

Not necessarily a foregone conclusion.  Sometimes an island team can actually get the weirdest first-round matchup (like, getting sent all the way across the country to Linfield or something) because they have to fly anyway and it's the easiest way to get everyone else paired up.

True.  If they don't pair up the two from Texas, then Huntingdon will be Lone Star road warriors.

50/50 chance?   

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2016, 08:57:02 PM

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 12, 2016, 06:31:57 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 12, 2016, 06:24:00 PM

Quote from: Hawks88 on November 12, 2016, 06:03:02 PM
So, Washington winning the SAA leaves Huntingdon isolated with no one within 500 miles. Anyone have a clue what they do with us?

Texas

Not necessarily a foregone conclusion.  Sometimes an island team can actually get the weirdest first-round matchup (like, getting sent all the way across the country to Linfield or something) because they have to fly anyway and it's the easiest way to get everyone else paired up.

True.  If they don't pair up the two from Texas, then Huntingdon will be Lone Star road warriors.

50/50 chance?   

Pat will do the mock bracketing tonight, but I'm still having trouble seeing a scenario that avoids the ASC matchup.  Huntingdon has to fly somewhere and if you send them to Texas, then you create a new flight for an opponent of the remaining Texas team.  So you get three flights, when you can get away with two.  I know it stinks, but that's the business. 

It does leave two low seeded teams playing each other in Husson and W. New England, but again, them's the berries.

Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 09:32:27 PM
It does leave two low seeded teams playing each other in Husson and W. New England, but again, them's the berries.

I'm thinking about heading to the playoff game closest to Boston; probably wouldn't bother with that one, though. 

Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on November 10, 2016, 02:00:27 PM
I believe I've made my feelings clear, so I'm going to step out as well before I become too emotionally invested in it that I can only spout off angry gibberish.

But thanks everyone, there's been more discussion of Lakeland's season in this thread than there probably has been in the actual NACC thread all year! ;D

For us NACC Posters, we all had to focus on watching the conference members go for the Pool A bid on a yearly basis because the NACC has a hard time getting into the conversation for a Pool C bid. It's the nature of geography here in the Midwest being surrounded by the CCIW, WIAC, and the MIAC among the top leagues in D3. The only time the NACC could've gotten a Pool C (borderline) was when Concordia Chicago went 10-0 in 2012 and still dropped their first round game to Bethel.

If the NACC didn't beat up on each other this year, we could've had at least Benedictine in the convo for a regional ranking.

The NACC can't help that sometimes the conference champ has a 7-3 or 6-4 record but like I stated above, the league unfortunately is surrounded by leagues that always have a chance of producing two teams for the playoffs.

It's probably pretty smart for surrounding leagues to schedule those who are seemingly going to be the top of the NACC, MIAA and MWC to help with their SOS. Of course, no one wants to play Monmouth...

It's not as blatant as what the NESCAC is accused of in basketball (playing only a single round robin and fattening up on the good teams from the lesser conferences), but it's smart scheduling. However, that usually leaves the NACC well out of the "C" discussion.

Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 10:12:28 PM
It's probably pretty smart for surrounding leagues to schedule those who are seemingly going to be the top of the NACC, MIAA and MWC to help with their SOS. Of course, no one wants to play Monmouth...

It's not as blatant as what the NESCAC is accused of in basketball (playing only a single round robin and fattening up on the good teams from the lesser conferences), but it's smart scheduling. However, that usually leaves the NACC well out of the "C" discussion.

Alas, "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry."  See: Wabash vs. Albion.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2016, 10:47:45 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2016, 10:12:28 PM
It's probably pretty smart for surrounding leagues to schedule those who are seemingly going to be the top of the NACC, MIAA and MWC to help with their SOS. Of course, no one wants to play Monmouth...

It's not as blatant as what the NESCAC is accused of in basketball (playing only a single round robin and fattening up on the good teams from the lesser conferences), but it's smart scheduling. However, that usually leaves the NACC well out of the "C" discussion.

Alas, "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry."  See: Wabash vs. Albion.

Thus the theme of the Britons 2016 season.

Quote from: USee on November 12, 2016, 04:57:21 PM
Mike Swider, Wheaton HC, on his post game comments, said the following about the playoff scenario:

"The automatic qualifier system is killing the division 3 playoffs. There are teams getting automatic bids that are just not competitive in the post season. There are going to be some great teams that don't get to play. Until the NCAA creates a system that rewards excellence we will continue to have a problem"

   So the coach of an excellent team which happens to sit second in their conference because they lost to another excellent team doesn't like the AQ system? I'm shocked!  :o

Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 12, 2016, 11:56:43 PM

Quote from: USee on November 12, 2016, 04:57:21 PM
Mike Swider, Wheaton HC, on his post game comments, said the following about the playoff scenario:

"The automatic qualifier system is killing the division 3 playoffs. There are teams getting automatic bids that are just not competitive in the post season. There are going to be some great teams that don't get to play. Until the NCAA creates a system that rewards excellence we will continue to have a problem"

   So the coach of an excellent team which happens to sit second in their conference because they lost to another excellent team doesn't like the AQ system? I'm shocked!  :o

He wasn't talking about his excellent team, it was in reference to other excellent 2nd place teams like Mount Union, Frostburg St., and MOUNT UNION.  Whoops!.   ;D

Maybe he should look for a D-2 job, then.

I guess what I want most of the bracket this year is for South #1 and South #2 to be in the same corner of the bracket for a head to head.

Quote from: HSCTiger74 on November 12, 2016, 11:56:43 PM

Quote from: USee on November 12, 2016, 04:57:21 PM
Mike Swider, Wheaton HC, on his post game comments, said the following about the playoff scenario:

"The automatic qualifier system is killing the division 3 playoffs. There are teams getting automatic bids that are just not competitive in the post season. There are going to be some great teams that don't get to play. Until the NCAA creates a system that rewards excellence we will continue to have a problem"

   So the coach of an excellent team which happens to sit second in their conference because they lost to another excellent team doesn't like the AQ system? I'm shocked!  :o

I'm sure all he needs to do is reread D3 Philosophy Statement 17 and all will be clear.

He wrote it.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 10, 2016, 11:17:38 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 10, 2016, 11:08:06 PM

The fun of March Madness is to watch the #4 /#13 and #3/#14 games. The effect of the tournament has to bring parity the Men's D1 hoops.

Husson vs Alfred a few years ago was just that.

Yes and the rare #15 over #2 upsets. ;D  #16 has put a scare in #1 several times, but I'm not sure I'll live long enough to see that much desired upset actually happen.

And THAT is why no AQ (however bad the beat-down will PROBABLY be) should be excluded.  It would take away the possibility of the greatest moment in sports - the 'Bad News Bears' 'Rocky Balboa' upset! :o

*ahem*. No need to worry about living long enough to see a 16 beat a 1.  Northwestern accomplished that feat in hoops 2 years ago when they knocked off the Tommies.  I suppose we can't put it in the record books since they don't publish seeds, but it still belongs somewhere on the list of greatest upsets.  I will say it will be an even bigger upset if Northwestern knocks off the Tommies in football.  It feels impossible to do in football but the there is always a chance.  The whole program is rolling after volleyball just won the regional by beating #1 Cal Lutheran.  Basically what I'm saying is (https://onewanderingsoul.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/anything-is-possible.gif)

When will the official D3 playoff brackets be announced.  I couldn't find a link on the main D3 page.

Quote from: faunch on November 13, 2016, 10:14:24 AM
When will the official D3 playoff brackets be announced.  I couldn't find a link on the main D3 page.

Ok...now I see 6pm Eastern...it there link to live announcement?

I haven't found a link yet, but you can probably find one here (http://www.ncaa.com/liveschedule) and/or here (http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2016-09-01/2016-fall-championships-selections) before 6 pm ET.

There are some excellent first round matchups.

The best two? Perhaps St. John's vs. Platteville and Hardin-Simmon vs. Linfield.

Hobart vs. Mt. Union looks good too. Same with Thomas More vs. Wittenberg.

I think Wheaton vs. Huntingdon will be excellent; Coe vs. Monmouth too.

I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

Geography.  Hobart will surely test them and what road playoff game can they draw experience from? 

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 06:21:11 PM
There are some excellent first round matchups.

The best two? Perhaps St. John's vs. Platteville and Hardin-Simmon vs. Linfield.

Hobart vs. Mt. Union looks good too. Same with Thomas More vs. Wittenberg.

I think Wheaton vs. Huntingdon will be excellent; Coe vs. Monmouth too.

Agreed.  The committee did a tremendous job.  Fabulous matchups all around.

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

They should have had Mount Union play all three WIAC teams, in succession, one after the other next Saturday, right?  Anything less is just the ol' NCAA handing the Raiders a free ride to Salem, amiright?

This stuff is tired.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2016, 06:32:25 PM

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

They should have had Mount Union play all three WIAC teams, in succession, one after the other next Saturday, right?  Anything less is just the ol' NCAA handing the Raiders a free ride to Salem, amiright?

This stuff is tired.

If it's any consolation, they will have to play 3 straight games on the road to get out of the bracket. It's not like they won't have worked for it, probably more than most seasons to get to the semifinals .

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2016, 06:32:25 PM

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

They should have had Mount Union play all three WIAC teams, in succession, one after the other next Saturday, right?  Anything less is just the ol' NCAA handing the Raiders a free ride to Salem, amiright?

This stuff is tired.

Wally , I can tell you this Hobart team and coaching staff is excited after watching the John Carroll game....we believe we can win😀

Quote from: Bartman on November 13, 2016, 06:37:35 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2016, 06:32:25 PM

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

They should have had Mount Union play all three WIAC teams, in succession, one after the other next Saturday, right?  Anything less is just the ol' NCAA handing the Raiders a free ride to Salem, amiright?

This stuff is tired.

Wally , I can tell you this Hobart team and coaching staff is excited after watching the John Carroll game....we believe we can win😀

It will be interesting to see if Hobart consistently burns their secondary.  If Mount doesn't get a pass rush, it will be a long day for the Mounties.

Toughest break? Linfield. But if they beat H-S, UMHB and North Central, they'll have earned it.

The Platteville / St. John's / Oshkosh little pack there will be fun to watch (sorry Wash U.).

I think Alfred has the easiest path to the quarterfinals, but someone had to be opposite the WNE / Husson game. And Husson gave Alfred a scare in Week 1.

There may only be four or five real blowouts, a great improvement.

(Northwestern, Lakeland, Redlands probably, maybe another couple...)

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 06:51:49 PM
Toughest break? Linfield. But if they beat H-S, UMHB and North Central, they'll have earned it.

It "feels" like this is the case every year.....  (yeah I know it probably isn't--but at least few of the past 5 years it's been the case)

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 13, 2016, 06:32:25 PM

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

They should have had Mount Union play all three WIAC teams, in succession, one after the other next Saturday, right?  Anything less is just the ol' NCAA handing the Raiders a free ride to Salem, amiright?

This stuff is tired.

You mean like they basically did to SJU, a team with a better playoff resume  8-) Geography is definitely a part of this, but Mount is in the easiest quadrant from what I can see. But to make the Stagg they'll likely have to win at the Taj Mahal if UMHB holds serve.

That said, there really are some exceptional matchups. I wish they hadn't put pretty much all the MIAC and WIAC teams together. But avoiding the TX Rd 1 rematch is great.

Really like that UWP made the field. That's a dangerous 2 loss team. I could see them losing Rd 1 in Collegeville or going all the way the Semis.

Hobart, Johns Hopkins and Alfred may be 'easier' - like Abstract Algebra...

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 07:53:58 PM
Hobart, Johns Hopkins and Alfred may be 'easier' - like Abstract Algebra...

Unlike the Real Analysis that Linfield will have to go through to get to the semifinals.

Quote from: pg04 on November 13, 2016, 07:59:55 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 07:53:58 PM
Hobart, Johns Hopkins and Alfred may be 'easier' - like Abstract Algebra...

Unlike the Real Analysis that Linfield will have to go through to get to the semifinals.

Ha!  I get it but it seems more like un-real analysis!

Math nerds unite!  :D

We may need to do some numerical analysis to get to the nitty gritty of the matchup.

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

Although I don't think there is any conspiracy, I'd have to imagine Mt is feeling pretty good now.  They went from possibly being out of the tourney to being placed in a region whose highest ranked competition is #10, with no historical success in getting beyond the second round. 

Linfield, MHB, HSU, Wheaton and NCC all in one bracket?  Wow, that's a bear. 

We posted our interview with the NCAA Committee Chairman as a stand-alone podcast for now -- the rest of the show will be posted over the next day, as explained in the show's prologue.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/14/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show

I am glad to see the UMU bracket shape out the way that it has. It will give another picture of the "East" region, which I think is the weakest.  If Mount Union comes out of that bracket on the road, then I will judge the reason the way that I did when John Carroll came thru the region in 2002.

I have an all purple Semi-final on my challenge. (But it would not surprise me if HSU beat UMHB.)

UMHB
UMU
Tommies
UWW

Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2016, 08:23:55 PM

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

Although I don't think there is any conspiracy, I'd have to imagine Mt is feeling pretty good now.  They went from possibly being out of the tourney to being placed in a region whose highest ranked competition is #10, with no historical success in getting beyond the second round. 

Linfield, MHB, HSU, Wheaton and NCC all in one bracket?  Wow, that's a bear.

Mount Union seems to be stuck in the region with the most east teams over the last several years (give or take a few). Thus, due to location, they will almost always get the bracket that seems the easiest, since by default the East is considered the weakest. However, I would not overlook Hobart or Alfred (Johns Hopkins technically not in the east). Alfred especially has had a great season and the Empire 8 provided them with better competition, IMO, than the OAC has provided for Mount Union.

Yes, Mount is in cahoots with the football gods AND the NCAA & selection committee so that even though they lost, even though they barely made the play-offs, even though they are on the road all play-off games (if they win and nothing crazy happens), they still got the "easiest bracket" because they are Mount.

It's about the most ridiculous, tired, stupid, ignorant, biased, num-nuts argument I have ever read.  Can you really believe what you are even writing?  At least all the conspiracy theorist honks got their wish.  Mount is on the road as long as they can win.  Now of course those same folks wanted them to play all three WIAC teams, and then play UHMB at their place, and then play the Stagg in Mozambique just so Mount would quit getting all that NCAA  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)bias! 

Quote from: smedindy on November 13, 2016, 07:53:58 PM
Hobart, Johns Hopkins and Alfred may be 'easier' - like Abstract Algebra...

It's not meant to be a slight. There are good teams all over the field. But if I'm Mount and had to pick which part of the bracket I landed in, this would be the one I'd opt for. Every other corner has at least one other traditional power and multiple teams with Stagg or Semifinal appearances.

Quote from: pg04 on November 13, 2016, 08:36:05 PM
Mount Union seems to be stuck in the region with the most east teams over the last several years (give or take a few). Thus, due to location, they will almost always get the bracket that seems the easiest, since by default the East is considered the weakest. However, I would not overlook Hobart or Alfred (Johns Hopkins technically not in the east). Alfred especially has had a great season and the Empire 8 provided them with better competition, IMO, than the OAC has provided for Mount Union.

Most years it's made sense to move Mount 'east', since they were building a bracket around them as a 1 seed. This year, they could just as easily have kept Mt in the 'north' and sent JCU 'east.'

Agreed on Alfred and the E8 compared to OAC. If Mount makes another Stagg, it will have been an impressive string of road wins, especially if they have to win at UMHB in the semis.

Bottom line, I love that we prove all this on the field! If last Saturday in FCS taught us anything, its that these games can't be played on paper.

To be clear, I'm not one of the one that thinks there is any conspiracy (if you're yelling at me  ??? ??? ???). It shook out the way it did. The committee looked to arrange things in the best possible way and I think they did a good job

Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 13, 2016, 08:39:34 PM
Yes, Mount is in cahoots with the football gods AND the NCAA & selection committee so that even though they lost, even though they barely made the play-offs, even though they are on the road all play-off games (if they win and nothing crazy happens), they still got the "easiest bracket" because they are Mount.

It's about the most ridiculous, tired, stupid, ignorant, biased, num-nuts argument I have ever read.  Can you really believe what you are even writing?  At least all the conspiracy theorist honks got their wish.  Mount is on the road as long as they can win.  Now of course those same folks wanted them to play all three WIAC teams, and then play UHMB at their place, and then play the Stagg in Mozambique just so Mount would quit getting all that NCAA  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)bias!

Who said any of this?

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 13, 2016, 08:51:33 PM

Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 13, 2016, 08:39:34 PM
Yes, Mount is in cahoots with the football gods AND the NCAA & selection committee so that even though they lost, even though they barely made the play-offs, even though they are on the road all play-off games (if they win and nothing crazy happens), they still got the "easiest bracket" because they are Mount.

It's about the most ridiculous, tired, stupid, ignorant, biased, num-nuts argument I have ever read.  Can you really believe what you are even writing?  At least all the conspiracy theorist honks got their wish.  Mount is on the road as long as they can win.  Now of course those same folks wanted them to play all three WIAC teams, and then play UHMB at their place, and then play the Stagg in Mozambique just so Mount would quit getting all that NCAA  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)bias!

Who said any of this?

He's talking about the Linfield guys who can't believe they didn't get a home game this year while also thinking Mount Union should've been in the West Region. 

And TeamSki

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 13, 2016, 08:35:07 PM
I am glad to see the UMU bracket shape out the way that it has. It will give another picture of the "East" region, which I think is the weakest.  If Mount Union comes out of that bracket on the road, then I will judge the reason the way that I did when John Carroll came thru the region in 2002.

I have an all purple Semi-final on my challenge. (But it would not surprise me if HSU beat UMHB.)

UMHB
UMU
Tommies
UWW

Of course HSU has some purple, too--right?

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 13, 2016, 09:01:38 PM

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 13, 2016, 08:51:33 PM

Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 13, 2016, 08:39:34 PM
Yes, Mount is in cahoots with the football gods AND the NCAA & selection committee so that even though they lost, even though they barely made the play-offs, even though they are on the road all play-off games (if they win and nothing crazy happens), they still got the "easiest bracket" because they are Mount.

It's about the most ridiculous, tired, stupid, ignorant, biased, num-nuts argument I have ever read.  Can you really believe what you are even writing?  At least all the conspiracy theorist honks got their wish.  Mount is on the road as long as they can win.  Now of course those same folks wanted them to play all three WIAC teams, and then play UHMB at their place, and then play the Stagg in Mozambique just so Mount would quit getting all that NCAA  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)bias!

Who said any of this?

He's talking about the Linfield guys who can't believe they didn't get a home game this year while also thinking Mount Union should've been in the West Region. 

And TeamSki

Just to clarify--I am not one of "those Linfield guys"  :)  (but I know who you're talking about)

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 13, 2016, 09:13:29 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 13, 2016, 09:01:38 PM

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 13, 2016, 08:51:33 PM

Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 13, 2016, 08:39:34 PM
Yes, Mount is in cahoots with the football gods AND the NCAA & selection committee so that even though they lost, even though they barely made the play-offs, even though they are on the road all play-off games (if they win and nothing crazy happens), they still got the "easiest bracket" because they are Mount.

It's about the most ridiculous, tired, stupid, ignorant, biased, num-nuts argument I have ever read.  Can you really believe what you are even writing?  At least all the conspiracy theorist honks got their wish.  Mount is on the road as long as they can win.  Now of course those same folks wanted them to play all three WIAC teams, and then play UHMB at their place, and then play the Stagg in Mozambique just so Mount would quit getting all that NCAA  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)bias!

Who said any of this?

He's talking about the Linfield guys who can't believe they didn't get a home game this year while also thinking Mount Union should've been in the West Region. 

And TeamSki

Just to clarify--I am not one of "those Linfield guys"  :)  (but I know who you're talking about)

I should have said "some".  Apologies. 

A couple of your fellow fans were at it following the first set of Regional Rankings being released.

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 13, 2016, 09:27:57 PM

Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 13, 2016, 09:13:29 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 13, 2016, 09:01:38 PM

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 13, 2016, 08:51:33 PM

Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 13, 2016, 08:39:34 PM
Yes, Mount is in cahoots with the football gods AND the NCAA & selection committee so that even though they lost, even though they barely made the play-offs, even though they are on the road all play-off games (if they win and nothing crazy happens), they still got the "easiest bracket" because they are Mount.

It's about the most ridiculous, tired, stupid, ignorant, biased, num-nuts argument I have ever read.  Can you really believe what you are even writing?  At least all the conspiracy theorist honks got their wish.  Mount is on the road as long as they can win.  Now of course those same folks wanted them to play all three WIAC teams, and then play UHMB at their place, and then play the Stagg in Mozambique just so Mount would quit getting all that NCAA  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)bias!

Who said any of this?

He's talking about the Linfield guys who can't believe they didn't get a home game this year while also thinking Mount Union should've been in the West Region. 

And TeamSki

Just to clarify--I am not one of "those Linfield guys"  :)  (but I know who you're talking about)

I should have said "some".  Apologies. 

A couple of your fellow fans were at it following the first set of Regional Rankings being released.

Oh--no offense taken---but since I had been posting on this thread, I didn't want to be confused with the guys you are talking about.  That being said, I do feel that Linfield going to Texas in round 1 was a bit of a rip-off but unlike "those guys" I understand exactly why it was done---  $$$

If there are any road wins in the Alfred bracket Mount may not actually be on the road the whole playoffs.....it has happened.

Since we're all yammering about who got what and what's fair for who, I figured I would share my two cents. Everything below is based on my current ratings (http://loganahansen21.wix.com/hansen-ratings). If you don't agree with my ratings (which have been the most accurate (http://loganahansen21.wix.com/hansen-ratings/prediction-tracker) computer ratings all season long), you're not going to agree with anything below. If you want to argue, I'll usually respond though.

First, each teams odds of advancing through the tournament, based on their draw, their ratings, their likely opponents, and home-field advantage:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwTEIbb9.png%3F1&hash=ef8384a7b214c86a38f2ad407f3a597e40a6ad5d)

UMHB is the favorite, with Mount Union still having very favorable odds for being on the road (which is worth 3 points/game vs. a neutral field).

Next, each team's odds to win the championship based on a random draw, with each game assumed on a neutral field. This is basically a ranking based solely on ratings:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1a8fapS.png&hash=615aea3efb593bc173efc367cec64cbe2ef62357)

And here's how each team's draw affects their odds of advancing relative to a random draw:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbvUkldh.png&hash=155f569dfb5b8fcb758e70dfd74ce822c2cb635b)

This last one is a little more complex. It shows the strength of opponents in each teams pod (4-team grouping) and quad (8-team grouping), weighted by those teams' odds of facing the team in question. Let's use Alfred for an example. In their pod, they are definitely going to face Bridgewater State, and have about a 25% chance of facing Husson and 75% chance of facing WNE. So their pod's rating is:
50% Bridgewater State + 50% (75% WNE + 25% Husson)
Here are the results:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPDtYroK.png&hash=2d72270c277c8e2bfd4cf3974b149af5cd0282a7)

To add to the cacophony surrounding Mount Union's draw, they have one of the weakest pods and the 3rd easiest path to the semifinals, even considering their status as road warriors this season.

Quote from: emma17 on November 13, 2016, 08:23:55 PM

Quote from: Teamski on November 13, 2016, 06:25:44 PM
I think Mount Union got off pretty light considering their bracket.  Too bad the Wisconsin teams were all crowded up in a single bracket, but it comes down to distance.  Would have loved to see a WIAC team go up against MU before UWW.  Interesting placement......mmmmmmmm.

-Ski

Although I don't think there is any conspiracy, I'd have to imagine Mt is feeling pretty good now.  They went from possibly being out of the tourney to being placed in a region whose highest ranked competition is #10, with no historical success in getting beyond the second round. 

Linfield, MHB, HSU, Wheaton and NCC all in one bracket?  Wow, that's a bear.

It's the "rematch" bracket. If the top seeds win it will be rematch city.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 13, 2016, 10:37:52 PM
Since we're all yammering about who got what and what's fair for who, I figured I would share my two cents. Everything below is based on my current ratings (http://loganahansen21.wix.com/hansen-ratings). If you don't agree with my ratings (which have been the most accurate (http://loganahansen21.wix.com/hansen-ratings/prediction-tracker) computer ratings all season long), you're not going to agree with anything below. If you want to argue, I'll usually respond though.

First, each teams odds of advancing through the tournament, based on their draw, their ratings, their likely opponents, and home-field advantage:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwTEIbb9.png%3F1&hash=ef8384a7b214c86a38f2ad407f3a597e40a6ad5d)

UMHB is the favorite, with Mount Union still having very favorable odds for being on the road (which is worth 3 points/game vs. a neutral field).

Next, each team's odds to win the championship based on a random draw, with each game assumed on a neutral field. This is basically a ranking based solely on ratings:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1a8fapS.png&hash=615aea3efb593bc173efc367cec64cbe2ef62357)

And here's how each team's draw affects their odds of advancing relative to a random draw:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbvUkldh.png&hash=155f569dfb5b8fcb758e70dfd74ce822c2cb635b)

This last one is a little more complex. It shows the strength of opponents in each teams pod (4-team grouping) and quad (8-team grouping), weighted by those teams' odds of facing the team in question. Let's use Alfred for an example. In their pod, they are definitely going to face Bridgewater State, and have about a 25% chance of facing Husson and 75% chance of facing WNE. So their pod's rating is:
50% Bridgewater State + 50% (75% WNE + 25% Husson)
Here are the results:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPDtYroK.png&hash=2d72270c277c8e2bfd4cf3974b149af5cd0282a7)

To add to the cacophony surrounding Mount Union's draw, they have one of the weakest pods and the 3rd easiest path to the semifinals, even considering their status as road warriors this season.

Logan, awesome sauce! Big fan of your work.

SJU and to a slightly less degree UWP got absolutely shafted IMO. The winner of that game will have to (most likely) win @ UWO, then @ UST, then @ UWW... just to make the Stagg. That's insane.

That "East" bracket is disappointing. Alfred getting a #1 seed. UMU was "punished" for losing a game by getting pretty much the easiest road to the final 4 imaginable, despite it being done on the road.

It's hard to make an argument that UWP got shafted when they were pretty fortunate to get into the field with 2 losses. On the contrary I think they probably feel pretty fortunate to be strapping on the pads this week against anybody.

Quote from: USee on November 14, 2016, 10:51:10 AM
It's hard to make an argument that UWP got shafted when they were pretty fortunate to get into the field with 2 losses. On the contrary I think they probably feel pretty fortunate to be strapping on the pads this week against anybody.

True. Yes, they were the last pool C in, doesn't necessarily mean you deserve the short straw. Once you're in, you're in. They are still ranked #12 (HansenRating of #5). They have a 1st round game @ #9 SJU (Hansen #7), 2nd round @ #4 UWO (Hansen #4), quarterfinals @ #3 UST (Hansen #3), semis @ #2 UWW (Hansen #6)... then possibly #1 UMHB (Hansen #1) in the Stagg. That's pretty much the toughest road imaginable. That's just from 8-2 UWP's perspective. For a 2nd place 9-1, MIAC team to have the same road, again... you can't draw it up much worse than that...

Quote from: thunderdog on November 14, 2016, 11:14:06 AM

Quote from: USee on November 14, 2016, 10:51:10 AM
It's hard to make an argument that UWP got shafted when they were pretty fortunate to get into the field with 2 losses. On the contrary I think they probably feel pretty fortunate to be strapping on the pads this week against anybody.

True. Yes, they were the last pool C in, doesn't necessarily mean you deserve the short straw. Once you're in, you're in. They are still ranked #12 (HansenRating of #5). They have a 1st round game @ #9 SJU (Hansen #7), 2nd round @ #4 UWO (Hansen #4), quarterfinals @ #3 UST (Hansen #3), semis @ #2 UWW (Hansen #6)... then possibly #1 UMHB (Hansen #1) in the Stagg. That's pretty much the toughest road imaginable. That's just from 8-2 UWP's perspective. For a 2nd place 9-1, MIAC team to have the same road, again... you can't draw it up much worse than that...

At least you can say there's a logical progression there since they're not playing UMHB or UWW in the first two rounds.

I follow very little D3 football but I do follow the NCAA and their treatment of teams in some D3 sports when it comes to seeding and brackets.  Seems odd (to me) that UMHB and HSU, 2 teams from same conference, could match up in a second round game but Mount Union and team that beat them in conference are in opposite sides of the bracket.

Is that the norm in D3 football?

Welcome to life on the islands...its normal for the Texas schools to play in the first round.

Quote from: thunderdog on November 14, 2016, 11:14:06 AM

Quote from: USee on November 14, 2016, 10:51:10 AM
It's hard to make an argument that UWP got shafted when they were pretty fortunate to get into the field with 2 losses. On the contrary I think they probably feel pretty fortunate to be strapping on the pads this week against anybody.

True. Yes, they were the last pool C in, doesn't necessarily mean you deserve the short straw. Once you're in, you're in. They are still ranked #12 (HansenRating of #5). They have a 1st round game @ #9 SJU (Hansen #7), 2nd round @ #4 UWO (Hansen #4), quarterfinals @ #3 UST (Hansen #3), semis @ #2 UWW (Hansen #6)... then possibly #1 UMHB (Hansen #1) in the Stagg. That's pretty much the toughest road imaginable. That's just from 8-2 UWP's perspective. For a 2nd place 9-1, MIAC team to have the same road, again... you can't draw it up much worse than that...

Well, there's geography, and...geography.

Last in can't complain. Gotta win 'em all anyway.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 13, 2016, 10:37:52 PM
Since we're all yammering about who got what and what's fair for who, I figured I would share my two cents. Everything below is based on my current ratings (http://loganahansen21.wix.com/hansen-ratings). If you don't agree with my ratings (which have been the most accurate (http://loganahansen21.wix.com/hansen-ratings/prediction-tracker) computer ratings all season long), you're not going to agree with anything below. If you want to argue, I'll usually respond though.

First, this is outstanding stuff. Thanks for putting this together for d3football!

One thing that makes me a little leary of the system. Bethel is really high (according to your metric, we may be the best 5-5 team ever  :o ::)). For people who've followed them, this team was a few plays and turnovers away from a very different year, but you are what your record says you are. My biggest question is how we're ranked ahead of both Carthage and Dubuque, two teams that beat us and have substantially better records??

Recency matters. Bethel has been playing better at the end of the season, and those teams have been playing worse. That's also why UWP & UWO are rated ahead of UWW right now. they're hot, and UWW seems to be dealing with some injuries.
Bethel isn't even close to being the best 5-5 team ever. There was a UWL team that only won 2 DIII games in the early '00s that finished in the Top 25.

Quote from: justafan12 on November 14, 2016, 11:36:03 AM
I follow very little D3 football but I do follow the NCAA and their treatment of teams in some D3 sports when it comes to seeding and brackets.  Seems odd (to me) that UMHB and HSU, 2 teams from same conference, could match up in a second round game but Mount Union and team that beat them in conference are in opposite sides of the bracket.

Is that the norm in D3 football?

Yes, this is the norm.

It's entirely driven by travel costs.

Teams in Ohio are pretty much smack in the middle of D3 Central and have a ton of viable travel partners.  They can be slotted into brackets just about anywhere.

Texas teams are out on an island and basically have to be paired against one another or other flight-requiring teams early on.

As the Texas guys will tell you, in years when two Texas teams make the dance they usually end up playing in the first round.  Getting to play in the second round this year (if both should win their openers) is an improvement.

+1! Ex TP.
This is a fair bracket for us. We can see how well the East teams, Alford & Hobart and Wesley/Stevenson will do when going out of region.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 14, 2016, 12:50:09 PM
Recency matters. Bethel has been playing better at the end of the season, and those teams have been playing worse. That's also why UWP & UWO are rated ahead of UWW right now. they're hot, and UWW seems to be dealing with some injuries.
Bethel isn't even close to being the best 5-5 team ever. There was a UWL team that only won 2 DIII games in the early '00s that finished in the Top 25.

Carthage isn't playing worse...they played IWU and NCC at the end of the season. That's not worse, that's just scheduling.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 14, 2016, 01:22:55 PM
+1! Ex TP.
This is a fair bracket for us. We can see how well the East teams, Alford & Hobart and Wesley/Stevenson will do when going out of region.

Ralph, you are well aware that Wesley, of the teams you mentioned has fared as well as anyone else not named Mount or UWW when out of region.

Quote from: USee on November 14, 2016, 01:42:06 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 14, 2016, 12:50:09 PM
Recency matters. Bethel has been playing better at the end of the season, and those teams have been playing worse. That's also why UWP & UWO are rated ahead of UWW right now. they're hot, and UWW seems to be dealing with some injuries.
Bethel isn't even close to being the best 5-5 team ever. There was a UWL team that only won 2 DIII games in the early '00s that finished in the Top 25.

Carthage isn't playing worse...they played IWU and NCC at the end of the season. That's not worse, that's just scheduling.

They're playing (ever so slightly) worse than my model expected them to play*
They've gone from about #25 to #30 in the last few weeks, while Bethel has done about the opposite.

Yes Wesleydad. Elsewhere I have commented about how losing the "ACFC" schools has weakened the South.
It appears that Wesley is down this year. My impression of Wesley is that they have had ASC quality speed, so as to neutralize a Mississippi College or UHMB!
I am looking forward to the next 5 years of Wesley/FSU/Salisbury in the East Region.
:-)

I've seen a number of comments that UMU is (despite being on the road) getting an unfairly easy trip to the semis.  While I agree that the ER teams are generally not as strong as the NR or WR, I'm not entirely sure that that is true this year.  Barring a huge upset, Alfred has a very clear path to the third round (their first and second round opponents are almost certainly the bottom three seeds in that region), but UMU's path is MUCH tougher.  A win by Hobart on Saturday would not surprise me a bit (Hobart's greatest strength in passing; UMU's greatest weakness seems to be pass defense).  If the Raiders do survive round one, they then play AT (10-0) Johns Hopkins; if they survive that they play AT (10-0) Alfred.  To call that an EASY road to the semis is IMO showing both ignorance of and contempt for the top ER teams this year.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
I've seen a number of comments that UMU is (despite being on the road) getting an unfairly easy trip to the semis.  While I agree that the ER teams are generally not as strong as the NR or WR, I'm not entirely sure that that is true this year.  Barring a huge upset, Alfred has a very clear path to the third round (their first and second round opponents are almost certainly the bottom three seeds in that region), but UMU's path is MUCH tougher.  A win by Hobart on Saturday would not surprise me a bit (Hobart's greatest strength in passing; UMU's greatest weakness seems to be pass defense).  If the Raiders do survive round one, they then play AT (10-0) Johns Hopkins; if they survive that they play AT (10-0) Alfred.  To call that an EASY road to the semis is IMO showing both ignorance of and contempt for the top ER teams this year.

But that's just it, Alfred and the other top seeds should have an easier road whereas this year Mount Union shouldn't. I won't downplay the level of play in the East but its hard not to comment that Mount Union will not have to face a traditional power (or anyone ranked higher than #10) before the semifinals. Yes they will be on the road but they will be facing teams that the other purple powers would much rather be facing to some extent.

Quote from: crufootball on November 14, 2016, 10:09:35 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
I've seen a number of comments that UMU is (despite being on the road) getting an unfairly easy trip to the semis.  While I agree that the ER teams are generally not as strong as the NR or WR, I'm not entirely sure that that is true this year.  Barring a huge upset, Alfred has a very clear path to the third round (their first and second round opponents are almost certainly the bottom three seeds in that region), but UMU's path is MUCH tougher.  A win by Hobart on Saturday would not surprise me a bit (Hobart's greatest strength in passing; UMU's greatest weakness seems to be pass defense).  If the Raiders do survive round one, they then play AT (10-0) Johns Hopkins; if they survive that they play AT (10-0) Alfred.  To call that an EASY road to the semis is IMO showing both ignorance of and contempt for the top ER teams this year.

But that's just it, Alfred and the other top seeds should have an easier road whereas this year Mount Union shouldn't. I won't downplay the level of play in the East but its hard not to comment that Mount Union will not have to face a traditional power (or anyone ranked higher than #10) before the semifinals. Yes they will be on the road but they will be facing teams that the other purple powers would much rather be facing to some extent.

Agreed cru. For a 4 seed (or ANYONE) to make the final four without having the possibility of facing a Top 10 team (JHU is #8 in the coach's polls, but ~90% of computer models have none of their opponents in the Top 10), is an unbelievably easy path to the semifinals.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
I've seen a number of comments that UMU is (despite being on the road) getting an unfairly easy trip to the semis.  While I agree that the ER teams are generally not as strong as the NR or WR, I'm not entirely sure that that is true this year.  Barring a huge upset, Alfred has a very clear path to the third round (their first and second round opponents are almost certainly the bottom three seeds in that region), but UMU's path is MUCH tougher.  A win by Hobart on Saturday would not surprise me a bit (Hobart's greatest strength in passing; UMU's greatest weakness seems to be pass defense).  If the Raiders do survive round one, they then play AT (10-0) Johns Hopkins; if they survive that they play AT (10-0) Alfred.  To call that an EASY road to the semis is IMO showing both ignorance of and contempt for the top ER teams this year.

Ignorance and contempt?  Come on man. Every 8 team bracket except the one Mt is in has at least one D3 top 5 team.
It's not contempt (nor disrespectful) to discuss the facts.  Sure it's possible that a team or two from this region will surprise, but it will be a surprise.

Darn that geography!

The E8 and NJAC look to be stronger than the OAC this year.

The issue is the legacy of the East, at times, and that also affects voting in polls. Familiar teams are ranked higher if kinda equal. We all need to clean our caches and let this playoff season unfold without dwelling on five years ago...

Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2016, 11:10:12 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
I've seen a number of comments that UMU is (despite being on the road) getting an unfairly easy trip to the semis.  While I agree that the ER teams are generally not as strong as the NR or WR, I'm not entirely sure that that is true this year.  Barring a huge upset, Alfred has a very clear path to the third round (their first and second round opponents are almost certainly the bottom three seeds in that region), but UMU's path is MUCH tougher.  A win by Hobart on Saturday would not surprise me a bit (Hobart's greatest strength in passing; UMU's greatest weakness seems to be pass defense).  If the Raiders do survive round one, they then play AT (10-0) Johns Hopkins; if they survive that they play AT (10-0) Alfred.  To call that an EASY road to the semis is IMO showing both ignorance of and contempt for the top ER teams this year.

Ignorance and contempt?  Come on man. Every 8 team bracket except the one Mt is in has at least one D3 top 5 team.
It's not contempt (nor disrespectful) to discuss the facts.  Sure it's possible that a team or two from this region will surprise, but it will be a surprise.

It won't be a surprise to me.  I'm reasonably confident that UMU will NOT make the semis this year.  I think it is almost 50-50 that they will not make it to round two.  Hobart's passing game is damned good; UMU's pass defense is highly questionable.

IF Hobart can get past the 'oh, s***' reaction to the name on UMU's unis, I think they should be a slight favorite in the game.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2016, 01:12:26 AM

Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2016, 11:10:12 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
I've seen a number of comments that UMU is (despite being on the road) getting an unfairly easy trip to the semis.  While I agree that the ER teams are generally not as strong as the NR or WR, I'm not entirely sure that that is true this year.  Barring a huge upset, Alfred has a very clear path to the third round (their first and second round opponents are almost certainly the bottom three seeds in that region), but UMU's path is MUCH tougher.  A win by Hobart on Saturday would not surprise me a bit (Hobart's greatest strength in passing; UMU's greatest weakness seems to be pass defense).  If the Raiders do survive round one, they then play AT (10-0) Johns Hopkins; if they survive that they play AT (10-0) Alfred.  To call that an EASY road to the semis is IMO showing both ignorance of and contempt for the top ER teams this year.

Ignorance and contempt?  Come on man. Every 8 team bracket except the one Mt is in has at least one D3 top 5 team.
It's not contempt (nor disrespectful) to discuss the facts.  Sure it's possible that a team or two from this region will surprise, but it will be a surprise.

It won't be a surprise to me.  I'm reasonably confident that UMU will NOT make the semis this year.  I think it is almost 50-50 that they will not make it to round two.  Hobart's passing game is damned good; UMU's pass defense is highly questionable.

IF Hobart can get past the 'oh, s***' reaction to the name on UMU's unis, I think they should be a slight favorite in the game.

I don't feel like the game is a gimme, but it IS Mount Union.  They are still REALLY good, if just a little bit off by their own standards.  Mount is going to make a run at some point.  It will be very interesting to see how that is handled.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2016, 01:12:26 AM
IF Hobart can get past the 'oh, s***' reaction to the name on UMU's unis, I think they should be a slight favorite in the game.

In the LL, that's an "Oh, dlip!" reaction!

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 15, 2016, 07:38:32 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2016, 01:12:26 AM
IF Hobart can get past the 'oh, s***' reaction to the name on UMU's unis, I think they should be a slight favorite in the game.

In the LL, that's an "Oh, dlip!" reaction!

Massey has Mount as 20 point favorites.  Of course they were 10 point favorites against John Carroll too.  In a tourney without many upsets, a Hobart win would be a massive upset.

Quote from: AUKaz00 on November 15, 2016, 07:38:32 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2016, 01:12:26 AM
IF Hobart can get past the 'oh, s***' reaction to the name on UMU's unis, I think they should be a slight favorite in the game.

In the LL, that's an "Oh, dlip!" reaction!

     :D  +k

This year, UMU and St John's have very similar seasons. Look at who each team has to go through to make the Final game.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 15, 2016, 01:12:26 AM

Quote from: emma17 on November 14, 2016, 11:10:12 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 14, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
I've seen a number of comments that UMU is (despite being on the road) getting an unfairly easy trip to the semis.  While I agree that the ER teams are generally not as strong as the NR or WR, I'm not entirely sure that that is true this year.  Barring a huge upset, Alfred has a very clear path to the third round (their first and second round opponents are almost certainly the bottom three seeds in that region), but UMU's path is MUCH tougher.  A win by Hobart on Saturday would not surprise me a bit (Hobart's greatest strength in passing; UMU's greatest weakness seems to be pass defense).  If the Raiders do survive round one, they then play AT (10-0) Johns Hopkins; if they survive that they play AT (10-0) Alfred.  To call that an EASY road to the semis is IMO showing both ignorance of and contempt for the top ER teams this year.

Ignorance and contempt?  Come on man. Every 8 team bracket except the one Mt is in has at least one D3 top 5 team.
It's not contempt (nor disrespectful) to discuss the facts.  Sure it's possible that a team or two from this region will surprise, but it will be a surprise.

It won't be a surprise to me.  I'm reasonably confident that UMU will NOT make the semis this year.  I think it is almost 50-50 that they will not make it to round two.  Hobart's passing game is damned good; UMU's pass defense is highly questionable.

IF Hobart can get past the 'oh, s***' reaction to the name on UMU's unis, I think they should be a slight favorite in the game.

Ok, I am calling BS on this. While I think Hobart is a fine team and Mt Union isn't as good as 2015, the rumors of the Purple Raider demise are greatly exaggerated. Specifically, Ypsi, I will take the points and the Purple Raiders for every last nickel you can muster. You think this is a pickem? That's insane.

Hobart's biggest issue is going to be the Raiders speed. The Statesmen can pass but they don't run the ball well and may struggle if the Raiders have cover corners that take Shed out of the game.

On defense, the Hobart ILBs are not very fast which I'm sure is something Coach Kehres will look to exploit. Hobart has also struggled at times stopping the run, especially if the offense stalls and they end up on the field for 35+ mins which has happened a lot this season (hence the close calls at the end of games). I will say Hobart's D has improved in recent weeks and Jemison is a player Mount will need to account for on every play. The other OLB Harper is under-rated and has made some key INTs at big moments this season.

Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Do you have any data to show the accuracy of your point spreads?

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Hansen, your data are tri modal!
That is interesting.

Quote from: crufootball on November 15, 2016, 12:27:51 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Do you have any data to show the accuracy of your point spreads?

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.pandawhale.com%2F165446-sixty-percent-of-the-time-it-w-eO7o.gif&hash=f4e70d860eda21370eb8bc7b8206ffc1b26a551d)

Quote from: crufootball on November 15, 2016, 12:27:51 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Do you have any data to show the accuracy of your point spreads?

Yes, it includes every computer ratings system that does DIII.

Click here (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/prediction-tracker)

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Darn that geography!

The E8 and NJAC look to be stronger than the OAC this year.

The issue is the legacy of the East, at times, and that also affects voting in polls. Familiar teams are ranked higher if kinda equal. We all need to clean our caches and let this playoff season unfold without dwelling on five years ago...

Not complaining. Not disrespecting. Not ignoring recent history of all teams in the bracket.
It's just the facts.

I actually hope that the East teams do better than expected as it's good for D3 football.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 01:56:43 PM

Quote from: crufootball on November 15, 2016, 12:27:51 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Do you have any data to show the accuracy of your point spreads?

Yes, it includes every computer ratings system that does DIII.

Click here (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/prediction-tracker)

So am I reading it right that on average your spread is off by 12.132?

Quote from: emma17 on November 15, 2016, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Darn that geography!

The E8 and NJAC look to be stronger than the OAC this year.

The issue is the legacy of the East, at times, and that also affects voting in polls. Familiar teams are ranked higher if kinda equal. We all need to clean our caches and let this playoff season unfold without dwelling on five years ago...

Not complaining. Not disrespecting. Not ignoring recent history of all teams in the bracket.
It's just the facts.

I actually hope that the East teams do better than expected as it's good for D3 football.

Remember, past results do not guarantee future performance.
"Now you tell us," said Albion.

Quote from: crufootball on November 15, 2016, 02:35:44 PM
So am I reading it right that on average your spread is off by 12.132?

Yessir. ThePredictionTracker (http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?orderby=absdev&type=1&year=16) shows how most prediction models do for DI, and DIII is slightly easier to predict, but Atomic Football is pretty consistently one of the best for DI, and I was better than them for most of the season. We've been relatively equal over the latter half of the season. I did much better in the first half of the season though, probably because I account for number of returning starters and they don't.

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 02:48:48 PM
Remember, past results do not guarantee future performance.
"Now you tell us," said Albion.

+K... My model kept holding out hope they would turn it around, due to a lot of close losses, but I was proven wrong repeatedly.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

0.3 percent? So what you're saying is there's a chance! ;D

Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on November 15, 2016, 03:29:14 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

0.3 percent? So what you're saying is there's a chance! ;D

LOL!!!!!!

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 02:48:48 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 15, 2016, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Darn that geography!

The E8 and NJAC look to be stronger than the OAC this year.

The issue is the legacy of the East, at times, and that also affects voting in polls. Familiar teams are ranked higher if kinda equal. We all need to clean our caches and let this playoff season unfold without dwelling on five years ago...

Not complaining. Not disrespecting. Not ignoring recent history of all teams in the bracket.
It's just the facts.

I actually hope that the East teams do better than expected as it's good for D3 football.

Remember, past results do not guarantee future performance.
"Now you tell us," said Albion.

Reminds me of the compliance statement in our marketing materials.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Monkey stomp prediction against Hobart...oh no....this is a micro aggression ...I need a safe space.......should Hobart even show up :'(? Time for a John Belushi/Animal House style inspirational speech for the team ......When the going gets tough.......

Hey, Wagner beat UConn and Yale beat U. of Washington in men's hoops, so anything is possible.

(Well, not Wilmington beating Mt. Union...at least not yet...)

Quote from: Bartman on November 15, 2016, 05:02:39 PM
Monkey stomp prediction against Hobart...oh no....this is a micro aggression ...I need a safe space.......should Hobart even show up :'(? Time for a John Belushi/Animal House style inspirational speech for the team ......When the going gets tough.......

I feel like most monkey stomps fall into the macro-aggression category, but I would still recommend Hobart participating in this game.

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 05:25:01 PM
Hey, Wagner beat UConn and Yale beat U. of Washington in men's hoops, so anything is possible.

(Well, not Wilmington beating Mt. Union...at least not yet...)

Yale beating Washington, while an upset, is not that unexpected for teams ranked within 30 places on KenPom.

Quote from: Bartman on November 15, 2016, 05:02:39 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 15, 2016, 12:01:46 PM
Here's how my model (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/game-predictions) views the first round of games. I think the games really fall into three categories:
1. Is this really a first round game? (SJU/UWP & HSU/Linfield)
2. This should be a pretty good game. (Wheaton/Huntingdon to Wesley/Stevenson)
3. Monkey stomp.  (Hobart/UMU & below)

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIOpd5PX.png&hash=0d2d6d108dd5c21a852136857bc370ace9a9670c)

Monkey stomp prediction against Hobart...oh no....this is a micro aggression ...I need a safe space.......should Hobart even show up :'(? Time for a John Belushi/Animal House style inspirational speech for the team ......When the going gets tough.......

I will take Bart plus 32 in this one.  I was also surprised to see that Linfield trends favorite over HSU. 

Quote from: USee on November 15, 2016, 05:54:59 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 05:25:01 PM
Hey, Wagner beat UConn and Yale beat U. of Washington in men's hoops, so anything is possible.

(Well, not Wilmington beating Mt. Union...at least not yet...)

Yale beating Washington, while an upset, is not that unexpected for teams ranked within 30 places on KenPom.

It's more for the uninformed masses than anyone...that and this was supposed to be THE year for U-Dub. ^*

*Said every year since Detlef Schrempf and Christian Welp were on the scene.

Careful, you are aging yourself with those references.

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 02:48:48 PM

Quote from: emma17 on November 15, 2016, 02:09:37 PM

Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Darn that geography!

The E8 and NJAC look to be stronger than the OAC this year.

The issue is the legacy of the East, at times, and that also affects voting in polls. Familiar teams are ranked higher if kinda equal. We all need to clean our caches and let this playoff season unfold without dwelling on five years ago...

Not complaining. Not disrespecting. Not ignoring recent history of all teams in the bracket.
It's just the facts.

I actually hope that the East teams do better than expected as it's good for D3 football.

Remember, past results do not guarantee future performance.
"Now you tell us," said Albion.

There sure aren't any guarantees. But there are some good bets when these teams are in the playoff field.
Mt Union
UWW
Linfield
UMHB
St. Thomas
Wesley
UWO
NCC

Added some Advanced Stat Profiles (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/single-post/2016/11/16/Playoff-Team-Advanced-Stat-Profiles) for each playoff team on my site. Breaks down teams by scoring O/D, and rushing/passing O/D. If you venture over to the MIAC page (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4550.msg1770174#msg1770174), you can see an example of the breakdown I did between SJU/UWP.

Nice work ,  thanks for all the numbers. :-*

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 14, 2016, 01:07:54 PM

Quote from: justafan12 on November 14, 2016, 11:36:03 AM
I follow very little D3 football but I do follow the NCAA and their treatment of teams in some D3 sports when it comes to seeding and brackets.  Seems odd (to me) that UMHB and HSU, 2 teams from same conference, could match up in a second round game but Mount Union and team that beat them in conference are in opposite sides of the bracket.

Is that the norm in D3 football?

Yes, this is the norm.

It's entirely driven by travel costs.

Teams in Ohio are pretty much smack in the middle of D3 Central and have a ton of viable travel partners.  They can be slotted into brackets just about anywhere.

Texas teams are out on an island and basically have to be paired against one another or other flight-requiring teams early on.

As the Texas guys will tell you, in years when two Texas teams make the dance they usually end up playing in the first round.  Getting to play in the second round this year (if both should win their openers) is an improvement.

Okay, that is what I thought.  I have seen this in other sports; $$ being the issue here by the NCAA and personally think it is a bunch of horse hockey.  They have the money to put on a legit bracket; one that is determined by the record and on the field performance NOT by your zip code.  I am sure it has been like this for years and will continue to be but it just is not right.  You would NEVER see geographical bracketing in any D1 sport so why in D2 and D3?  I don't think the NCAA is running short of cash.

To their defense, if they do it for D3 and D2 football and basketball they have to do it for all sports, all championships, all divisions.

That's a small solace, but they seem to run each division as it's own entity, budget wise. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels that way.

Thus, we have ridiculous roster limits (Maybe up it to a normal travel squad?) and islands that seemingly can't escape playing each other in the first or second round.

They should do it for all sports in all divisions.  I believe they do treat each division as its on budget.  You would think D3 would have the biggest budget as it has the most teams but there is no TV revenue $$$ that gets thrown in for D1 so they do it all based on zip code. I have seen #1 vs. #2 in first round matchups in other D3 sports. In D3 volleyball just last week, one of the regionals had 4 of the top 6 teams in it.  You would think NCAA would want those type of match up later in the playoffs but I honestly think they don't care. 

Quote from: justafan12 on November 16, 2016, 02:17:50 PM
They should do it for all sports in all divisions.  I believe they do treat each division as its on budget.  You would think D3 would have the biggest budget as it has the most teams but there is no TV revenue $$$ that gets thrown in for D1 so they do it all based on zip code. I have seen #1 vs. #2 in first round matchups in other D3 sports. In D3 volleyball just last week, one of the regionals had 4 of the top 6 teams in it.  You would think NCAA would want those type of match up later in the playoffs but I honestly think they don't care.

D-III gets just 3.18% of the total NCAA budget, and better yet, this number is defined in the NCAA constitution. There's no easy way to change it, as all NCAA member institutions would get a vote.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2016, 04:26:22 PM

Quote from: justafan12 on November 16, 2016, 02:17:50 PM
They should do it for all sports in all divisions.  I believe they do treat each division as its on budget.  You would think D3 would have the biggest budget as it has the most teams but there is no TV revenue $$$ that gets thrown in for D1 so they do it all based on zip code. I have seen #1 vs. #2 in first round matchups in other D3 sports. In D3 volleyball just last week, one of the regionals had 4 of the top 6 teams in it.  You would think NCAA would want those type of match up later in the playoffs but I honestly think they don't care.

D-III gets just 3.18% of the total NCAA budget, and better yet, this number is defined in the NCAA constitution. There's no easy way to change it, as all NCAA member institutions would get a vote.

What % needs to pass it? I know there's at least 351 DI basketball-playing schools, but between DII (which also holds highly-regionalized playoffs) and DIII, there should be close to 2/3 of NCAA institutions in the lower divisions.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 16, 2016, 04:30:06 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2016, 04:26:22 PM

Quote from: justafan12 on November 16, 2016, 02:17:50 PM
They should do it for all sports in all divisions.  I believe they do treat each division as its on budget.  You would think D3 would have the biggest budget as it has the most teams but there is no TV revenue $$$ that gets thrown in for D1 so they do it all based on zip code. I have seen #1 vs. #2 in first round matchups in other D3 sports. In D3 volleyball just last week, one of the regionals had 4 of the top 6 teams in it.  You would think NCAA would want those type of match up later in the playoffs but I honestly think they don't care.

D-III gets just 3.18% of the total NCAA budget, and better yet, this number is defined in the NCAA constitution. There's no easy way to change it, as all NCAA member institutions would get a vote.

What % needs to pass it? I know there's at least 351 DI basketball-playing schools, but between DII (which also holds highly-regionalized playoffs) and DIII, there should be close to 2/3 of NCAA institutions in the lower divisions.

We're getting out of my wheelhouse here but I thought I read at the time where we were discussing adding a new division that all divisions would have to pass anything that impacts all of them. But no idea by what percentage.

I'm sure it's set up that D-II and D-III could not band together to take money from D-I without its consent.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 16, 2016, 04:30:06 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2016, 04:26:22 PM

Quote from: justafan12 on November 16, 2016, 02:17:50 PM
They should do it for all sports in all divisions.  I believe they do treat each division as its on budget.  You would think D3 would have the biggest budget as it has the most teams but there is no TV revenue $$$ that gets thrown in for D1 so they do it all based on zip code. I have seen #1 vs. #2 in first round matchups in other D3 sports. In D3 volleyball just last week, one of the regionals had 4 of the top 6 teams in it.  You would think NCAA would want those type of match up later in the playoffs but I honestly think they don't care.

D-III gets just 3.18% of the total NCAA budget, and better yet, this number is defined in the NCAA constitution. There's no easy way to change it, as all NCAA member institutions would get a vote.

What % needs to pass it? I know there's at least 351 DI basketball-playing schools, but between DII (which also holds highly-regionalized playoffs) and DIII, there should be close to 2/3 of NCAA institutions in the lower divisions.

D-I FCS also has highly regionalized playoffs.  A few years ago Maine lost to New Hampshire on the last weekend of the regular season, still got a bye, and hosted New Hampshire in the second round of the playoffs (and promptly lost again).  The Dakota based teams (North Dakota State, South Dakota State, etc.) play annual playoff games against each other.  It's a source of major consternation for fans of that division.

I don't know how many votes D-II, D-III AND D-I FCS can band together and get, but it seems like a lot.

Quote from: ccd494 on November 17, 2016, 10:20:03 AM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 16, 2016, 04:30:06 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 16, 2016, 04:26:22 PM

Quote from: justafan12 on November 16, 2016, 02:17:50 PM
They should do it for all sports in all divisions.  I believe they do treat each division as its on budget.  You would think D3 would have the biggest budget as it has the most teams but there is no TV revenue $$$ that gets thrown in for D1 so they do it all based on zip code. I have seen #1 vs. #2 in first round matchups in other D3 sports. In D3 volleyball just last week, one of the regionals had 4 of the top 6 teams in it.  You would think NCAA would want those type of match up later in the playoffs but I honestly think they don't care.

D-III gets just 3.18% of the total NCAA budget, and better yet, this number is defined in the NCAA constitution. There's no easy way to change it, as all NCAA member institutions would get a vote.

What % needs to pass it? I know there's at least 351 DI basketball-playing schools, but between DII (which also holds highly-regionalized playoffs) and DIII, there should be close to 2/3 of NCAA institutions in the lower divisions.

D-I FCS also has highly regionalized playoffs.  A few years ago Maine lost to New Hampshire on the last weekend of the regular season, still got a bye, and hosted New Hampshire in the second round of the playoffs (and promptly lost again).  The Dakota based teams (North Dakota State, South Dakota State, etc.) play annual playoff games against each other.  It's a source of major consternation for fans of that division.

I don't know how many votes D-II, D-III AND D-I FCS can band together and get, but it seems like a lot.

I presume it's a tricameral voting process, requiring a majority (or super-majority) within each division to affect fiscal change of this nature.  So, while D3 and D2 would likely vote for more funding (from D1 football and basketball), there probably aren't enough votes within D1 to make that happen.

You know you have a weak bracket when.....wait for it...... the top seed barely survives an OT loss over the bottom seed.  Wow..... :-\

-Ski

Johns Hopkins probably is the better team in that bracket anyway. That's also a bracket where the #8 is closer to the #1 than anyone.

Bridgewater's probably stronger than people give them credit for. The New England area is usually denigrated, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly.

You could say the same about UMHB, because they let Redlands hang around way too long.

Smedindy, I please give me your prediction of UMU vs JHU.

Thanks

(I picked UMU to move on from this quadrant.)

JHU 28-MUC 21.  I was totally unimpressed by this MUC team today.  They punched one in late (2mjn left of a late INT) but when's the last time a MUC team "needed" to kick a 33 yard FG to feel good well into the 4th against a mediocre Liberty League team (and this Hobart team deserves a top 25 ranking but is inferior to the 2011-2014 vintages without a doubt).  MUC is well coached, disciplined and will execute but from a talent perspective I was disappointed by them today.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 19, 2016, 07:13:44 PM
Smedindy, I please give me your prediction of UMU vs JHU.

Thanks

(I picked UMU to move on from this quadrant.)

35-30 JHU

We recap the playoffs after a lot of Hobart vs. UMU talk in our ERR segment, starting around the 37 min mark of our season finale:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2016/11/21/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show

Updated Championship Odds

(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/21a7bc_30971106d4914e7da55a54c5c0e2c544~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_635,h_686,al_c,q_85/21a7bc_30971106d4914e7da55a54c5c0e2c544~mv2.webp)

Cool stuff as always, Hansen.

Just for convenience...the second-round games ranked in descending order of how-strong-the-odds-on-favorite-are:

UWW 93.7% vs  Wittenberg
Alfred 92.4% vs. Western New England*
UST 90.4% vs. Coe
UMHB 85.1% vs. Linfield
Mount Union 84.8% vs. Johns Hopkins
John Carroll 81.0% vs. Wesley
North Central 80.3% vs. Wheaton**
UW-Oshkosh 65.9% vs. St. John's***

*I completely see why your model would have Alfred as a heavy favorite - the Empire 8 is traditionally a strong league and the NEFC is obviously not, so Alfred's body of work is more impressive than WNE's - but this is a game where I think we, the people, would say that the computer might not totally match the eye test.  For one, although teams change over the course of the season, WNE just notched a 17-point win over a Husson team that Alfred beat by a touchdown in the opener.  For two, Alfred just barely survived a Bridgewater State team that hails from a MASCAC that's probably of similarish strength (can your computer model tell us about this, too?) to the NEFC.  Alfred is the favorite, sure, but of everything on the list it's also the game where I would be least surprised if the underdog won.

**I'm a little surprised at how tilted the NCC-Wheaton odds are.  Not that it's wrong, just surprised NCC is that heavy a favorite.

***I don't think anyone will be surprised that UWO-St. John's is considered the most competitive second-round matchup.

For NCC v Wheaton, I have the spread on a neutral field at NCC -3.5. So NCC -6.5 at home. These two teams are pretty even in a lot of categories.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 22, 2016, 10:03:01 AM
Cool stuff as always, Hansen.

Just for convenience...the second-round games ranked in descending order of how-strong-the-odds-on-favorite-are:

UWW 93.7% vs  Wittenberg
Alfred 92.4% vs. Western New England*
UST 90.4% vs. Coe
UMHB 85.1% vs. Linfield
Mount Union 84.8% vs. Johns Hopkins
John Carroll 81.0% vs. Wesley
North Central 80.3% vs. Wheaton**
UW-Oshkosh 65.9% vs. St. John's***

*I completely see why your model would have Alfred as a heavy favorite - the Empire 8 is traditionally a strong league and the NEFC is obviously not, so Alfred's body of work is more impressive than WNE's - but this is a game where I think we, the people, would say that the computer might not totally match the eye test.  For one, although teams change over the course of the season, WNE just notched a 17-point win over a Husson team that Alfred beat by a touchdown in the opener.  For two, Alfred just barely survived a Bridgewater State team that hails from a MASCAC that's probably of similarish strength (can your computer model tell us about this, too?) to the NEFC.  Alfred is the favorite, sure, but of everything on the list it's also the game where I would be least surprised if the underdog won.

**I'm a little surprised at how tilted the NCC-Wheaton odds are.  Not that it's wrong, just surprised NCC is that heavy a favorite.

***I don't think anyone will be surprised that UWO-St. John's is considered the most competitive second-round matchup.

I think Linfield and Wesley are undervalued. I believe both have a better chance of winning than the model gives them credit for.

Quote from: pumkinattack on November 19, 2016, 08:31:05 PM
JHU 28-MUC 21.  I was totally unimpressed by this MUC team today.  They punched one in late (2mjn left of a late INT) but when's the last time a MUC team "needed" to kick a 33 yard FG to feel good well into the 4th against a mediocre Liberty League team (and this Hobart team deserves a top 25 ranking but is inferior to the 2011-2014 vintages without a doubt).  MUC is well coached, disciplined and will execute but from a talent perspective I was disappointed by them today.

That's a very accurate assessment.  Mount is solid, a typical "good" D3 team that is capable of winning a few playoff games but no where near the pinnacle of D3 that we're used to seeing.   They're VERY inexperienced and lacking the difference makes that they've had for years.   Especially at D-line and RB.   If was a voter in the D3 top 25 I'd have them in the #12 to #15 range.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 22, 2016, 10:03:01 AM
Cool stuff as always, Hansen.

Just for convenience...the second-round games ranked in descending order of how-strong-the-odds-on-favorite-are:

UWW 93.7% vs  Wittenberg
Alfred 92.4% vs. Western New England*
UST 90.4% vs. Coe
UMHB 85.1% vs. Linfield
Mount Union 84.8% vs. Johns Hopkins
John Carroll 81.0% vs. Wesley
North Central 80.3% vs. Wheaton**
UW-Oshkosh 65.9% vs. St. John's***

*I completely see why your model would have Alfred as a heavy favorite - the Empire 8 is traditionally a strong league and the NEFC is obviously not, so Alfred's body of work is more impressive than WNE's - but this is a game where I think we, the people, would say that the computer might not totally match the eye test.  For one, although teams change over the course of the season, WNE just notched a 17-point win over a Husson team that Alfred beat by a touchdown in the opener.  For two, Alfred just barely survived a Bridgewater State team that hails from a MASCAC that's probably of similarish strength (can your computer model tell us about this, too?) to the NEFC.  Alfred is the favorite, sure, but of everything on the list it's also the game where I would be least surprised if the underdog won.

**I'm a little surprised at how tilted the NCC-Wheaton odds are.  Not that it's wrong, just surprised NCC is that heavy a favorite.

***I don't think anyone will be surprised that UWO-St. John's is considered the most competitive second-round matchup.

I am not sure that I can extrapolate your data this way, but I have a hard time imaging that UMHB would beat Linfield almost 6 times out of every 7.  I can imagine maybe 2 out of 3 (66.67%) or 6 out of 10 (60%).

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 22, 2016, 10:03:01 AM
Cool stuff as always, Hansen.

Just for convenience...the second-round games ranked in descending order of how-strong-the-odds-on-favorite-are:

UWW 93.7% vs  Wittenberg
Alfred 92.4% vs. Western New England*
UST 90.4% vs. Coe
UMHB 85.1% vs. Linfield
Mount Union 84.8% vs. Johns Hopkins
John Carroll 81.0% vs. Wesley
North Central 80.3% vs. Wheaton**
UW-Oshkosh 65.9% vs. St. John's***

*I completely see why your model would have Alfred as a heavy favorite - the Empire 8 is traditionally a strong league and the NEFC is obviously not, so Alfred's body of work is more impressive than WNE's - but this is a game where I think we, the people, would say that the computer might not totally match the eye test.  For one, although teams change over the course of the season, WNE just notched a 17-point win over a Husson team that Alfred beat by a touchdown in the opener.  For two, Alfred just barely survived a Bridgewater State team that hails from a MASCAC that's probably of similarish strength (can your computer model tell us about this, too?) to the NEFC.  Alfred is the favorite, sure, but of everything on the list it's also the game where I would be least surprised if the underdog won.

**I'm a little surprised at how tilted the NCC-Wheaton odds are.  Not that it's wrong, just surprised NCC is that heavy a favorite.

***I don't think anyone will be surprised that UWO-St. John's is considered the most competitive second-round matchup.

WNE is not being taken lightly by any means. Saxons know they were fortunate to win last week and perhaps suffered somewhat of a "letdown" after consummating an unbeaten season (first since 1981) with a solid win over their rival Cardinals. The Bridgewater game appeared to be something like "the day after Christmas."

When Coach Dave Murray was roaming the sidelines at Merrill Field (aka Yunevich Stadium), he often quipped that the AU Pep Band easily gave his team seven points every game. With students on leave for Thanksgiving break, Pep is wondering whether there will be enough members to even muster an AU Pep Band at Saterday's game. It may just be the kazoo section with a bass drum...which, Pep opines, reduces the impact of the band to perhaps three points.

Nevertheless, AU is playing football at Yunevich Stadium in Week 13. Let's go, Saxons!!

As I write this, every game is reasonably close excet St. Thomas / Coe. Not bad, really!

Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2016, 02:43:05 PM
As I write this, every game is reasonably close excet St. Thomas / Coe. Not bad, really!

Ok, not five minutes after I post that, two other games are no longer reasonably close...

Some regional final thoughts-

Wheaton @ UMHB - Really impressive stuff from Wheaton on Saturday going back to North Central and handling the Cardinals the way that they did.  Now they get to leave the long sleeves at home and head down to Texas to face the Crusaders.  Wheaton is definitely peaking, but my hunch here is that the UMHB is *that* team this year.  More than any other team left, I think UMHB is the one that has margin for error and can still win in this round and maybe the next. 

Mount Union @ Alfred - I'm not as down on Alfred as some are.  I do think Mount Union is going to win this game, but I don't think it's going to be a wipeout.  I've been reading some poo-pooing about the E8 retrospectively given Alfred's first two results and results from the ECACs.  Hogwash.  That's a really good league and you have to be really good to run it clean.  The Saxons are going to make it tough on the Raiders. 

UW-Oshkosh @ St. Thomas - Is anybody more under the radar this season than St. Thomas?  Seems like they've crushed it all year (minus the close call with Concordia-Moorhead) and nobody is really paying attention to them.  Oshkosh is no stranger to big games against top level teams.  Probably the best game of the weekend right here. 

John Carroll @ UW-Whitewater - The Streaks opened in Wisconsin and they'll be back with perhaps a little more chill in the air this time around.  JCU is obviously playing far better than they were in September, but after struggling to find points against Wesley, I'm having a hard time finding a lot of points for them this week against a stout Warhawk defense.  Moeglin is really good, but as a freshman, this is a tough, tough assignment.  I think if Whitewater finds 21+ against JCU's excellent defense, that'll be enough.  Should be a solid game for fans of tough defenses though. 

I was looking at the four remaining games coming up this weekend and noticed something a bit unusual about the teams playing - that is, all the higher seeds are undefeated and the lower seeded teams all have one loss. And, three of those losses have come at the hands of other teams still in the hunt. Oshkosh lost to Whitewater, John Carroll lost to Oshkosh and Mount Union lost to John Carroll. Wheaton's loss came to North Central, who they just defeated last week. Can we say parity at the top this year?

Art, do you follow me on twitter (https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/802630978040537089)? ;)

Here are my updated odds of advancing and winning the Stagg Bowl right now. UST's overall rating may be inflated right now after last week, because I don't discredit teams for "running up the score." What I find interesting is that UMHB's odds are actually lower right now than they were at the beginning of the tournament. Part of that is due to pretty much all of the favorites advancing so far (and thus ensuring UMHB would face quality opponents in later rounds; at the onset there was a chance some lesser teams could have advanced to the quarters/semis to face them), and part of that is UST and UWO passing them in my overall ratings.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyR4DlMUcAE-fRg.jpg)

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 28, 2016, 10:51:43 PM
Mount Union @ Alfred - I'm not as down on Alfred as some are.  I do think Mount Union is going to win this game, but I don't think it's going to be a wipeout.  I've been reading some poo-pooing about the E8 retrospectively given Alfred's first two results and results from the ECACs.  Hogwash.  That's a really good league and you have to be really good to run it clean.  The Saxons are going to make it tough on the Raiders. 

I hope you're right.

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 28, 2016, 10:51:43 PM
Some regional final thoughts-

Wheaton @ UMHB - Really impressive stuff from Wheaton on Saturday going back to North Central and handling the Cardinals the way that they did.  Now they get to leave the long sleeves at home and head down to Texas to face the Crusaders.  Wheaton is definitely peaking, but my hunch here is that the UMHB is *that* team this year.  More than any other team left, I think UMHB is the one that has margin for error and can still win in this round and maybe the next. 

Mount Union @ Alfred - I'm not as down on Alfred as some are.  I do think Mount Union is going to win this game, but I don't think it's going to be a wipeout.  I've been reading some poo-pooing about the E8 retrospectively given Alfred's first two results and results from the ECACs.  Hogwash.  That's a really good league and you have to be really good to run it clean.  The Saxons are going to make it tough on the Raiders. 

UW-Oshkosh @ St. Thomas - Is anybody more under the radar this season than St. Thomas?  Seems like they've crushed it all year (minus the close call with Concordia-Moorhead) and nobody is really paying attention to them.  Oshkosh is no stranger to big games against top level teams.  Probably the best game of the weekend right here. 

John Carroll @ UW-Whitewater - The Streaks opened in Wisconsin and they'll be back with perhaps a little more chill in the air this time around.  JCU is obviously playing far better than they were in September, but after struggling to find points against Wesley, I'm having a hard time finding a lot of points for them this week against a stout Warhawk defense.  Moeglin is really good, but as a freshman, this is a tough, tough assignment.  I think if Whitewater finds 21+ against JCU's excellent defense, that'll be enough.  Should be a solid game for fans of tough defenses though. 

As far under the radar as one of the national elites who have been ranked 4th the first 11 weeks of the season and 3rd in the final poll can be.  ;) 

Logan is 'AdjD' more a measure of defensive ability or total points allowed?

Quote from: CruGuy on November 29, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Logan is 'AdjD' more a measure of defensive ability or total points allowed?

Total points allowed, with more recent games given more weight. The efficiency stats (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/efficiency-stats) can give a better description of the defense's "quality" over the season. (if the link doesn't seem to work, hit refresh a few times)

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 01:27:00 PM

Quote from: CruGuy on November 29, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Logan is 'AdjD' more a measure of defensive ability or total points allowed?

Total points allowed, with more recent games given more weight. The efficiency stats (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/efficiency-stats) can give a better description of the defense's "quality" over the season. (if the link doesn't seem to work, hit refresh a few times)

Wow, that is fantastic work! Thank you. It appears the efficiency numbers like the UMHB defense significantly more than the AdjD would signal. 3 touchdowns allowed by offense/special teams in two weeks will do that to you.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 09:12:04 AM
Art, do you follow me on twitter (https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/802630978040537089)? ;)

Actually, no. I'm an "old school" computer guy. Living on the edge for me is installing Linux Mint on an old HP tablet that had XP on it.

Never have tweeted - I own a flip phone for a cell phone.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 01:27:00 PM

Quote from: CruGuy on November 29, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Logan is 'AdjD' more a measure of defensive ability or total points allowed?

Total points allowed, with more recent games given more weight. The efficiency stats (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/efficiency-stats) can give a better description of the defense's "quality" over the season. (if the link doesn't seem to work, hit refresh a few times)

Are you utilizing Baysian Theroem to grade your forecast results, Logan?? 

It caught my eye when you said you are weighting most recent results more heavily, like Bays pointed out.

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 30, 2016, 01:42:05 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 01:27:00 PM

Quote from: CruGuy on November 29, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Logan is 'AdjD' more a measure of defensive ability or total points allowed?

Total points allowed, with more recent games given more weight. The efficiency stats (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/efficiency-stats) can give a better description of the defense's "quality" over the season. (if the link doesn't seem to work, hit refresh a few times)

Are you utilizing Baysian Theroem to grade your forecast results, Logan?? 

It caught my eye when you said you are weighting most recent results more heavily, like Bays pointed out.

It's a Bayesian process, yes. The rushing/passing offensive/defensive yards/play numbers on the site are frequentist.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 30, 2016, 02:31:21 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on November 30, 2016, 01:42:05 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 01:27:00 PM

Quote from: CruGuy on November 29, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Logan is 'AdjD' more a measure of defensive ability or total points allowed?

Total points allowed, with more recent games given more weight. The efficiency stats (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/efficiency-stats) can give a better description of the defense's "quality" over the season. (if the link doesn't seem to work, hit refresh a few times)

Are you utilizing Baysian Theroem to grade your forecast results, Logan?? 

It caught my eye when you said you are weighting most recent results more heavily, like Bays pointed out.

It's a Bayesian process, yes. The rushing/passing offensive/defensive yards/play numbers on the site are frequentist.

Gotcha.  You even spelled his name correctly.  Just curious.  We use his work at my firm, also.

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 09:12:04 AM
Art, do you follow me on twitter (https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/802630978040537089)? ;)

Here are my updated odds of advancing and winning the Stagg Bowl right now. UST's overall rating may be inflated right now after last week, because I don't discredit teams for "running up the score." What I find interesting is that UMHB's odds are actually lower right now than they were at the beginning of the tournament. Part of that is due to pretty much all of the favorites advancing so far (and thus ensuring UMHB would face quality opponents in later rounds; at the onset there was a chance some lesser teams could have advanced to the quarters/semis to face them), and part of that is UST and UWO passing them in my overall ratings.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyR4DlMUcAE-fRg.jpg)

So Mount Union has twice as good a chance to win the Stagg Bowl as UW-W. Right. Keep tweaking, brother!  :)

I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

Which would help increase their odds down the line also.

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 01, 2016, 12:29:53 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

Which would help increase their odds down the line also.

So this Mount team has a better chance than UWW?   That's pretty funny.  I'll simply point to my tag line about statistics.   

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 30, 2016, 11:31:07 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 09:12:04 AM
Art, do you follow me on twitter (https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/802630978040537089)? ;)

Here are my updated odds of advancing and winning the Stagg Bowl right now. UST's overall rating may be inflated right now after last week, because I don't discredit teams for "running up the score." What I find interesting is that UMHB's odds are actually lower right now than they were at the beginning of the tournament. Part of that is due to pretty much all of the favorites advancing so far (and thus ensuring UMHB would face quality opponents in later rounds; at the onset there was a chance some lesser teams could have advanced to the quarters/semis to face them), and part of that is UST and UWO passing them in my overall ratings.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyR4DlMUcAE-fRg.jpg)

So Mount Union has twice as good a chance to win the Stagg Bowl as UW-W. Right. Keep tweaking, brother!  :)

This isn't that hard to understand, guys.

It's not just about how Mount and UWW would match up head-to-head.

UWW has a significantly harder path to arrive in the Stagg Bowl.

It is possible for UWW to be a better team than Mount, but have a lower probability of winning the Stagg Bowl.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

If you are asking whether beating Albright is easier than beating John Carroll, yes, that is right. But we both know that much more lies between Mount winning the Stagg Bowl than Albright.

If getting through Saturday is primary data in determining chances to win the Stagg Bowl, let's look at UW-O. They play St. Thomas and are given a 35.1% chance of winning that game. UW-W is given a 65.6% chance of beating John Carroll.  Yet, UW-O is given more than twice the chance to win the Stagg Bowl than UW-W. 

But it's all good. UW-W is the clear underdog. Less than 7% chance. Hmmm, who knew? If we manage to get lucky against the OAC champs on Saturday, we'll show up and try to give UW-O or St. Thomas a good enough workout to get them ready for the Stagg Bowl. If nothing else, they ought to be able to rest their guys for the second half against us.  ;)

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

If you are asking whether beating Albright is easier than beating John Carroll, yes, that is right. But we both know that much more lies between Mount winning the Stagg Bowl than Albright.

If getting through Saturday is primary data in determining chances to win the Stagg Bowl, let's look at UW-O. They play St. Thomas and are given a 35.1% chance of winning that game. UW-W is given a 65.6% chance of beating John Carroll.  Yet, UW-O is given more than twice the chance to win the Stagg Bowl than UW-W. 

But it's all good. UW-W is the clear underdog. Less than 7% chance. Hmmm, who knew? If we manage to get lucky against the OAC champs on Saturday, we'll show up and try to give UW-O or St. Thomas a good enough workout to get them ready for the Stagg Bowl. If nothing else, they ought to be able to rest their guys for the second half against us.  ;)

I don't want to stand in the way of your righteous indignation, but you could at least get the teams right. They've probably earned that much this year. UMU plays Alfred. I know all East Region Teams look the same to you guys out West, but...

Quote from: jknezek on December 01, 2016, 09:16:31 AM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

If you are asking whether beating Albright is easier than beating John Carroll, yes, that is right. But we both know that much more lies between Mount winning the Stagg Bowl than Albright.

If getting through Saturday is primary data in determining chances to win the Stagg Bowl, let's look at UW-O. They play St. Thomas and are given a 35.1% chance of winning that game. UW-W is given a 65.6% chance of beating John Carroll.  Yet, UW-O is given more than twice the chance to win the Stagg Bowl than UW-W. 

But it's all good. UW-W is the clear underdog. Less than 7% chance. Hmmm, who knew? If we manage to get lucky against the OAC champs on Saturday, we'll show up and try to give UW-O or St. Thomas a good enough workout to get them ready for the Stagg Bowl. If nothing else, they ought to be able to rest their guys for the second half against us.  ;)

I don't want to stand in the way of your righteous indignation, but you could at least get the teams right. They've probably earned that much this year. UMU plays Alfred. I know all East Region Teams look the same to you guys out West, but...

Isn't Albright technically in the South Region though? ;)

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

If you are asking whether beating Albright is easier than beating John Carroll, yes, that is right. But we both know that much more lies between Mount winning the Stagg Bowl than Albright.

If getting through Saturday is primary data in determining chances to win the Stagg Bowl, let's look at UW-O. They play St. Thomas and are given a 35.1% chance of winning that game. UW-W is given a 65.6% chance of beating John Carroll.  Yet, UW-O is given more than twice the chance to win the Stagg Bowl than UW-W. 

But it's all good. UW-W is the clear underdog. Less than 7% chance. Hmmm, who knew? If we manage to get lucky against the OAC champs on Saturday, we'll show up and try to give UW-O or St. Thomas a good enough workout to get them ready for the Stagg Bowl. If nothing else, they ought to be able to rest their guys for the second half against us.  ;)

You're not even thinking about how those percentages come to be.  According to the model, Mount Union is advancing 90% of the time to the next round.  Whitewater is advancing 65% of the time.  In 10,000 simulations of these final three rounds, Whitewater is getting roughly 2500 fewer opportunities than Mount Union to even advance to the final, let alone win that final.  Out of that 2500 extra opportunities that Mount Union is getting (25% of the total simulations), is it unreasonable to think that the model might have them win 700 times?  Of course it isn't.  There's the difference.  I'm simplifying it a ton and probably doing the model some disservice, but it basically ALL comes from the model's prediction about Mount Union's result this weekend.  If you simply swapped Mount Union and Whitewater's positions, the numbers would reverse. 

Also, you can probably expect those percentages to flip around significantly after this weekend- where it looks to me like the model would say Mount Union and Whitewater are likely to be slight dogs in the next round (Whitewater to either St. Thomas or Oshkosh, Mount Union likely to UMHB). 

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 01, 2016, 12:18:09 PM

Quote from: jknezek on December 01, 2016, 09:16:31 AM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 01, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
I mean, they certainly have a better chance of getting through Saturday. You have to admit that, right?

If you are asking whether beating Albright is easier than beating John Carroll, yes, that is right. But we both know that much more lies between Mount winning the Stagg Bowl than Albright.

If getting through Saturday is primary data in determining chances to win the Stagg Bowl, let's look at UW-O. They play St. Thomas and are given a 35.1% chance of winning that game. UW-W is given a 65.6% chance of beating John Carroll.  Yet, UW-O is given more than twice the chance to win the Stagg Bowl than UW-W. 

But it's all good. UW-W is the clear underdog. Less than 7% chance. Hmmm, who knew? If we manage to get lucky against the OAC champs on Saturday, we'll show up and try to give UW-O or St. Thomas a good enough workout to get them ready for the Stagg Bowl. If nothing else, they ought to be able to rest their guys for the second half against us.  ;)

I don't want to stand in the way of your righteous indignation, but you could at least get the teams right. They've probably earned that much this year. UMU plays Alfred. I know all East Region Teams look the same to you guys out West, but...

Isn't Albright technically in the South Region though? ;)

No. Albright is in the MAC. That's East Region.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on December 01, 2016, 09:10:13 AM

Quote from: bleedpurple on November 30, 2016, 11:31:07 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on November 29, 2016, 09:12:04 AM
Art, do you follow me on twitter (https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/802630978040537089)? ;)

Here are my updated odds of advancing and winning the Stagg Bowl right now. UST's overall rating may be inflated right now after last week, because I don't discredit teams for "running up the score." What I find interesting is that UMHB's odds are actually lower right now than they were at the beginning of the tournament. Part of that is due to pretty much all of the favorites advancing so far (and thus ensuring UMHB would face quality opponents in later rounds; at the onset there was a chance some lesser teams could have advanced to the quarters/semis to face them), and part of that is UST and UWO passing them in my overall ratings.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyR4DlMUcAE-fRg.jpg)

So Mount Union has twice as good a chance to win the Stagg Bowl as UW-W. Right. Keep tweaking, brother!  :)

This isn't that hard to understand, guys.

It's not just about how Mount and UWW would match up head-to-head.

UWW has a significantly harder path to arrive in the Stagg Bowl.

It is possible for UWW to be a better team than Mount, but have a lower probability of winning the Stagg Bowl.

I know how the statistics work, which is why I disagree with them.   Statistical analysis can't measure the actual capabilities of the teams and how their styles match up.

Mount is a big favorite this weekend over Alfred and UWW is slightly less favored over JCU.   I get it and 100% agree with it.

However, Mount would a HUGE underdog to MHB and who ever they face in the Stagg if they are fortunate enough to get there.   I would propose that UWW against STU or UWO and then MHB would be real close to 50/50 in each case.   Mount could have a 100% chance of making it to the Semi's and you still couldn't convince me they're more likely to win the title than UWW. 
 

Quote from: HScoach on December 01, 2016, 12:35:15 PM
However, Mount would a HUGE underdog to MHB and who ever they face in the Stagg if they are fortunate enough to get there.   I would propose that UWW against STU or UWO and then MHB would be real close to 50/50 in each case.   Mount could have a 100% chance of making it to the Semi's and you still couldn't convince me they're more likely to win the title than UWW. 

The numbers will probably agree with this after Saturday. 

Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

I'm standing by my pick from our season finale that Mt makes it to the Stagg.

Sure, it's hard to compare teams from different regions and while the Cru deserves the respect they have earned, the last time they had a chance to advance past the Final Four their coach and team choked. The year before that they saw a leads of 28-14 and 35-28 disappear against Mount (albeit they were on the road). While the kids on this year's squad weren't around back then, I bet the coaches remember it well.

I think my pick is a good done b/c I have seen how well Mt's coaches have been calling games and making halftime adjustments in the Hobart and JHU games. I really do think the Raiders' coaching staff can be the difference over a more physically talented Cru team.

Before we go there, Alfred's up first (the East's last gasp). Hopefully we get some competitive games this wkd.

As an avid follower of Mount since the late 1980's, there is no correlation between this Mount team and the last one MHB faced.

I feel like I should make it clear that I'm not some crazy guy who believes this silly computer model I built is somehow omnipotent and knows the future. It's just something I do for fun to try to make sense of this gigantic and geographically isolated division of ours.

Also, the model is based only on points scored and allowed. I used to coach. I know there's more to the game than that. Just because momentum, confidence, coaching, and the ability to win close games are hard to quantify, doesn't mean they're not real. Here's a really good article (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/good-news-warriors-fans-every-cliche-about-the-nba-playoffs-is-true/) from Ben Morris at fivethirtyeight.com about the caveats of relying too heavily on projections like mine (in the context of the NBA playoffs).

Mostly, he points out that "having been there before" is a quantifiable advantage in playoffs. Why is anybody's guess, but if you listen to Caruso's interviews from the last Stagg Bowl (and I'm guessing some old UWW interviews too circa 2006) he talks about how 2012 helped in 2015 for their prep. Scheduling practices, meals, etc. all can help in ways a computer isn't going to catch.

Quote from: USee on December 01, 2016, 01:04:07 PM
Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

Thank you, Usee. At least someone understands.  ;)

Obviously, I'm not going to feel UW-W is disrespected by a mathematical model. I love what Logan does as I've rambled in my other posts. I think HSCoach explained the point well that I was trying to make regarding UW-W and Mount.

But upon further review, I see that the model's ratings have UW-W behind UW-Platteville (3 losses, including at home to UW-W), Oshkosh (loss to UW-W), Mount Union (1 loss), and St John's (2 losses). Is it really naive, biased, or wearing a "disrespected underdog" badge if I ask why the Johnnies and Platteville, at least, have higher ratings than UW-W,  John Carroll and Alma? 

(And LH, I just saw your response. I'm more asking this questions to the guys that went to bat for the results. I think in one of my other posts, I may have even said something like "I doubt very much LH believes that" about one of the results that popped out. Or at least I was going to! Anyway, your stuff is awesome to talk over to get through a week. Thanks again!)

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 04:16:10 PM

Quote from: USee on December 01, 2016, 01:04:07 PM
Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

Thank you, Usee. At least someone understands.  ;)

Obviously, I'm not going to feel UW-W is disrespected by a mathematical model. I love what Logan does as I've rambled in my other posts. I think HSCoach explained the point well that I was trying to make regarding UW-W and Mount.

But upon further review, I see that the model's ratings have UW-W behind UW-Platteville (3 losses, including at home to UW-W), Oshkosh (loss to UW-W), Mount Union (1 loss), and St John's (2 losses). Is it really naive, biased, or wearing a "disrespected underdog" badge if I ask why the Johnnies and Platteville, at least, have higher ratings than UW-W,  John Carroll and Alma? 

(And LH, I just saw your response. I'm more asking this questions to the guys that went to bat for the results. I think in one of my other posts, I may have even said something like "I doubt very much LH believes that" about one of the results that popped out. Or at least I was going to! Anyway, your stuff is awesome to talk over to get through a week. Thanks again!)

That model doesn't seem to have been very fond of Whitewater's first round performance, that's for sure. But it doesn't have eyes to inform it, it only has numbers.

UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 01, 2016, 04:56:30 PM
UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

I'm one of those fans. I'd say UWW would have found a way like they almost always do.
The immeasurables. Like ITH is getting at. It's that champion spirit that comes alive against the best competition.

But don't take me for a Hansen Ratings basher, I think it's really interesting information and appreciate all the work you do. I know stats can't measure everything that drives outcomes.

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 01, 2016, 04:56:30 PM
UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

I agree with you about UW-RF and UW-Stout. Not Lakeland though. Ahead by 31 after 36 minutes of football. After that, the result was not in doubt, which affects everything from who is on the field to play calling. So, IMO, a system that weighs the last 24 minutes of that game more than a win over UW-O simply because of "recency" could use a tweak (my original point). And I'm not at all bashing your efforts. I think it is interesting. And maybe you really believe UW-W has less than 7% chance of winning the championship. That's cool too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unlike some others, i am guessing you enjoy the banter and find more value in dissenting opinions than a continual flow of "Awesome Ratings, Logan".

The only way to make a model better is for constructive criticism. A good data scientist always tries to improve based on observations.

But sometimes a 2% chance hits...

And if the model is really good, that will happen 1 in every 50 chances! ;D

If it never happens, or happens 1 in 10, time for a tweak.

So Alfred has a chance?

Quote from: art76 on December 02, 2016, 08:57:12 AM
So Alfred has a chance?

No, wait, Alfred's still playing? Pep thought it was Albright!

Quote from: AUPepBand on December 02, 2016, 09:51:52 AM

Quote from: art76 on December 02, 2016, 08:57:12 AM
So Alfred has a chance?

No, wait, Alfred's still playing? Pep thought it was Albright!

I'm giving both an equal shot at winning it all!

(Where's those darn sarcasm tags?)

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 01, 2016, 04:56:30 PM
UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

Funny, because that's what the general consensus was in 2014 for UWW...and things ended up ok for the Hawks ;D. I remember Wabash fans saying prior to the playoff game, "Hey, we're better than UWRF and they almost beat the Hawks!!" Hell, I think BashDad wrote the longest post in D3boards history about this prior to the game. I think I counted 30 "If" statements in his post  ;)

I was guilty of it myself after that UWRF game 2 years ago. And I learned my lesson back then saying things like: If the Hawks struggle against teams X, Y, Z...how can they possibly beat teams A, B, C? Because it doesn't work that way. One thing that's not accounted for here is the team rising to the level of competition, and health of players from week to week. Not all things are equal from game to game.

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 04:16:10 PM

Quote from: USee on December 01, 2016, 01:04:07 PM
Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

Thank you, Usee. At least someone understands.  ;)

Obviously, I'm not going to feel UW-W is disrespected by a mathematical model. I love what Logan does as I've rambled in my other posts. I think HSCoach explained the point well that I was trying to make regarding UW-W and Mount.

But upon further review, I see that the model's ratings have UW-W behind UW-Platteville (3 losses, including at home to UW-W), Oshkosh (loss to UW-W), Mount Union (1 loss), and St John's (2 losses). Is it really naive, biased, or wearing a "disrespected underdog" badge if I ask why the Johnnies and Platteville, at least, have higher ratings than UW-W,  John Carroll and Alma? 

(And LH, I just saw your response. I'm more asking this questions to the guys that went to bat for the results. I think in one of my other posts, I may have even said something like "I doubt very much LH believes that" about one of the results that popped out. Or at least I was going to! Anyway, your stuff is awesome to talk over to get through a week. Thanks again!)

First and foremost, I like the banter and the questions because the alternative is no discussion, opposing views, etc, which would make these boards non existent.

As to the "disrespected underdog" comment I think it's not specific to this particular issue but more of a theme the UWW faithful like to attach themselves to. Whether it's yelling at a math model for disrespecting their chances, or "why aren't we #1 after the stretch we just played" or "we don't have a recruiting advantage", etc, etc. I Don't view any of those things as negative, rather I view them more along the lines of Michael Jordan, who would use anything to fuel his competitive desires. He took a couple of reporter comments that he was a poor defensive player (early in his career) and used it to become DPOY and one of the best defensive players ever. He used comments about his shooting to propel his work to become a prolific shooter of the ball. I view UWW's program, and the posters on here who are alums/close to the program, as having a chip on their shoulder. That same chip is a big part of what makes them great.

I embrace the discussion and the questions. To this point, I  think the model is capturing the "odds" of each team winning. I would think most people would place money on a 6.4% UWW Stagg bowl probability. I certainly wouldn't take the short side of that bet.

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 11:56:54 PM

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 01, 2016, 04:56:30 PM
UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

I agree with you about UW-RF and UW-Stout. Not Lakeland though. Ahead by 31 after 36 minutes of football. After that, the result was not in doubt, which affects everything from who is on the field to play calling. So, IMO, a system that weighs the last 24 minutes of that game more than a win over UW-O simply because of "recency" could use a tweak (my original point). And I'm not at all bashing your efforts. I think it is interesting. And maybe you really believe UW-W has less than 7% chance of winning the championship. That's cool too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unlike some others, i am guessing you enjoy the banter and find more value in dissenting opinions than a continual flow of "Awesome Ratings, Logan".

Models that shut off after some point and/or ignore MOVs are bad models.  And maybe it happens that because UWW threw out the anchor that this model, which does take MOV into account, undervalues UWW somewhat because of that.  But you can't expect any of these models to subjectively dig into every single box score and cherry pick which stats are situationally important and which ones aren't. 

I think you're also way too hung up on the 7% thing and the perception that it's too small.  It isn't really unreasonable at all.  The path forward is winning against John Carroll, then winning against St. Thomas/UW-Oshkosh (the model appears to have UWW as slight underdogs to either), and then also winning against whoever survives UMHB/Wheaton/UMU/AU (the model will say UMHB more often than the others).  That gauntlet is more daunting than the Morningside/UWO/UWP that Whitewater ran earlier this year.  Is it crazy to think that UWW would win all three of those games, in succession, more than 7 out of 100 times?  I don't think so.  In fact, I think that number gives UWW an immense amount of credit- there aren't more than 3-4 teams that could win those three games in a row more than a few times in 100 chances. 

I don't want Hansen's model getting any more accurate.  There'd be no further need for the "eye test".

Quote from: USee on December 02, 2016, 10:36:18 AM
As to the "disrespected underdog" comment I think it's not specific to this particular issue but more of a theme the UWW faithful like to attach themselves to. Whether it's yelling at a math model for disrespecting their chances, or "why aren't we #1 after the stretch we just played" or "we don't have a recruiting advantage", etc, etc. I Don't view any of those things as negative, rather I view them more along the lines of Michael Jordan, who would use anything to fuel his competitive desires. He took a couple of reporter comments that he was a poor defensive player (early in his career) and used it to become DPOY and one of the best defensive players ever. He used comments about his shooting to propel his work to become a prolific shooter of the ball. I view UWW's program, and the posters on here who are alums/close to the program, as having a chip on their shoulder. That same chip is a big part of what makes them great.

An apt analogy, USee.  There's a really thin line between finding/inventing that "oh, you think I can't do this?" motivation and having that attitude be disingenuous and petty.  For all of his greatness, Jordan certainly crossed that line a lot. 

They "eye test" doesn't always work either. The model said Huntington was a 6 point dog to Wheaton and they won by 35. The model and the "eye test" by most said NCC was a double digit favorite the next week and they lost by double digits.

BTW, I will take UWW and give 10% odds to win the Stagg if anyone wants the other side.  ;D

Quote from: emma17 on December 02, 2016, 10:54:54 AM
I don't want Hansen's model getting any more accurate.  There'd be no further need for the "eye test".

LOL +k

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 02, 2016, 10:45:24 AM
But you can't expect any of these models to subjectively dig into every single box score and cherry pick which stats are situationally important and which ones aren't.

But that's not going to stop me from trying!

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 11:56:54 PM
Unlike some others, i am guessing you enjoy the banter and find more value in dissenting opinions than a continual flow of "Awesome Ratings, Logan".

Definitely. Some conversations I've had with people on Twitter have already given me a few ideas on how to improve the model, and not just in its "predictive accuracy," but also to make it more descriptive. I'm a big believer that stats & analytics are best when used to supplement the eye test, team narrative, or game-viewing experience.

Quote from: USee on December 02, 2016, 11:01:04 AM
They "eye test" doesn't always work either. The model said Huntington was a 6 point dog to Wheaton and they won by 35. The model and the "eye test" by most said NCC was a double digit favorite the next week and they lost by double digits.

BTW, I will take UWW and give 10% odds to win the Stagg if anyone wants the other side.  ;D

Well, what fun would it be if a single model worked all the time?

I know the eye test doesn't always work, but I think much of that has to do with the immeasurable that comes into play. 
I remember in 2014 UWW was playing Wabash in the playoffs.  My eye test told me that Wabash's defense was going to cause all sorts of problems, I even predicted some crazy number of sacks or TFL's for loss against UWW.  UWW had 300 yards passing and was sacked once. 

Does that mean I should stay far away from predictions based on eye tests?  I don't know, I think the Wabash D was pretty darn good that year, and the UWW O lack of consistency, like this year, was giving me cause of concern.  And then the game happened. 
Like 02 said, it's how the players rise to the game. 

Quote from: USee on December 02, 2016, 10:36:18 AM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 01, 2016, 04:16:10 PM

Quote from: USee on December 01, 2016, 01:04:07 PM
Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

Thank you, Usee. At least someone understands.  ;)

Obviously, I'm not going to feel UW-W is disrespected by a mathematical model. I love what Logan does as I've rambled in my other posts. I think HSCoach explained the point well that I was trying to make regarding UW-W and Mount.

But upon further review, I see that the model's ratings have UW-W behind UW-Platteville (3 losses, including at home to UW-W), Oshkosh (loss to UW-W), Mount Union (1 loss), and St John's (2 losses). Is it really naive, biased, or wearing a "disrespected underdog" badge if I ask why the Johnnies and Platteville, at least, have higher ratings than UW-W,  John Carroll and Alma? 

(And LH, I just saw your response. I'm more asking this questions to the guys that went to bat for the results. I think in one of my other posts, I may have even said something like "I doubt very much LH believes that" about one of the results that popped out. Or at least I was going to! Anyway, your stuff is awesome to talk over to get through a week. Thanks again!)

First and foremost, I like the banter and the questions because the alternative is no discussion, opposing views, etc, which would make these boards non existent.

As to the "disrespected underdog" comment I think it's not specific to this particular issue but more of a theme the UWW faithful like to attach themselves to. Whether it's yelling at a math model for disrespecting their chances, or "why aren't we #1 after the stretch we just played" or "we don't have a recruiting advantage", etc, etc. I Don't view any of those things as negative, rather I view them more along the lines of Michael Jordan, who would use anything to fuel his competitive desires. He took a couple of reporter comments that he was a poor defensive player (early in his career) and used it to become DPOY and one of the best defensive players ever. He used comments about his shooting to propel his work to become a prolific shooter of the ball. I view UWW's program, and the posters on here who are alums/close to the program, as having a chip on their shoulder. That same chip is a big part of what makes them great.

I embrace the discussion and the questions. To this point, I  think the model is capturing the "odds" of each team winning. I would think most people would place money on a 6.4% UWW Stagg bowl probability. I certainly wouldn't take the short side of that bet.

USee,
I appreciate the clarification and that's actually a pretty astute observation. I think competitors actually relish being doubted. And I think having a "chip on your shoulder" is good when it can run through a program in a positive way. In reality, UW-W already has that because of the way last year ended.  That chip will stay there until this year ends differently on the field, irrespective of these boards.  As probably a 12 on a 1-10 competitor scale, I definitely see some of my responses as a bit over the top. But hopefully no one takes them personally or I can at least come back and reel things back in a bit from time to time. As a poster I know having a chip on my shoulder is completely unnecessary. But I actually find it fun. How scary is that?  ;)

02,
Wow, I'm very impressed with your transformation! It took me many more years to figure out what you have figured out in a relatively short period of time. I'm trusting it makes following the Hawks more fun and less stressful! 

Wally,
Do you really think I am going to take it as a "compliment" the notion that UW-W would sweep a three game stretch of John Carroll, UW-O, and UMHB  seven time out of 100? Let me get a back brace for my chip and get back to you...  ;)

Pep,
I apologize to you and Pioneer fans everywhere for typing Albright instead of Alfred State in an earlier post.  ;)

This is a good week for D3.  These games are really nice.  I expect Mount to win.  I am thinking that UMHB is going to have too much for Wheaton.  The other 2 games are really tough.  UWW has not lit it up this year on offense and after what I saw from JCU last week, their D is legit.  I expect a low scoring game, but think UWW will score enough to win since Wesley held JCU to 7 and Wesley did not have a stellar defense this year.  The last game looks to be great on paper.  I picked Oshkosh to win this bracket so I am going to stick to it, but I expect this to be a real knock down drag out battle.  Good luck to all the teams this weekend.

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 02, 2016, 11:58:54 AM

02,
Wow, I'm very impressed with your transformation! It took me many more years to figure out what you have figured out in a relatively short period of time. I'm trusting it makes following the Hawks more fun and less stressful! 

I don't know about that...I've been making irrational comments against UWW on these boards since 2007.  ;D

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 02, 2016, 10:45:24 AM
I think you're also way too hung up on the 7% thing and the perception that it's too small.  It isn't really unreasonable at all.  The path forward is winning against John Carroll, then winning against St. Thomas/UW-Oshkosh (the model appears to have UWW as slight underdogs to either), and then also winning against whoever survives UMHB/Wheaton/UMU/AU (the model will say UMHB more often than the others).  That gauntlet is more daunting than the Morningside/UWO/UWP that Whitewater ran earlier this year.  Is it crazy to think that UWW would win all three of those games, in succession, more than 7 out of 100 times?  I don't think so.  In fact, I think that number gives UWW an immense amount of credit- there aren't more than 3-4 teams that could win those three games in a row more than a few times in 100 chances.

This is an interesting observation, but I'm not convinced that UW-W's path to the championship is significantly more challenging than anybody elses. Every path is very very tough at this time of year, and if every team is totally equal, each team should have a 12.5% chance of winning. The model suggests that UW-W's chance is lower than the mean of remaining teams. For St Thomas or Oshkosh to win it all, they have to get past each other (which I would suggest is a more challenging game than John Carroll) and then past UW-W before facing likely UMHB or North Central. There isn't an easy path in the bunch.

Quote from: emma17 on December 02, 2016, 11:49:25 AM

Quote from: USee on December 02, 2016, 11:01:04 AM
They "eye test" doesn't always work either. The model said Huntington was a 6 point dog to Wheaton and they won by 35. The model and the "eye test" by most said NCC was a double digit favorite the next week and they lost by double digits.

BTW, I will take UWW and give 10% odds to win the Stagg if anyone wants the other side.  ;D

Well, what fun would it be if a single model worked all the time?

I know the eye test doesn't always work, but I think much of that has to do with the immeasurable that comes into play. 
I remember in 2014 UWW was playing Wabash in the playoffs.  My eye test told me that Wabash's defense was going to cause all sorts of problems, I even predicted some crazy number of sacks or TFL's for loss against UWW.  UWW had 300 yards passing and was sacked once. 

Does that mean I should stay far away from predictions based on eye tests?  I don't know, I think the Wabash D was pretty darn good that year, and the UWW O lack of consistency, like this year, was giving me cause of concern.  And then the game happened. 
Like 02 said, it's how the players rise to the game.

Agree completely. Well said.

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 02, 2016, 12:23:18 PM
This is an interesting observation, but I'm not convinced that UW-W's path to the championship is significantly more challenging than anybody elses. Every path is very very tough at this time of year, and if every team is totally equal, each team should have a 12.5% chance of winning. The model suggests that UW-W's chance is lower than the mean of remaining teams. For St Thomas or Oshkosh to win it all, they have to get past each other (which I would suggest is a more challenging game than John Carroll) and then past UW-W before facing likely UMHB or North Central. There isn't an easy path in the bunch.

Jamto - I think you meant Wheaton...or maybe Mount?

Quote from: art76 on December 02, 2016, 04:10:46 PM

Quote from: jamtoTommie on December 02, 2016, 12:23:18 PM
This is an interesting observation, but I'm not convinced that UW-W's path to the championship is significantly more challenging than anybody elses. Every path is very very tough at this time of year, and if every team is totally equal, each team should have a 12.5% chance of winning. The model suggests that UW-W's chance is lower than the mean of remaining teams. For St Thomas or Oshkosh to win it all, they have to get past each other (which I would suggest is a more challenging game than John Carroll) and then past UW-W before facing likely UMHB or North Central. There isn't an easy path in the bunch.

Jamto - I think you meant Wheaton...or maybe Mount?

Woops. Yes. I meant UMU I guess.

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 02, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
Pep,
I apologize to you and Pioneer fans everywhere for typing Albright instead of Alfred State in an earlier post.  ;)

Well, at least you're in the right town now....just the wrong side. Perhaps you're often found on the wrong side of town?
We here at Alfred are well accustomed to and very much enjoy playing the Rodney Dangerfield role. No harm done.  ;)

Quote from: AUPepBand on December 02, 2016, 11:21:58 PM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 02, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
Pep,
I apologize to you and Pioneer fans everywhere for typing Albright instead of Alfred State in an earlier post.  ;)

Well, at least you're in the right town now....just the wrong side. Perhaps you're often found on the wrong side of town?
We here at Alfred are well accustomed to and very much enjoy playing the Rodney Dangerfield role. No harm done.  ;)

bleedpurple, while I won't be as gracious as Pep, you've added extra insult in your attempt to apologize.  Alfred University is now among the final eight in D3.  Alfred State University is among the absolute dregs of D3; they only joined in 2013, but their 4-year record is 4-31.  Next year they join the ECFC, generally considered one of the 2-3 worst conferences, while Alfred is the 10-0 champ of the E8, generally considered one of the 3-4 best conferences.

Maybe you'd better quit until you do some homework! ;D

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 02, 2016, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: AUPepBand on December 02, 2016, 11:21:58 PM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 02, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
Pep,
I apologize to you and Pioneer fans everywhere for typing Albright instead of Alfred State in an earlier post.  ;)

Well, at least you're in the right town now....just the wrong side. Perhaps you're often found on the wrong side of town?
We here at Alfred are well accustomed to and very much enjoy playing the Rodney Dangerfield role. No harm done.  ;)

bleedpurple, while I won't be as gracious as Pep, you've added extra insult in your attempt to apologize.  Alfred University is now among the final eight in D3.  Alfred State University is among the absolute dregs of D3; they only joined in 2013, but their 4-year record is 4-31.  Next year they join the ECFC, generally considered one of the 2-3 worst conferences, while Alfred is the 10-0 champ of the E8, generally considered one of the 3-4 best conferences.

Maybe you'd better quit until you do some homework! ;D

You make it sound like he did it on accident ... I'm pretty sure he knows what he's saying. :)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 02, 2016, 11:50:21 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 02, 2016, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: AUPepBand on December 02, 2016, 11:21:58 PM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 02, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
Pep,
I apologize to you and Pioneer fans everywhere for typing Albright instead of Alfred State in an earlier post.  ;)

Well, at least you're in the right town now....just the wrong side. Perhaps you're often found on the wrong side of town?
We here at Alfred are well accustomed to and very much enjoy playing the Rodney Dangerfield role. No harm done.  ;)

bleedpurple, while I won't be as gracious as Pep, you've added extra insult in your attempt to apologize.  Alfred University is now among the final eight in D3.  Alfred State University is among the absolute dregs of D3; they only joined in 2013, but their 4-year record is 4-31.  Next year they join the ECFC, generally considered one of the 2-3 worst conferences, while Alfred is the 10-0 champ of the E8, generally considered one of the 3-4 best conferences.

Maybe you'd better quit until you do some homework! ;D

You make it sound like he did it on accident ... I'm pretty sure he knows what he's saying. :)

Well, if so, he punked me good! :P

I just feel like sticking up for Alfred, especially as you guys unanimously picked them to lose big.  I feel it's gonna be MUCH closer than most predict, and would be surprised not be shocked if they won.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 02, 2016, 11:50:21 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 02, 2016, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: AUPepBand on December 02, 2016, 11:21:58 PM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 02, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
Pep,
I apologize to you and Pioneer fans everywhere for typing Albright instead of Alfred State in an earlier post.  ;)

Well, at least you're in the right town now....just the wrong side. Perhaps you're often found on the wrong side of town?
We here at Alfred are well accustomed to and very much enjoy playing the Rodney Dangerfield role. No harm done.  ;)

bleedpurple, while I won't be as gracious as Pep, you've added extra insult in your attempt to apologize.  Alfred University is now among the final eight in D3.  Alfred State University is among the absolute dregs of D3; they only joined in 2013, but their 4-year record is 4-31.  Next year they join the ECFC, generally considered one of the 2-3 worst conferences, while Alfred is the 10-0 champ of the E8, generally considered one of the 3-4 best conferences.

Maybe you'd better quit until you do some homework! ;D

You make it sound like he did it on accident ... I'm pretty sure he knows what he's saying. :)

Yeah, if he hadn't paired Pioneers with the institution name, I would have been humorously offended.

Well played, bp.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2016, 12:22:20 AM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 02, 2016, 11:50:21 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 02, 2016, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: AUPepBand on December 02, 2016, 11:21:58 PM

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 02, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
Pep,
I apologize to you and Pioneer fans everywhere for typing Albright instead of Alfred State in an earlier post.  ;)

Well, at least you're in the right town now....just the wrong side. Perhaps you're often found on the wrong side of town?
We here at Alfred are well accustomed to and very much enjoy playing the Rodney Dangerfield role. No harm done.  ;)

bleedpurple, while I won't be as gracious as Pep, you've added extra insult in your attempt to apologize.  Alfred University is now among the final eight in D3.  Alfred State University is among the absolute dregs of D3; they only joined in 2013, but their 4-year record is 4-31.  Next year they join the ECFC, generally considered one of the 2-3 worst conferences, while Alfred is the 10-0 champ of the E8, generally considered one of the 3-4 best conferences.

Maybe you'd better quit until you do some homework! ;D

You make it sound like he did it on accident ... I'm pretty sure he knows what he's saying. :)

Well, if so, he punked me good! :P

I just feel like sticking up for Alfred, especially as you guys unanimously picked them to lose big.  I feel it's gonna be MUCH closer than most predict, and would be surprised not be shocked if they won.

It took me years to do it, Y!  ;)

And Dlip, please know that it was humor only and I do apologize for my initial mistake. Awesome accomplishment for the Saxons. BP loves reading your posts and as a result checks on Alfred's score pulling for them every week. No excuse for the initial brain freeze. Very happy for you and your guys playing into the quarterfinals. Best of luck today and may the "Saxon Surge"continue!

Perhaps the saddest starting game in the history of the DIII Quarterfinals.....   :P

-Ski

Quote from: Teamski on December 03, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
Perhaps the saddest starting game in the history of the DIII Quarterfinals.....   :P

-Ski

Or maybe not!  Alfred is making a game of it.   ;)

-Ski

UWW's playoff ship is almost set to sail.  Impressed with Wesley's ability to hold JCU's offense to 7 points in regulation time last week.

-SKi

I have to agree with the D3 pundits and say that this year's playoffs have been the most fascinating I have seen since I started following D3 over 10 years ago.  Amazing games going on today. 

-Ski

Wow.  I guess that 7% was pretty charitable after all. 

Not shocked by the UMHB game, really. Kind of surprised by John Carroll. Really surprised by St. Thomas playing hot potato with the ball against Oshkosh.

As for Mt. Union. I would have thought 45 points would beat anyone in the quarterfinals. Shows what I know. Somehow I don't think Mt. Union will hang 70 on UMHB.

I do think this does make the case that Johns Hopkins should have been the #1 instead of Alfred, and that the two previous games for Alfred were foreshadowing.

Who gets the home game next week? JCU or Oshkosh?

I wonder if Mount will still have better national title odds than UWW this week.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on December 03, 2016, 05:12:53 PM
I wonder if Mount will still have better national title odds than UWW this week.

Yea, anything is better than 0%.

Quote from: wesleydad on December 03, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
Who gets the home game next week? JCU or Oshkosh?

Has to be Oshkosh.  There's not one piece of criteria that favors John Carroll, including a h2h result which would be the hammer if the profiles were otherwise similar (which they aren't). 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 03:44:51 PM
Wow.  I guess that 7% was pretty charitable after all.

Wow is right. And it appears it was.

Note to self: Maybe we shouldn't comment on a mathematical model's projection of UW-W's chances when they could become zero in a matter of a couple of days. Hopefully, I will learn a lesson here.

Congrats to the Blue Streaks, Titans, Purple Raiders, and Crusaders. Also, congrats to the Saxons, Thunder, Tommies, and Warhawks for a fantastic season. The end of a season always stings, but you all have a lot to be proud of. 

Aaaaaaaaand updated bracket odds. Haven't heard any grumbling from any of the fans for the remaining teams (not surprisingly, the UMHB fans have been pretty happy with my model all season. Helps when your team is #1 for about 8 of 11 weeks). Who wants to start the argument this week?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cyx_vrWUsAAllhO.jpg)

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 03, 2016, 07:07:43 PM
Aaaaaaaaand updated bracket odds. Haven't heard any grumbling from any of the fans for the remaining teams (not surprisingly, the UMHB fans have been pretty happy with my model all season. Helps when your team is #1 for about 8 of 11 weeks). Who wants to start the argument this week?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cyx_vrWUsAAllhO.jpg)

One thing I know for sure... it won't be me!

Logan, was your model assuming that JCU/Oshkosh will be played in Wisconsin?

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 05:17:14 PM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 03, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
Who gets the home game next week? JCU or Oshkosh?

Has to be Oshkosh.  There's not one piece of criteria that favors John Carroll, including a h2h result which would be the hammer if the profiles were otherwise similar (which they aren't).

Other than UWW was seeded ahead of UST.   Which means JCU's bracket is higher than UWO's. 

It is right now. Would be pretty much 50-50 in Ohio.

Quote from: HScoach on December 03, 2016, 07:35:12 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 05:17:14 PM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 03, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
Who gets the home game next week? JCU or Oshkosh?

Has to be Oshkosh.  There's not one piece of criteria that favors John Carroll, including a h2h result which would be the hammer if the profiles were otherwise similar (which they aren't).

Other than UWW was seeded ahead of UST.   Which means JCU's bracket is higher than UWO's.

If that's how they choose, then that would make sense.  Would be nice if anybody who knows would say so beforehand. 

Quote from: HScoach on December 03, 2016, 07:35:12 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 05:17:14 PM

Quote from: wesleydad on December 03, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
Who gets the home game next week? JCU or Oshkosh?

Has to be Oshkosh.  There's not one piece of criteria that favors John Carroll, including a h2h result which would be the hammer if the profiles were otherwise similar (which they aren't).

Other than UWW was seeded ahead of UST.   Which means JCU's bracket is higher than UWO's.

If the Top 8 teams were seeded like a traditional bracket, and UWW was seeded ahead of UST, then UWO would be a higher seed than JCU.

With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

They are the only team who could potentially beat Bama, so I'm okay with that.

Quote from: SaintsFAN on December 03, 2016, 09:16:32 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

They are the only team who could potentially beat Bama, so I'm okay with that.

I disagree.  UM outplayed OSU, but lost due to 2 unforced turnovers (I could have scored on the pick-6, and I'm 68 :o and the fumble at the OSU 1, plus a face-mask call on the center far away from the play which cost 55 yards [15-yards plus negating a 40-yard run]), plus of course the ridiculously bad spot on 4th down in the second OT.  I saw the same replays as the officials (except I saw them on a large screen, hi-def TV in contrast to that I-pad screen they use :o); it was an easy call because of the lines - J T Barrett's helmet crossed the 15, but the ball never came within 6+ inches.

Alas, UM will almost certainly not get that chance, since Washington beat Colorado.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2016, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on December 03, 2016, 09:16:32 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

They are the only team who could potentially beat Bama, so I'm okay with that.

I disagree.  UM outplayed OSU, but lost due to 2 unforced turnovers (I could have scored on the pick-6, and I'm 68 :o and the fumble at the OSU 1, plus a face-mask call on the center far away from the play which cost 55 yards [15-yards plus negating a 40-yard run]), plus of course the ridiculously bad spot on 4th down in the second OT.  I saw the same replays as the officials (except I saw them on a large screen, hi-def TV in contrast to that I-pad screen they use :o); it was an easy call because of the lines - J T Barrett's helmet crossed the 15, but the ball never came within 6+ inches.

Alas, UM will almost certainly not get that chance, since Washington beat Colorado.

Right. They are the only team being considered for the playoff who can beat Bama (and they've done it before)

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2016, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on December 03, 2016, 09:16:32 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

They are the only team who could potentially beat Bama, so I'm okay with that.

I disagree.  UM outplayed OSU, but lost due to 2 unforced turnovers (I could have scored on the pick-6, and I'm 68 :o and the fumble at the OSU 1, plus a face-mask call on the center far away from the play which cost 55 yards [15-yards plus negating a 40-yard run]), plus of course the ridiculously bad spot on 4th down in the second OT.  I saw the same replays as the officials (except I saw them on a large screen, hi-def TV in contrast to that I-pad screen they use :o); it was an easy call because of the lines - J T Barrett's helmet crossed the 15, but the ball never came within 6+ inches.

Alas, UM will almost certainly not get that chance, since Washington beat Colorado.

Not that I think this should take much more time away from what was a tremendous D3 Saturday, but Michigan won't get a chance in the FBS playoff because they no-showed against Iowa, which cost them the opportunity to beat up on Penn State (again) and have a conference championship notch on their belt, which would have put them in.  Don't blame Washington.  They had nothing to do with Michigan being out.  Michigan blew that all on their own. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 10:43:35 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2016, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on December 03, 2016, 09:16:32 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

They are the only team who could potentially beat Bama, so I'm okay with that.

I disagree.  UM outplayed OSU, but lost due to 2 unforced turnovers (I could have scored on the pick-6, and I'm 68 :o and the fumble at the OSU 1, plus a face-mask call on the center far away from the play which cost 55 yards [15-yards plus negating a 40-yard run]), plus of course the ridiculously bad spot on 4th down in the second OT.  I saw the same replays as the officials (except I saw them on a large screen, hi-def TV in contrast to that I-pad screen they use :o); it was an easy call because of the lines - J T Barrett's helmet crossed the 15, but the ball never came within 6+ inches.

Alas, UM will almost certainly not get that chance, since Washington beat Colorado.

Not that I think this should take much more time away from what was a tremendous D3 Saturday, but Michigan won't get a chance in the FBS playoff because they no-showed against Iowa, which cost them the opportunity to beat up on Penn State (again) and have a conference championship notch on their belt, which would have put them in.  Don't blame Washington.  They had nothing to do with Michigan being out.  Michigan blew that all on their own.

UM blew it in Iowa City for sure.  If they won that one, it would be a 3-way tie in the east (PSU, OSU, UM) - not sure who would have faced Wisconsin.

Not 'blaming' Washington.  But the committee went out of their way to say Washington was razor-thin over UM for 4th, so was hoping Colorado could pull it off.

But mainly I blame the officials in Columbus - in REALITY, UM won that game 27-24, despite their unforced turnovers.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2016, 11:01:43 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 03, 2016, 10:43:35 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2016, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: SaintsFAN on December 03, 2016, 09:16:32 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

They are the only team who could potentially beat Bama, so I'm okay with that.

I disagree.  UM outplayed OSU, but lost due to 2 unforced turnovers (I could have scored on the pick-6, and I'm 68 :o and the fumble at the OSU 1, plus a face-mask call on the center far away from the play which cost 55 yards [15-yards plus negating a 40-yard run]), plus of course the ridiculously bad spot on 4th down in the second OT.  I saw the same replays as the officials (except I saw them on a large screen, hi-def TV in contrast to that I-pad screen they use :o); it was an easy call because of the lines - J T Barrett's helmet crossed the 15, but the ball never came within 6+ inches.

Alas, UM will almost certainly not get that chance, since Washington beat Colorado.

Not that I think this should take much more time away from what was a tremendous D3 Saturday, but Michigan won't get a chance in the FBS playoff because they no-showed against Iowa, which cost them the opportunity to beat up on Penn State (again) and have a conference championship notch on their belt, which would have put them in.  Don't blame Washington.  They had nothing to do with Michigan being out.  Michigan blew that all on their own.

UM blew it in Iowa City for sure.  If they won that one, it would be a 3-way tie in the east (PSU, OSU, UM) - not sure who would have faced Wisconsin.

Not 'blaming' Washington.  But the committee went out of their way to say Washington was razor-thin over UM for 4th, so was hoping Colorado could pull it off.

But mainly I blame the officials in Columbus - in REALITY, UM won that game 27-24, despite their unforced turnovers.

If my calculations are correct, had Michigan beaten Iowa and there been a three-way tie in the East at 8-1, Ohio State would have went to the title game. With no losses outside the triangle, we would skip past the in-conference tiebreakers; Penn State would be eliminated because they lost to Pitt and would have a worse overall record; and Ohio State would win the tiebreaker because, like it or not, they IN REALITY beat Michigan 30-27 and you can't just reject reality and substitute your own, otherwise the Badgers would have won tonight. ;D

But going back to the original question, "the" College Football Playoff just goes to show that it's better to decide playoff teams on the field rather than by committee.

I wanted to look at the NON-NESCAC Massey Ratings of the opponents the Final 4 played in the playoffs:

UMHB - Redlands (63) , Linfield (7),  Wheaton (10)
Mt. Union - Hobart (30),   Johns Hopkins (14),   Alfred (17)
Oshkosh - Wash U (37),   St. John's (11),   St. Thomas (6)
John Carroll - Olivet (58), Wesley (9), Whitwater (5)

Interesting.

Hansen when are this week's odds coming out? I'm waiting with baited breath!! ;)

Quote from: HansenRatings on December 03, 2016, 07:07:43 PM
Aaaaaaaaand updated bracket odds. Haven't heard any grumbling from any of the fans for the remaining teams (not surprisingly, the UMHB fans have been pretty happy with my model all season. Helps when your team is #1 for about 8 of 11 weeks). Who wants to start the argument this week?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cyx_vrWUsAAllhO.jpg)

They're already up! The spreads work out to be UWO (-11.5) & UMHB (-7.5). My preseason ratings had the previous UWO/JCU game pegged pretty much spot-on, and both teams are playing better now than their preseason ratings predicted. JCU didn't get as much as a boost as you would expect from the UWW win, mostly because UWW had dropped all the way to #8 before the game. UMHB's rating has actually slipped a bit in the playoffs, but so has Mount's. They came into the tournament as the #1 & #2 teams in the country, and are now at #3 & #5.

Major kudos to all four defenses today.  The first game was a defensive struggle (as I expected) but I expected more like 20-17 than 10-3.  In the finale, I thought the LOSER of the game would score more points than BOTH teams together scored! :o ;D

The six 'gurus' picked UWO over JCU by 25-23.  (Adam, to his credit, nailed UWO exactly at 10, but missed JCU by 21 - oops!)  They picked UMHB over UMU by 39-26.  TOGETHER they scored 26. ::)  Not a good day for those of us trying to predict the future! ;D

Stagg Bowl prediction from the model is UWO over UMHB, by an average of 0.4 points (22.7-22.3), or 50.9%. Which basically means this game is anybody's guess. both teams are spectacular.

Also, I just posted today my own take on All-American teams, using a metric I'm calling Yards Above Average Player as the metric of choice. YAAP takes into account a player's yards/play average, touchdown rate, and turnover rate relative to the national average, weighted by their number of touches. So players are rewarded for both quality (high average gain) and quantity (number of touches). You can see it all here (https://t.co/VN8sFE3O5x), and the position-specific results below.

Quarterbacks
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzgBgQAVEAAl6ud.jpg)

Running Backs
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzgC4fbUQAAfUwO.jpg)

Wide Receivers
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzgD4JQUUAApPiK.jpg)

Return Specialists
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzgEKTVUsAAiIzE.jpg)

I was going to tweet this question at you but since you posted, I'll do it here. Any thoughts about using SOS as a parameter in this list? It's one thing to roll up a bunch of yards in the UMAC, but another thing to do so in a mid-range conference, let alone a top-flight conference.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 12, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
I was going to tweet this question at you but since you posted, I'll do it here. Any thoughts about using SOS as a parameter in this list? It's one thing to roll up a bunch of yards in the UMAC, but another thing to do so in a mid-range conference, let alone a top-flight conference.

I had the same thought. But again, drooling over the extra stats!!

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 12, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
I was going to tweet this question at you but since you posted, I'll do it here. Any thoughts about using SOS as a parameter in this list? It's one thing to roll up a bunch of yards in the UMAC, but another thing to do so in a mid-range conference, let alone a top-flight conference.

I could, and I think I will, but I wanted to put something out the same day as the AFCA. I already have the average opponents' strength calculated in the background of the team-by-team pages (http://loganahansen21.wixsite.com/hansen-ratings/any-a), so it's just a matter of merging the two spreadsheets. Seems weird to see Dylan Hecker not in the Top 20 for rushing value-added, but he faced the best rushing defenses in the country.

Logan, I was surprised that Maurice Shoemaker-Gilmore didn't make the top 20.  IWU has played football for 125 seasons, and he just broke the all-time single-season rushing record!  Maybe once you adjust for SoS he'll be there; if not, how far down was he?

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 12, 2016, 05:18:22 PM
Logan, I was surprised that Maurice Shoemaker-Gilmore didn't make the top 20.  IWU has played football for 125 seasons, and he just broke the all-time single-season rushing record!  Maybe once you adjust for SoS he'll be there; if not, how far down was he?

He's at #30 for All-Purpose Yards among RB's (384 Yards Above Average Player), and #53 in rushing only (356 YAAP). He was hurt by a pretty poor rushing average (relative to the national leaders), and only 9 TD's in nearly 200 touches, which is about half the TD rate of the top backs. So his ANY/A is only 1.93 yards above the national average. The CCIW was the second-strongest conference in my model this year, so he'll probably crack the Top 20 in all-purpose after an opponent adjustment.

Here are the results after accounting for opponent quality.

Top QBs
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fk9B7HYo.png&hash=7813be619dba5239dc9d9a96ab785631d16148f5)

Top RBs
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI2RaVBB.png&hash=c9f52b1a7731db9d33e36d05d74a9eff4e9cb8ef)

Top WRs
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4FoiB2W.png&hash=312756e4e90c748d5a84166a5dc63a9f52fdaa90)

Top Return Specialists
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fk02dXnD.png&hash=e2f0d0db00a966183ed071743ac6f9854d8ada9e)

Thanks!  I'm not familiar enough with the WRs and Return Specialists to comment, but the QBs and RBs now look much more like I would have expected.

Hansen, that's pretty cool.   Excellent way of leveling out the statistical playing field.

Excellent work, Hansen.

I really like the stats/rankings adjusted for opponent quality vs. without the adjustment.

Looking forward to the game tonight.  I am baffled as to why UMHB struggled against Mount's D last week and if Oshkosh has a better defense, and numbers say they do, then UMHB may struggle against them also.  Oshkosh does not seem to present a high scoring offense, but they have been able to put up points in the playoffs.  This game could go either way, I had both in the finals with UMHB my choice pre playoffs, but I am just thinking that Oshkosh will score enough and cause UMHB enough trouble on offense to eek out a win, 20 - 17.  This has been a fun playoff season.

Quote from: wesleydad on December 16, 2016, 02:04:24 PM
Looking forward to the game tonight.  I am baffled as to why UMHB struggled against Mount's D last week and if Oshkosh has a better defense, and numbers say they do, then UMHB may struggle against them also.  Oshkosh does not seem to present a high scoring offense, but they have been able to put up points in the playoffs.  This game could go either way, I had both in the finals with UMHB my choice pre playoffs, but I am just thinking that Oshkosh will score enough and cause UMHB enough trouble on offense to eek out a win, 20 - 17.  This has been a fun playoff season.

I picked UMHB in my pick'em, but I think weather will play a big part, it is tough going from 50 degree weather to the 10's & 20's. I think UW-Oshkosh scores the first 10 points and holds and UMHB warms up in the 2nd half, but UW-Oshkosh gets either a late turnover to prevent UMHB from scoring or one of those late big option runs to seal the game.

Congrats Crusaders... Stagg Bowl XLIV champs :) Excellent effort from the Titans too

Last night, in an obscure location just outside Salem Virginia, University of Mary-Hardin-Baylor was inducted into the very exclusive Order of the Purple.  Joining the Cru for the ceremony were Mount Union, UW-Whitewater, Linfield and Albion.  The Walnut and Bronze was presented by the Cru as evidence of worthiness to attend the joyful occasion and to be admitted to the Order. The Order of the Purple strives to maintain the Walnut and Bronze amongst its esteemed members and the eligible applicants to join this select group.

The quest from the next Walnut and Bronze will begin next September.

One last thought about the 2016 CFB bowl games.

Is a 5-7 team getting a bid to a CFB bowl game the equivalent of the "Participation Trophy"?

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2016, 05:39:15 PM
One last thought about the 2016 CFB bowl games.

Is a 5-7 team getting a bid to a CFB bowl game the equivalent of the "Participation Trophy"?

  I would say that it's actually the definitive example.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2016, 05:39:15 PM
One last thought about the 2016 CFB bowl games.

Is a 5-7 team getting a bid to a CFB bowl game the equivalent of the "Participation Trophy"?

It was when they let 6-6 teams into them, and that's 6-6 with one D-1AA win.

The crowds are abysmal, schools lose money, BUT the cable networks own many of them and they get better ratings and ad buys than what they'd show regularly.

Someone had commented about ECAC-type bowls for the entire country in another year, and I think it's kind of a bitter pill. "Hey, you went 8-2 and had a middling SOS. Here's a game you can play while 32 other teams play for the trophy."

Sort of like going to the NIT, CIT, or the CBI in hoops.

More than 60% of FBS teams are playing in a bowl game... we'd need around 60 ECAC bowl games plus the tournament in D3 to have that kind of ratio. They didn't reach 20 bowl games until 1997 and they've doubled that in less than 2 decades. Yet they still can't spring for a couple extra flights for the D3 islands.

Among my fixes for the FBS would be
- 8 team tournament (Power 5 champs, 1 non power 5 team, 2 at large). That would mean this year would be Alabama. Clemson, Washington, Penn St, Oklahoma, W Michigan, Ohio St, Michigan would be in)
- Add a 13th game to the season to even the playing field (conferences with a championship game would have that count as their 13th game [and should not only have 1st vs 1st but 2nd vs 2nd etc] while conferences without a championship [and if they play a full round robin] would get an additional nonconference game)
- Limit the FCS opponents to 1 a season and it must be within the first 2 games of the season (looking at you SEC and your late October games)

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on December 24, 2016, 11:53:47 PM
More than 60% of FBS teams are playing in a bowl game... we'd need around 60 ECAC bowl games plus the tournament in D3 to have that kind of ratio. They didn't reach 20 bowl games until 1997 and they've doubled that in less than 2 decades. Yet they still can't spring for a couple extra flights for the D3 islands.

Among my fixes for the FBS would be
- 8 team tournament (Power 5 champs, 1 non power 5 team, 2 at large). That would mean this year would be Alabama. Clemson, Washington, Penn St, Oklahoma, W Michigan, Ohio St, Michigan would be in)
- Add a 13th game to the season to even the playing field (conferences with a championship game would have that count as their 13th game [and should not only have 1st vs 1st but 2nd vs 2nd etc] while conferences without a championship [and if they play a full round robin] would get an additional nonconference game)
- Limit the FCS opponents to 1 a season and it must be within the first 2 games of the season (looking at you SEC and your late October games)

The NCAA isn't paying for or earning money from bowl games.  Bowl games are just an extra game put on by ESPN, I don't get why people get so worked up about it.   Very unique way to end the season and it's great for the players. 

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2016, 08:16:05 PM
With the rumbling that Ohio State might be picked for the "Playoff 4", don't you like D-3 even more?

http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/2016/bracket

I tried to find an equivalent game in the D3 Bracket to the Clemson Ohio State game and the closest that I could find was Tommies 43 Northwestern MN (not IL) 0, with apologies to Northwestern IL. After all, they WON their conference title!

The CFB Selection Committee got what they deserved.

I agree. Should be conference champions only. Especially if the conference champ also owns the H2H. That was ridiculous this year. Not that I think Penn State would have done much better. Clemson just looked that much better.