FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[ExTartanPlayer]

Also, Trine in 2008 is absolute not a "should have beaten". Trine would have beaten most of the playoff field that year (and if you notice they did beat Franklin--whom you list as a middle--who beat NCC). I also think you can ask UWW fans what they think of the Trine program from their experience. Not a "should have beaten team" by any stretch. I could make the same argument for Coe in 2010 but I will not split hairs on that one.

Want to second this.  We shouldn't assume that all "MIAA cupcakes" are created equal.  For that three-year stretch from 2008-2010, Trine was pretty legit.  Much better than the typical MIAA champ outside of that stretch.

[USee]

Also, Trine in 2008 is absolute not a "should have beaten". Trine would have beaten most of the playoff field that year (and if you notice they did beat Franklin--whom you list as a middle--who beat NCC). I also think you can ask UWW fans what they think of the Trine program from their experience. Not a "should have beaten team" by any stretch. I could make the same argument for Coe in 2010 but I will not split hairs on that one.

Want to second this.  We shouldn't assume that all "MIAA cupcakes" are created equal.  For that three-year stretch from 2008-2010, Trine was pretty legit.  Much better than the typical MIAA champ outside of that stretch.

I agree. Also in 2002 Wheaton lost to Alma in the regular season, then beat them in the playoffs and subsequently gave Mt union their toughest test of the playoffs (according to Mt Fans). Alma was a legit MIAA champ that year.

[79jaybird]

My take is that the CCIW is a pretty solid conference top to bottom.  Obviously North Park is a little behind, but most of the conference is pretty solid.
Ohio (Well ah Mt. Union)
WIAC
CCIW
is how I would rank it.  The CCIW tends to squash teams from the NAC, MWC, old Illini-Badger, Iowa (Central might be an exception), etc.  so given their Midwest geography, I would say they are a lion and not a wildebeest.   

[NCF]

My take is that the CCIW is a pretty solid conference top to bottom.  Obviously North Park is a little behind, but most of the conference is pretty solid.
Ohio (Well ah Mt. Union)
WIAC
CCIW
is how I would rank it.  The CCIW tends to squash teams from the NAC, MWC, old Illini-Badger, Iowa (Central might be an exception), etc.  so given their Midwest geography, I would say they are a lion and not a wildebeest.

The CCIW now is NC, Wheaton, IWU and maybe and occasional fourth team. The rest of the teams are all a step (or more) behind. I honestly can't say it is pretty solid from top to bottom. When D3 ranked the conferences last season, the CCIW was not in the top three. Given the play of the bottom five, I would have to agree.

[ExTartanPlayer]

My take is that the CCIW is a pretty solid conference top to bottom.  Obviously North Park is a little behind, but most of the conference is pretty solid.
Ohio (Well ah Mt. Union)
WIAC
CCIW
is how I would rank it.  The CCIW tends to squash teams from the NAC, MWC, old Illini-Badger, Iowa (Central might be an exception), etc.  so given their Midwest geography, I would say they are a lion and not a wildebeest.

The CCIW now is NC, Wheaton, IWU and maybe and occasional fourth team. The rest of the teams are all a step (or more) behind. I honestly can't say it is pretty solid from top to bottom. When D3 ranked the conferences last season, the CCIW was not in the top three. Given the play of the bottom five, I would have to agree.

You're kidding, right?  Did you even read the last couple of posts?  The bolded description could be applied to every single conference that matters in Division III.  No conference is solid from "top to bottom" by the standards you're trying to apply here.  In any given season in any conference, usually two or three teams are "a step ahead" of the rest.  Every team can't win the conference title every season!  Someone has to bring up the rear - and when the guys bringing up the rear in your conference are better than the guys bringing up the rear in other conferences, yes, that is indicative of a fairly solid conference "from top to bottom."

As I've said: your "bottom five" have fared well in nonconference play, generally beating their peers from other conferences in the region, sometimes beating teams from the top of those weaker conferences.  My hunch is that they would hold their own against the bottom-half teams from even the best conferences.

I also find it laughable that you say "the rest" are all a step behind, conveniently ignoring that Elmhurst beat two of those three last year and won a playoff game.  Elmhurst over the past decade doesn't match those three, sure, but you've thrown in the qualifer "the CCIW now..." clearly indicating that you're only talking recent history (since you've also conveniently ignored USee's very salient point that every team but North Park has made it to the playoffs within the past 12 years and all but Millikin won a playoff game).

FTR, I do think Elmhurst is going to fall back to the pack this year, I think they're going to lose at least one non-con game (Trine or WashU) because they did lose a lot.  But you can't go complaining that your league has "only three good teams" now and ignore that a fourth team represented your league in fine fashion in last year's playoffs.

[79jaybird]

U Chicago not Wash U.

And I agree (see my previous posts) that Elmhurst is going to fall back to the middle of the pack, until Adam gets his recruits together.  Plus, it is hard to replace a legend like Williams.  Athletes like that don't come around every year.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Apologies, I was mixed up, for some reason I had it in my mind WashU was playing Elmhurst (they're actually playing a different overranked top 25 team...) - Elmhurst will handle Chicago just fine. 

[Gregory Sager]

There are no top tier conferences, just top tier teams. Which is one reason I'd like to see the AQ eliminated and go straight top 32 teams.

This comment goes straight into the "If Wishes Were Horses ..." file, NCF.  Since automatic qualifiers are at the very heart of the NCAA's stated mission to fully represent the entire dues-paying membership of the organization, they will never be eliminated in any sport. Just as you'll never see compass schools and hyphen schools prevented from getting their first-round moment in the limelight of D1 March Madness every spring, you'll never see the UMAC or the NACC or the MWC lose their AQs to the D3 football tourney.

[USee]

There are no top tier conferences, just top tier teams. Which is one reason I'd like to see the AQ eliminated and go straight top 32 teams.

This comment goes straight into the "If Wishes Were Horses ..." file, NCF.  Since automatic qualifiers are at the very heart of the NCAA's stated mission to fully represent the entire dues-paying membership of the organization, they will never be eliminated in any sport. Just as you'll never see compass schools and hyphen schools prevented from getting their first-round moment in the limelight of D1 March Madness every spring, you'll never see the UMAC or the NACC or the MWC lose their AQs to the D3 football tourney.

Nor should they.  I think the "access" model works just fine.  We have it in NCAA basketball and its great when Harvard beats New Mexico or Belmont beats Duke.

[NCF]

There are no top tier conferences, just top tier teams. Which is one reason I'd like to see the AQ eliminated and go straight top 32 teams.

This comment goes straight into the "If Wishes Were Horses ..." file, NCF.  Since automatic qualifiers are at the very heart of the NCAA's stated mission to fully represent the entire dues-paying membership of the organization, they will never be eliminated in any sport. Just as you'll never see compass schools and hyphen schools prevented from getting their first-round moment in the limelight of D1 March Madness every spring, you'll never see the UMAC or the NACC or the MWC lose their AQs to the D3 football tourney.

You mean if "if's and buts were candy and nuts..... Unfortunately I know that will never happen, but I like to dream once in awhile

[Langhorst_Ghost]

The CCIW now is NC, Wheaton, IWU and maybe and occasional fourth team. The rest of the teams are all a step (or more) behind. I honestly can't say it is pretty solid from top to bottom. When D3 ranked the conferences last season, the CCIW was not in the top three. Given the play of the bottom five, I would have to agree.

You're kidding, right?  Did you even read the last couple of posts?  The bolded description could be applied to every single conference that matters in Division III.  No conference is solid from "top to bottom" by the standards you're trying to apply here.  In any given season in any conference, usually two or three teams are "a step ahead" of the rest.  Every team can't win the conference title every season!  Someone has to bring up the rear - and when the guys bringing up the rear in your conference are better than the guys bringing up the rear in other conferences, yes, that is indicative of a fairly solid conference "from top to bottom."

As I've said: your "bottom five" have fared well in nonconference play, generally beating their peers from other conferences in the region, sometimes beating teams from the top of those weaker conferences.  My hunch is that they would hold their own against the bottom-half teams from even the best conferences.

I also find it laughable that you say "the rest" are all a step behind, conveniently ignoring that Elmhurst beat two of those three last year and won a playoff game.  Elmhurst over the past decade doesn't match those three, sure, but you've thrown in the qualifer "the CCIW now..." clearly indicating that you're only talking recent history (since you've also conveniently ignored USee's very salient point that every team but North Park has made it to the playoffs within the past 12 years and all but Millikin won a playoff game).

FTR, I do think Elmhurst is going to fall back to the pack this year, I think they're going to lose at least one non-con game (Trine or WashU) because they did lose a lot.  But you can't go complaining that your league has "only three good teams" now and ignore that a fourth team represented your league in fine fashion in last year's playoffs.

NCF - while i certainly have a tremendous level of respect for what NCC has accomplished in recent years (the consistently dominant force in an historically successful league), it's this kind of arrogant banter that fuels the disdain for your Fighting Thornes from fellow CCIW fans.  Yes, the Cards have been terrific, class of the conference, worthy of puffy chested chat board revelry - but it's just simply inaccurate, and frankly incredibly smug, to assert that your "other five teams" have not had a significant role to play in the conference chase.

XTP makes some solid points here (except for the "EC falling back to the middle of the pack" part, of course  ) - less than 10 months ago, only 16 teams played on Thanksgiving weekend...EC was one of them.  The Jays took down an undefeated Coe team on the road and had the National Runner-Up down two touchdowns up in St. Paul a week later...not too shabby for an also ran.

[kiko]

The CCIW now is NC, Wheaton, IWU and maybe and occasional fourth team. The rest of the teams are all a step (or more) behind. I honestly can't say it is pretty solid from top to bottom. When D3 ranked the conferences last season, the CCIW was not in the top three. Given the play of the bottom five, I would have to agree.

You're kidding, right?  Did you even read the last couple of posts?  The bolded description could be applied to every single conference that matters in Division III.  No conference is solid from "top to bottom" by the standards you're trying to apply here.  In any given season in any conference, usually two or three teams are "a step ahead" of the rest.  Every team can't win the conference title every season!  Someone has to bring up the rear - and when the guys bringing up the rear in your conference are better than the guys bringing up the rear in other conferences, yes, that is indicative of a fairly solid conference "from top to bottom."

As I've said: your "bottom five" have fared well in nonconference play, generally beating their peers from other conferences in the region, sometimes beating teams from the top of those weaker conferences.  My hunch is that they would hold their own against the bottom-half teams from even the best conferences.

I also find it laughable that you say "the rest" are all a step behind, conveniently ignoring that Elmhurst beat two of those three last year and won a playoff game.  Elmhurst over the past decade doesn't match those three, sure, but you've thrown in the qualifer "the CCIW now..." clearly indicating that you're only talking recent history (since you've also conveniently ignored USee's very salient point that every team but North Park has made it to the playoffs within the past 12 years and all but Millikin won a playoff game).

FTR, I do think Elmhurst is going to fall back to the pack this year, I think they're going to lose at least one non-con game (Trine or WashU) because they did lose a lot.  But you can't go complaining that your league has "only three good teams" now and ignore that a fourth team represented your league in fine fashion in last year's playoffs.

NCF - while i certainly have a tremendous level of respect for what NCC has accomplished in recent years (the consistently dominant force in an historically successful league), it's this kind of arrogant banter that fuels the disdain for your Fighting Thornes from fellow CCIW fans.  Yes, the Cards have been terrific, class of the conference, worthy of puffy chested chat board revelry - but it's just simply inaccurate, and frankly incredibly smug, to assert that your "other five teams" have not had a significant role to play in the conference chase.

XTP makes some solid points here (except for the "EC falling back to the middle of the pack" part, of course  ) - less than 10 months ago, only 16 teams played on Thanksgiving weekend...EC was one of them.  The Jays took down an undefeated Coe team on the road and had the National Runner-Up down two touchdowns up in St. Paul a week later...not too shabby for an also ran.

That's called "the occasional fourth team", which is what NCF called out.  Do it more than once and they'll change the song so it doesn't say "and the rest" after we namecheck the millionaire, his wife, and the movie star.

[kiko]

Couple of comments on this.

You left off Wheaton's 1995 season where they beat Wittenberg at home (as a decided underdog) and then lost @ Mt Union (after trailing in the 4th quarter 14-7).

Figured you'd flag that.  I left it off for three reasons, which you may or may not disagree with:

1. The playoff format was different in that era -- there were just 16 playoff qualifiers, and the format pre-dates the pool system.  Given that much of my argument regarding playoff success related to the quality of competition, including a year where the size of the playoff field changed these dynamics would seem to muddy the conversation.
2. It feels like an outlier in a conversation about the current era.  Multiple classes of students / players enrolled, matriculated, and graduated between that playoff appearance and the next playoff appearance by Wheaton.  There were a couple of years during that interim window in which the entire student body consisted of kids who did not experience a playoff season in their four years.  When this happens, IMO you're talking about two different eras.
3. Given that it was 18 years ago, I felt the statute of limitations had sort of expired on that season as a proof point.

1995 was one of the three QF seasons you noted, so I get why you believe it belongs in the mix.  It changes the conversation from "we have just one more deep run in the playoffs than you do" to "we have *three* and you only have one".  But from my perspective, including it would be similar to a Michigan fan using their 1997 national championship as a proof point in a conversation with someone regarding the strength of their current football programs.

I can understand this but it wasn't as if there are 10 different seasons, it's only 1 season you are excluding and it does indicate strength of the program over a longer time period.

Well, that was so long ago that it pre-dates the internet as something that had anything beyond niche adoption.  And Wheaton dipped below .500  between that season and the current era, so it wasn't completely contiguous to the current period of sustained success.  Wheaton was generally good (not very good and not great, but good) during the interim era.  They've been very good, and occasionally great, in the past 10ish years.  I get why you put it in scope; I think there's a better case to ringfence a shorter timeframe.

[kiko]

You also didn't list Wheaton's 7 losses the way you list NCC's:

@Mt Union which then lost to UWLax in the semis (who won the Stagg)
@Mt Union which won the Stagg
@Mt Union which lost the Stagg to St Johns
@Mt Union which lost in Semis to UMHB
@Mt Union which won the Stagg
@Mt Union wich lost the Stagg to UWW
@Mt Union which lost the Stagg to UWW
Vs Bethel which lost in Semis to Mt Union

Wheaton never lost to a team that lost in the QF. Wheaton mad the QF

I didn't list those because I assumed everyone would know that, since almost all of Wheaton's losses were to Mount, their opponent typically went on to play in or win the Stagg Bowl.

My broader point is that there is some nuance behind the 'Wheaton never lost to a team that lost in the QF".  Wheaton has had six playoff teams since the turn of the millennium.  In the first four of those seasons, Wheaton played exactly one team that was not a MIAA cupcake or Mount Union.  So of course they weren't losing to teams that lost in the Quarterfinals -- they were beating up on weaker teams and losing to Mount Union, and had almost no games against middle-tier competition.  Would they have beaten these teams?  Dunno -- they beat the one that they did play, and it was an excellent win.  North Central has played a lot more of these teams, and their record is a mixed bag.  But I think using "we don't lose to teams that lose in the QF" as a proof point is a bit misleading without also considering who they did and did not play.

Lot's of assumptions here so let's look at the facts just to be clear.

In 2002, Wheaton lost to Alma in the regular season before beating them @Alma in the playoffs. Then Wheaton lost @MT Union in what the majority of Mt fans described as their toughest game of the year. This game alone went a long way toward the CCIW raising their profile in the d3 world.

In 2003 Wheaton beat Baldwin-Wallace who was the OAC runner-up and no one thought they had a chance. That was because the year before, John Carroll, who was a one loss OAC team, ran through the east coast in the playoffs like a knife through butter to face Mt Union again. So the OAC runner-up back then was considered the national runner-up/#2 team in the country. It was a huge win for Wheaton and between the 2002 game @Mt Union and the victory over BW in 2003 I would argue those two years gave the the CCIW a lot of credit on the national playoff scene. Many of the d3 fans would subsequently see Wheaton lose a game in conference and think, "Man, that conference must be tough if that school lost". Right or wrong, I believe that was a perception.

And finally, in 2004, Wheaton lost to Mt Union 27-6 which was MT union's 2nd lowest output of their season (and Wheaton gave up more than that in conference 3x) and then the next week, Carthage went to Mt Union and was in a 7 pt game in the 4th quarter before succumbing to the purple people eaters.

So, to dismiss the first 4 years as "the MIAA cupcake and Mt Union" is more than a little misleading when it was precisely those years that the reputation for the CCIW was established.

Um, there are exactly zero assumptions there.  In that four year span, show me which team, other than Baldwin-Wallace, that Wheaton faced in the playoffs which was not either (1) a MIAA team, or (2) Mount Union.  You can sunshine that era with however many paragraphs of tangental explanations as you'd like, but it doesn't change who Wheaton faced.

[kiko]

Also, you make the following statement:

So, against the middles, North Central is 2-4 and Wheaton is 3-1.  The biggest driver of this is 2008, where Wheaton secured two of its four wins against middles, and in the process beat a team that had eliminated the Cardinals.  Outside of this season, I really don't see much difference in how the two schools have fared in the playoffs.  Wheaton's losses are mostly to Mount, but their road to get there was not always the most difficult in the world.

You can't make this claim. Wheaton's two biggest coup's were first beating Baldwin Wallace in 2003, when BW had only lost to Mt Union and beat every other OAC team by at least 18 pts. This was when no OAC team had lost in the playoffs to anyone outside of Mt Union and not a single person on these boards (including me) thought Wheaton had any chance of beating BW or even competing with them.

The second was the 2008 season when Wheaton was the 32nd and last team into the field via pool C and a decided underdog on the road the 3 teams and beat them all to make it the semifinals. You can't say "outside of this season" because that's almost 40% of the data AND it includes a road win against the team that beat NCC, who lost at home. Those are some of the biggest differentiators between the two schools in their playoff history (another being that Wheaton has been to 3 QF and 1 Semi and NCC has only been to 1 QF) so you cannot simply say those don't count and the two schools have performed similarly. That's just not sound.

Two comments on this.  One, there's more than a little Lou Holtz in the 'we were the 32nd and last team in the field' comment.  The relative scarcity of at-large berths (seven) and the reliance on regional results to choose from among a set of teams from different regions that have virtually no common opponents means that being last in certainly does not mean you are the weakest team.  There was no doubt that Wheaton was playoff-caliber from a talent standpoint that year; the only question was whether The Only System We Have would allow them the opportunity to keep playing beyond Thanksgiving that year.  Generally speaking, with CCIW Pool C teams, the question is never whether they belong in the field or whether they can hold their own.  It's whether results around the country break in such a way that they get an opportunity to keep playing.

Second: I can and will say 'outside of this season'.  When one season contains 40% of your data points, it will have an outsized influence on a bigger data set.  It makes sense to confirm whether the conclusion you draw from the remaining data is the same as what you would draw from the full data set.  Wheaton unequivocally had a better playoff run in 2008.  The road victories were impressive and it was a demonstration of good success against that middle tier I focused on in my original post.  The question to me was, if you take that year and put it in the "Wheaton" column, then what do the rest of the years look like?  And from my standpoint, they look pretty close to a wash.

My biggest beef is with this commentary. RE: Lou Holtz comment, I didn't say they were the weakest team but it is an undeniable fact they were the 32nd team. Last year they were the 33rd and didn't get in. So be it. It is also pretty well known that the top 4 conferences could get the top half of their teams in every year and do just fine in the playoffs. This isn't a Wheaton specific phenomenon.  But your "Put 2008 in the Wheaton column....and the rest of the years look like....pretty close to a wash" comment is absurd at its best. It is not intellectually honest to table one teams best data and not do the same for the other team. So if you take away Wheaton's 2008 (and apparently 1996) and NCC's 2010, what do you get then? That's much more of a fair comparison.

You can slice data however you choose, but I would submit that it is less intellectually honest to let one season's data weigh so heavily that it drives the outcome of a multi-season analysis.  And to be clear, I'm not "taking away" Wheaton's 2008 season.  I'm praising it.  They did what the Cardinals were unable to do, and a whole lot more.