Figured I'd put this board up, since it will get discussed eventually. :)
For those who never saw the Lindy's or Street & Smith's preseason rankings that came out, I put them on my site:
http://www.bridgewaterfootball.com/d3rankings.html
Also, Sports Illustrated's preseason top 10 was posted on SI.com:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/ncaa/specials/preview/2005/08/08/lower.divisions0815/ (scroll down)
I was informed that USA Today's Sports Weekly will have a preseason poll in their issue to hit newsstands Monday, August 22.
The only other poll I know of it Don Hansen's preseason top 40 ... but I've checked his site for the past three weeks (he mentioned on his message forum it would be out late-July) and he still hasn't released it. Needless to say, I'm going to stop checking.
Thanks for the links
Let's see...I like LINFIELD getting The Beast From the East at home again and.....Mt Union traveling to Harden-Simmons.
Yeah, that's it. That's the fantasy football I'm engaged in.
The Beast from the East?? Linfield is going to play George Steinbrenner?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Pat Coleman, 703-854-5313
McLEAN, Va. -- Linfield has been picked to repeat as national champion, with the No. 1 ranking in NCAA Division III football. The ranking appears in USA TODAY Sports Weekly's College Football Preview publication, a special edition which hits newsstands nationally Monday, Aug. 22.
Linfield, which returns All-America quarterback Blake Elliott among 14 starters from last year's national title team, is followed by national runner-up Mary Hardin-Baylor. Mount Union, Hardin-Simmons and Ohio Northern round out the top five. Sports Weekly also names five players to watch.
The special edition covers Division I-A, I-AA, II and III football and is on newsstands through Sept. 12.
The full preseason Top 25, as selected by Sports Weekly staffers Pat Coleman and Keith McMillan.
1. Linfield (Ore.)
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor (Texas)
3. Mount Union (Ohio)
4. Hardin-Simmons (Texas)
5. Ohio Northern
6. Rowan (N.J.)
7. Occidental (Calif.)
8. Wisconsin-La Crosse
9. Salisbury (Md.)
10. Washington & Jefferson (Pa.)
11. St. John's (Minn.)
12. Bridgewater (Va.)
13. Ithaca (N.Y.)
14. Trinity (Texas)
15. Christopher Newport (Va.)
16. Augustana (Ill.)
17. Wisconsin-Eau Claire
18. Albright (Pa.)
19. Wisconsin-Whitewater
20. Capital (Ohio)
21. Carthage (Wis.)
22. Whitworth (Wash.)
23. Delaware Valley (Pa.)
24. Concordia-Moorhead (Minn.)
25. St. John Fisher (N.Y.)
Pat Coleman
Operations Chief
Sports Weekly
Yeah kid,
I print them all out just to have ... and we'll probably compare a bit in Around the Nation, as we did early last season.
I think you got 'em all, but the SCAC preseason prospectus has a PDF with d3, Lindy's and S&S side-by-side, for what that's worth. SI and USAT SW are the only ones I know of at the moment too.
The AFCA will do an in-season poll, and as far as Don Hansen ... well kid's post asking when the rankings will be out is sitting in the forum, alone, unanswered.
Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on August 18, 2005, 02:17:07 PM
For those who never saw the Lindy's or Street & Smith's preseason rankings that came out, I put them on my site:
http://www.bridgewaterfootball.com/d3rankings.html
Also, Sports Illustrated's preseason top 10 was posted on SI.com:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/ncaa/specials/preview/2005/08/08/lower.divisions0815/ (scroll down)
I was informed that USA Today's Sports Weekly will have a preseason poll in their issue to hit newsstands Monday, August 22.
The only other poll I know of it Don Hansen's preseason top 40 ... but I've checked his site for the past three weeks (he mentioned on his message forum it would be out late-July) and he still hasn't released it. Needless to say, I'm going to stop checking.
Quote from: K-Mack on August 24, 2005, 03:30:22 PM
[...] as far as Don Hansen ... well kid's post asking when the rankings will be out is sitting in the forum, alone, unanswered.
Haha ... funny you saw that ... but he did post his Top 40 today ...
http://www.donhansen.com/polls/ncaaiii.php
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 24, 2005, 01:32:16 PM
The full preseason Top 25, as selected by Sports Weekly staffers Pat Coleman and Keith McMillan.
...
Pat Coleman
Operations Chief
Sports Weekly
Geez, I thot you guys didn't have a life LAST year. Now besides keeping D3football.com humming you are "Sports Weekly" stafffers and creators of your very own personal Top 25 poll. :o
Seriously, congrats on [what I think is a?] new gig. It's gotta be nice when you get recognition like this from the big guys.
Well, I've been working at Sports Weekly (formerly Baseball Weekly) since 1995. But Keith has only been on staff since January or February. :)
Pat,
Why SJU at 11 in this poll and 10 on the site?
Not complaining, just wondering why the difference.
Loving the Kickoff by the way
Well, it says who picked this poll on the poll itself -- just two of the D3football.com Top 25 voters. This was our opinion.
Yes, it's a fine study in the difference between two opinions (Pat and I did the SW poll) and 25 opinions.
Also, for instance, I personally ranked Augustana way high, which helped them a ton in the two-man poll (No. 16), not so much in D3's larger pool of voters (ARV, No. 27)
Same with SJU ... I'd have to look, but I don't think I had them near 10 or 11, which means Pat must have had them higher ... and most of our top 25 voters agree with him.
Whoa. Maybe this is too much insight.
Okay ... all six preseason polls are posted here:
http://bridgewaterfootball.com/d3rankings.html
I had SJU 10.
Weird, I had them #1.
Pat, feel free to make a comment about life with the red blinders on whenever you wish.
Self-promoter! ;D
Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on August 25, 2005, 08:11:25 PM
Okay ... all six preseason polls are posted here:
http://bridgewaterfootball.com/d3rankings.html
Since I'm behind due to a computer crash, I'm just gonna copy kid's code and change the font and colors. I hope you don't mind there kid.
Not at all JT!
I thought no one would notice K-Mack :D
Just saw the week 1 poll - nothing jumped out at me as a surprise except that Millikin only got 10 points after destroying #24 Wartburg!
Evidently the voters concluded that Wartburg was grossly overrated, rather than that Millikin was particularly good.
Wait a second - I'm a Titan and I'm defending the Big Blue?? :o
Mr. Ypsi, I think that the implied dignity of the appellation of "Mr." is having a salutary effect upon you!
Ralph,
I "Applaud" for a great back-handed compliment! (So, as cabonney I was a total thug?! :o) ;D
Linfield, which returns All-America quarterback Blake Elliott among 14 starters from last year's national title team, is followed by national runner-up Mary Hardin-Baylor. Mount Union, Hardin-Simmons and Ohio Northern round out the top five. Sports Weekly also names five players to watch.
I have no doubt he could play QB but I could never see Blake in putrid purple.
Yeah. I thought about editing the post but figured I should take my lumps for the typo.
Top 25s ... interesting. I'm definitely a voter that re-evaluates everything each week, as opposed to dropping anyone that loses a spot and bumping all the winners up to fill the holes.
I think there are too many teams in d3 for me to just give away top 25 votes to teams that aren't justifying being there. And sometimes I know a team will likely pass some test later in the season and get itself back in the poll, or a conference is so jumbled that even though I think it's a strong conference, I don't know which teams stands out and subsequently vote for none.
Preseason is a different animal entirely ... I had six or so of my teams drop completely out after this week. I usually rank 10 teams for my personal enjoyment (maybe an ATN feature?) after the top 25, and when I'm not impressed by a result and drop someone out as I re-evaluate, that's the group I move others up from.
If all that makes any sense.
I also try to avoid just looking at the score ... like that Penn State game in '94 when they were beating Indiana 35-14 and the scrubs gave up 2 late TDs and they fell from No. 1 to No. 2, and never caught Nebraska. And because it was dumb no-playoff-havin D1 they went unbeaten and won the rose bowl and were not champions ... well not that we have to worry about "creating the news" and similar injustices by voting in our poll, since the d3 playoff teams will all sort it out (and if you didn't make the playoffs, you had your shot) ... but I like to take the poll that seriously and look at more than scores.
Let's just say it doesn't thrill the wife when I take a significant amount of time to vote on Saturday nights/Sunday mornings when we're out of town or something ... won't say how long ... either I'm a wife-ignoring loser, or not spending long enough on it. :)
Do any of you out there have thoughts on the fluctuations in the d3 poll, or how it stacks up against the AFCA and other polls? Certainly my top 25 is not the top 25 we all end up with each week, which is probably good (Augustana who?) but also means I look at our own poll sometimes and shake my head in disagreement.
Pat:
It was too easy to pass up, but in all seriousness, I have to say this is a very clean web site for large amount of copy and small crew putting it out.
K-Mack:
I think it's pretty clear that your ratings are the best ragarded of those available.The ESPN talking-head gig Pat gets for the playoff seedings is one indication, but more telling is the number of times your poll is cited by local media in markets where d3 ball is a big deal. Folks who know d3 ball know this is the No. 1 source of info by a long ways.
As we look at the vote totals for Week #2 from Week #1, we real consolidation for HSU at the #4 position. Almost everyone else thru the Top 8 stayed the same.
- Linfield 1st 625 625
- UMHB 2nd 591 591
- MUC 3rd 570 570
- HSU 4th 534 508
- ONU 5th 480 479
- Rowan 6th 477 473
- W&J 7th 464 469
- Oxy 8th 437 440
HSU gained 26 points from 25 voters over the last week, one rank per voter last week, and they didn't even suit up. :)
Quote from: repete on September 06, 2005, 03:26:11 AMK-Mack:
I think it's pretty clear that your ratings are the best ragarded of those available.The ESPN talking-head gig Pat gets for the playoff seedings is one indication, but more telling is the number of times your poll is cited by local media in markets where d3 ball is a big deal. Folks who know d3 ball know this is the No. 1 source of info by a long ways.
Fine point, thanks for the kudos/reminder. It helps that we care at times other than the preseason and playoffs, but I don't want to appear that no one else could do a d3 poll that mattered ... it just takes some time to actually sit down and look at things closely.
Oh, and I thought you deserved some good karma for that.
Ralph:
This was one of the easiest ballots I've ever cast, for whatever that's worth. I like it when the favorites all win and make my job easy. :)
When's the last time, I wonder, that all Top 25 teams won?
I am not 100% sure it has ever happened in our poll.
Yea, hard for anyone to complain about this week's poll. (unless they complained about it last week...)
Status quo is good ;)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 12, 2005, 03:11:12 PM
I am not 100% sure it has ever happened in our poll.
I checked ... you can be 100% sure that it hasn't :)
This week's Top 25 question...
Will Mount Union leapfrog UMHB to take over 2nd place?
Inquiring minds want to know... ;)
you think MUC would of jumped MHB this week with MUC beating JC 70-0 and MHB winning by 7 over a team that has had one season of more than 3 wins in the past 5 years.
The past five years are not anywhere near as relevant as this year.
Pat
OK UMHB beat a team by 7 that has less than 3 wins this year too. ;)
Empire8, Pat covered this while I was doing the research. Texas Lutheran resumed football in 1998. They finally settled on this coaching staff about 4 years ago. We in the ASC believe that Texas Lutheran would probably win the championship in at least 8-10 other D3 conferences.
They have 5 losses in the last 12 games: 2004 losses to #14 Trinity 32-41, to #2 UMHB 27-36, and to #4 HSU 29-59, the week before HSU locked up the first round playoff bye. This year, they have a 23-31 loss to #13 Trinity ( Trinity had already played a game and TLU was opening on the raod) and a 21-28 loss to #2 UMHB.
Probably their best chance at a playoff berth is to earn a 3-way tie in the ASC and win the coin flip.
The fact that UMHB lost 8 points and MUC gained 6 points from week 2 to week 3 tells me that several voters saw something in MUC. :)
And while this is nice discussion, it really is all irrelevant as we move toward November, when the chips will be down, and all of us will spout various and sundry sports cliches in order to justify our opinions and hyperbole.
Not that I don't...
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 18, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
This week's Top 25 question...
Will Mount Union leapfrog UMHB to take over 2nd place?
Inquiring minds want to know... ;)
I thought long and hard about it. I even penciled it in while I did the rest of my poll. But if I stick to my general criteria of rewarding teams that play the toughest competition, I can't penalize UMHB for beating a team I've had hovering in the 20s and 30s most of the year (I usually rank down to 35 or so I know who to watch for in coming weeks).
I don't really want to judge 70-0 much different than 35-0 or 42-0 ... the zero is almost more important. Offensively, you never know who calls off the dogs when, really.
In any case, beating JCU by 70 was an eye-opener, but in this case, UMHB should be helped by beating TLU, and we also have some circumstantial data to compare UMHB and MUC ... in that UMHB won at MUC last season. I know last season is last season, but one could also argue UMHB has more back.
Basically, I think it's a situation for voters to watch. If UMHB looks really poor in a win one week, and MUC continues to look sharp, I would definitely flip the two in my top three.
FWIW.
Just out of curiosity I was wondering how those responsible for the top 25 poll base their votes on teams from the NESCAC. Trinity (CT) for example, for the past 2 or 3 seasons, has started the season in the "others recieving votes" section of the poll. After they win all of their games they eventually sneak into the top 25 usually finishing in the low 20s.
I realize it's not a very important issue because Trinity (CT) nor any other NESCAC school is eligibel for the playoffs because of their self-imposed ban. But I was just curious if the voters have ever even seen a Trinity (CT) or NESCAC game, or if their inclusion into the national poll is just D3football.com's way of throwing a bone to the team with the nations longest current win streak (22).
Thanks.
As far as I'm concerned, until the NESCAC decides to play nicely with others (as it does in other sports), Trinity (CT) is simply the best football team in Division IV. If I had a vote in the poll, the Bantams would not merit any consideration until that time.
New AFCA poll:
http://www.afca.com/lev3.cfm/1084
Ranking Comparison between d3football and AFCA.
AFCA d3football
Linfield Linfield
Mt. Union Mary Hardin-Baylor
Mary Hardin Baylor Mt. Union
Rowan Hardin-Simmons
Hardin-Simmons Rowan
St. Johns Washington & Jefferson
Washington & Jefferson Ohio Northern
Ohio Northern Occidental
Wheaton St. Johns
Ithaca Salisbury
Occidental UW-Whitewater
UW-Whitewater Delaware Valley
Trinity (TX) Trinity (TX)
Carthage UW-LaCrosse
St. John Fisher Ithaca
Salisbury Concordia-Moorhead
Delaware Valley St. John Fisher
UW-LaCrosse Carthage
Concordia-Moorhead UW-Eau Claire
Alma Wheaton
Wooster Hampden-Sydney
Hampden-Sydney Capital
Hobart McDaniel
Bridgewater Bridgewater
Cortland State Christopher Newport
Coaches give very little respect to S.O.S
They must give something, strength of schedule wise. Otherewise why is UW - Stevens Point (0-2 vs. Hardin-Simmons and Linfield) ahead of Whitworth (2-0 vs. Redlands and La Verne) by eight places in the others recieving votes?
SOME coaches take SOS into consideration. I was surprised to see Wabash receiving votes, since we were 6-4 last yaer and have played one poor team and one okay team thus far.
Quote from: cawcdad on September 20, 2005, 07:45:48 PM
They must give something, strength of schedule wise. Otherewise why is UW - Stevens Point (0-2 vs. Hardin-Simmons and Linfield) ahead of Whitworth (2-0 vs. Redlands and La Verne) by eight places in the others recieving votes?
Because some of those voting in the poll do so by reputation rather than by actually following the teams they are voting on? SP wasn't even close in the two games they lost, unlike someone like, say, Texas Lutheran who doesn't have the rep and thus only got a single vote. You can say #13 Trinity and #2 UMHB aren't #1 Linfield and #4 HSU, but at least TLU had the UMHB game tied going to the fourth quarter (at their place before nearly 7,000 UMHB fans) and only lost by a TD. Unlike, say, Point, who got blown out of the water at home by HSU.
NB -I use the D3football.com rankings rather than the jokey AFCA equivalents.
Let me preface by saying I "go by" the D3football.com poll as well. But let me suggest that the AFCA and D3football.com poll are not all that different. They just take different approaches.
There are seven schools with rankings in either or both polls separated by more than six spots;
Alma (8 spot difference), Hobart (8 ), Wheaton (11), CNU (11), Cortland St. (15), UW-Eau Claire (16) and Capital (17).
You might think "well, that's a pretty significant difference." Consider the following...
In 2004, Capital plunged from being preseason #12 in the D3football.com poll to "#41" once the season's final poll came out. And this year, D3football.com has them ranked 17 spots higher (as noted above) than does the AFCA poll (D3: #22, AFCA: "#39").
In 2004, UW-Eau Claire went from receiving absolutely no votes in the D3football.com preseason poll to finishing the season ranked "#29" ... and after week 8, they found themselves ranked #6 ... then fell after losing two straight. And this year, D3football.com has them ranked 16 spots higher than does the AFCA (D3: #19, AFCA: "#35"). So maybe the AFCA is waiting for Eau Claire to prove themselves rather than not give them any respect (remember, 0 votes from the D3football.com voters during 2004 preseason, all the way up to #6 in the country by week 8, only to plunge to "#29" by season's end).
In 2004, Wheaton was preseason #14 by D3football.com, and finished the season #12. They were as high as #4 during week 8. This year, the AFCA has them #9 in their first poll ... with D3football.com 11 spots lower at #20. Last year Wheaton was a consistant top 15 team.
In 2004, Alma - like UW-Eau Claire - received no votes in the preseason D3football.com poll ... but by season's end, was "#28". The AFCA has them #20 this year, with D3football.com eight spots lower at "#28".
Hobart is yet another school that last year received no votes in the preseason poll, and yet ended up ranked #21 in the final one. The AFCA has them #23 this year, with D3football.com eight sports lower at "#31".
And finally, Cortland State (#25 in the AFCA poll this year, and "#40" in the D3football.com poll) has started 3-0 (with all three games on the road). They've given up only 10 ppg in the process, including holding Brockport St. to 10 and beating them by 10. The same Brockport team that lost to #10 Salisbury by only five points earlier this year.
So anywho, there is some analysis on the two polls.
Interesting points. I would also say, however, that the AFCA also pushed UW-EC into its Top 10 last year, peaking at No. 9, so if they are waiting on UW-EC, it's something new for them.
Your list makes it sound like we were the only ones to rank UWEC highly and I'm just pointing out that is not the case.
You can find old AFCA polls in our Notables section. It came out on Tuesdays last year as well, so that should help you navigate the calendar and give a more complete picture.
I also think that since the d3 votes are spread across the regions, norming of the d3 poll exists. There may be some favorites that get the benefit of the doubt, but the deserving teams get noticed and start to move up.
Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on September 21, 2005, 07:47:09 PM
Let me preface by saying I "go by" the D3football.com poll as well. But let me suggest that the AFCA and D3football.com poll are not all that different. They just take different approaches.
I'm not sure you were very clear on what you think the different approaches to be. You think one poll waits for teams to prove themselves and the other tries to get ahead of the next big teams?
I think the main difference is that D3 seems to take conference strength and opponent strength more into consideration, AFCA seems to go more off reputation and wins and losses. That doesn't necessarily make one better than the other, and I don't always agree with where teams shake out in the poll I vote in (just 1/25th of it).
Not that UWSP received any votes in either poll this week, but if they had played a few more games, we might find that getting smoked by No. 1 and No. 4 doesn't preclude you from being ranked 20th or something.
But honestly, the major difference between the two polls could be as simple as having two different groups of people voting. Different voters have different information, opinions and criteria, so any two groups of 25 or 40 people are unlikely to have the same result, wouldn't you think?
I wonder if things would change/even out if someone tallied an unofficial super-poll (combining the points from both each week, using the 25-1 scale) ...
Anyway...
Quote from: Trin8-0 on September 20, 2005, 09:56:45 AM
Just out of curiosity I was wondering how those responsible for the top 25 poll base their votes on teams from the NESCAC. Trinity (CT) for example, for the past 2 or 3 seasons, has started the season in the "others recieving votes" section of the poll. After they win all of their games they eventually sneak into the top 25 usually finishing in the low 20s.
I realize it's not a very important issue because Trinity (CT) nor any other NESCAC school is eligibel for the playoffs because of their self-imposed ban. But I was just curious if the voters have ever even seen a Trinity (CT) or NESCAC game, or if their inclusion into the national poll is just D3football.com's way of throwing a bone to the team with the nations longest current win streak (22).
Thanks.
It is absolutely hard to judge unless you go to a game (which I would love to do next week vs. Williams, if I wasn't signed on to do a doubleheader in the midwest ... you will see this article at some point this season though).
I have often considered Trinity and occasionally voted for them, but given what we know about football in the east, period, compared to the other pockets of strength in the country, even if one were to assume that the NESCAC is strong (which you could assume by judging how the conference does in other sports), it doesn't mean the conference leader would always be an automatic vote.
You can't really go on statistics, since the NESCAC is in Week 1 when others are in Week 4, and you can't go on inter-conference games, history, strength of schedule or anything like that ... basically all you have is what you see and who you talk to who has seen them.
I think just the playoffs (which would be for one team and one only) and not an extension of the schedule or out-of-conference play would do a lot for the NESCAC's national profile, but clearly that is not a concern except amongst us who watch and compare d3 football teams.
So to answer the question, yes NESCAC teams are eligible, but I don't know that many voters who work on Saturdays (with other teams) and don't have the opportunity to see teams like I do have any way of being able to consider a NESCAC team fairly, and therefore don't.
That's why you probably see them in also receiving votes and not much higher.
Just an observation...
The AFCA poll has Millikin and North Central receiving votes, Millikin with 74 votes and North Central with only 25 votes. Millikin is ranked 27th, while North Central is ranked 37th.
Yet North Central received more first place votes by CCIW coaches in their pre-season poll, more than Wheaton who is the 3 time repeat CCIW champion. Millikin was picked to finish 5th in the conference.
The D3Football poll has 5 CCIW teams listed in the top 40, including North Central and Millikin. Difference is, North Central is ranked at 37th and Millikin at 38th.
Time will tell, but I suspect North Central will ultimately end the season ranked higher than Millikin.
Below is the Division III version of the Bowl Championship Series (through September 24 games). I just put it together for fun ... to see how the two human polls, along with the computer ratings, would rank a top 25 when combined. I'll do this again after week 8 and after week 11 (before the playoffs begin).
Highlighted red: Coaches' Poll (AFCA)
Highlighted green: Media Poll (D3football.com)
Highlighted blue: Computer Ratings (Born Power, CSL, Elrod, Laz, Sorensen, and Waits)
Highlighted brown: DIII BCS ranking and average
Click here (http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html) for an explaination of how to calculate the BCS.
Rank | School | Rank [/u][/b] | Points [/u][/b] | % [/u][/b] | Rank [/u][/b] | Points [/u][/b] | % [/u][/b] | Born [/u][/b] | CSL [/b][/u] | Elrod [/u][/b] | Laz [/u][/b] | Sor. [/u][/b] | Waits [/u][/b] | % [/u][/b] | Rank [/u][/b] | Average [/u][/b] |
1 | Linfield | 1 | 991 | 0.991 | 1 | 625 | 1.000 | 24 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 19 | 25 | 0.990 | 1 | .9937 |
2 | MUC | 2 | 951 | 0.951 | 3 | 580 | 0.928 | 25 | 22 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 15 | 0.950 | 2 | .9430 |
3 | UMHB | 3 | 916 | 0.916 | 2 | 581 | 0.930 | 20 | 24 | 16 | 18 | 21 | 21 | 0.800 | 4 | .8820 |
4 | Rowan | 4 | 854 | 0.854 | 5 | 482 | 0.771 | 19 | 23 | 17 | 15 | 6 | 6 | 0.570 | 5 | .7317 |
5 | H-SU | 5 | 828 | 0.828 | 4 | 534 | 0.854 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 5 | 22 | 0.390 | 11 | .6907 |
6 | UW-White | 11 | 591 | 0.591 | 10 | 347 | 0.555 | 23 | 14 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 0.920 | 3 | .6887 |
7 | W&J | 7 | 729 | 0.729 | 6 | 478 | 0.765 | 21 | 19 | 21 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0.560 | 6 | .6847 |
8 | SJU | 6 | 792 | 0.792 | 9 | 434 | 0.694 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 22 | 16 | 7 | 0.530 | 7 | .6720 |
9 | Ithaca | 9 | 660 | 0.660 | 13 | 320 | 0.512 | 9 | 18 | 19 | 4 | 0 | 12 | 0.430 | 10 | .5340 |
10 | Oxy | 10 | 612 | 0.612 | 8 | 456 | 0.730 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 18 | 0.230 | 16 | .5240 |
11 | UW-LaC | 16 | 357 | 0.357 | 14 | 296 | 0.474 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 21 | 20 | 5 | 0.530 | 7 | .4537 |
12 | Trinity,TX | 12 | 537 | 0.537 | 12 | 328 | 0.525 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 17 | 0.150 | 23 | .4040 |
13 | Wheaton | 8 | 663 | 0.663 | 18 | 142 | 0.227 | 13 | 0 | 20 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0.200 | 18 | .3633 |
14 | Del Val | 13 | 474 | 0.474 | 11 | 344 | 0.550 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.010 | NR | .3447 |
15 | ONU | NR | 0 | 0.000 | 7 | 463 | 0.741 | 18 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 9 | 0 | 0.220 | 17 | .3203 |
16 | Carthage | 14 | 472 | 0.472 | 16 | 234 | 0.374 | 0 | 20 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.110 | NR | .3187 |
17 | CMU | 15 | 380 | 0.380 | 15 | 259 | 0.414 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 18 | 0 | 0.160 | 22 | .3180 |
18 | SJF | 20 | 172 | 0.172 | 17 | 176 | 0.282 | 17 | 0 | 22 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0.200 | 18 | .2180 |
19 | Wesley | 32 | 42 | 0.042 | 29 | 27 | 0.043 | 6 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 8 | 12 | 0.470 | 9 | .1850 |
20 | UW-Stout | 21 | 129 | 0.129 | NR | 0 | 0.069 | 16 | 0 | 11 | 17 | 0 | 3 | 0.300 | 14 | .1660 |
21 | Whitworth | 38 | 24 | 0.024 | 25 | 70 | 0.112 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 24 | 20 | 0.310 | 13 | .1487 |
22 | UW-Eau | 42 | 16 | 0.016 | 19 | 142 | 0.227 | 11 | 0 | 8 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0.190 | 20 | .1443 |
23 | Hobart | 19 | 212 | 0.212 | 30 | 25 | 0.040 | 7 | 15 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.150 | 23 | .1340 |
24 | H-SC | 18 | 261 | 0.261 | 22 | 80 | 0.128 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.000 | NR | .1297 |
25 | Coe | 23 | 117 | 0.117 | 36 | 17 | 0.027 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 16 | 0.240 | 15 | .1280 |
Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on September 28, 2005, 03:29:50 PM
Below is the Division III version of the Bowl Championship Series (through September 24 games). I just put it together for fun ...
Dude, you have
WAY too much time on your hands........ ;D
Quote from: hscoach on September 28, 2005, 03:41:15 PM
Dude, you have WAY too much time on your hands........ ;D
I did it over a couple days (roughly three hours) ... what took the most time was manually putting it into a table, phew. That was an hours worth right there. :o
so is Linfield now playing Mount Union in the Toilet bowl? :P
Kid,
The Dunkel Index has D3 again. I don't know when they added it back.
Yeah, and there were four other indexes that I saw that had Division III schools in them. I went with the six below because they seemed the most reflective of the two human polls.
Personally, once the season sorts out a bit, I like Massey the best for D-3.
And I noticed that Massey puts them in order of how the BCS would use the rankings (without margion of victory) but the real Massey rating is on the right.
He just wants to make it difficult to do my power ranking compendium, doesn't he?? >:(
I admit that I know very little (all right, nothing ;)) about some of the teams in the top 25, but the one surprise I noted was the precipitous fall of Wheaton. From #18 to #32 seems a bit severe for losing a nail-biter AT undefeated (and now #20) NCC. Was it an allergy to turn-overs that soured voters so much on the Crusaders? I anticipated #23-25, not 32.
Of course, to admit my obvious bias, I also expected Augustana to be somewhere in the top 25. If Augie beats #13 Carthage (my expectation - in Kenosha), I hope that Carthage will not plummet totally out of the poll, while Augie enters!
I don't expect any top 25 support for MY team (sympathy, perhaps, for the Schmied tragedy, but at 1-4, no votes!), but I feel the CCIW has 4 top-25 worthy teams: Augustana, Carthage, North Central, and Wheaton - plus Millikin still on the 'watch list'.
What's the record of the three teams Wheaton has beaten?
(Your answer need not rhyme.) :)
But does it need to be in Haiku format? ;D
Good point (and although I'm too lazy to check, I'm sure it is not good), but common sense (and general consensus) says they ARE good.
I think you've tricked me into being forever banished from the Titan alums - in recent weeks I've defended both Millikin and Wheaton! (Of course, if that will stop the fund-raising calls, it will have been worth it!) :D
Hey, my school has just 8 votes, and they've given up only 22 points a 2 offensive touchdowns all season in going 4-0. Mind you, their SOS is not the best in the world, AND after last seasons fall they need to prove themselves. So I'm not complaining.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 02, 2005, 11:52:12 PM
I admit that I know very little (all right, nothing ;)) about some of the teams in the top 25, but the one surprise I noted was the precipitous fall of Wheaton. From #18 to #32 seems a bit severe for losing a nail-biter AT undefeated (and now #20) NCC. Was it an allergy to turn-overs that soured voters so much on the Crusaders? I anticipated #23-25, not 32.
Of course, to admit my obvious bias, I also expected Augustana to be somewhere in the top 25. If Augie beats #13 Carthage (my expectation - in Kenosha), I hope that Carthage will not plummet totally out of the poll, while Augie enters!
I don't expect any top 25 support for MY team (sympathy, perhaps, for the Schmied tragedy, but at 1-4, no votes!), but I feel the CCIW has 4 top-25 worthy teams: Augustana, Carthage, North Central, and Wheaton - plus Millikin still on the 'watch list'.
That's exactly the problem. You've got four teams from the CCIW to slot ... remember we have a top 25, and 25+ conferences. So if a voter was to say "I think the No. 1 CCIW team goes here, and No. 2 here" and they change, that can cause a precipitous drop that would never happen in D1, because the pool of teams people actually would allow in the top 25 is about 70, not 200.
Also, with four teams, if one voter likes North Central and Wheaton, and another likes Augie and Carthage, and another likes North Central and Carthage, that splits your conference's votes, and leaves everyone ranked lower than the champion of the league will be at the end of the year, if it's a situation where one team pulls away. Right now we can't tell.
But yeah, Wheaton with a chance to tie with a 2-point conversion in the final minutes, is about equal to North Central. Some felt they were overrated to begin with, but regardless, they should not find themselves so far from the Cardinals. But that's the nature of our poll, I guess.
Quote from: smedindy on October 03, 2005, 01:05:59 AM
Hey, my school has just 8 votes, and they've given up only 22 points a 2 offensive touchdowns all season in going 4-0. Mind you, their SOS is not the best in the world, AND after last seasons fall they need to prove themselves. So I'm not complaining.
I've been explaining this elsewhere to fans of Hobart, Ferrum and other unbeaten teams who aren't finding themselves quite as high as they'd like. I'll gladly write more about it later when I have more time, or talk about it in ATN.
Keith-
One of my favorite parts of ATN is the section, albeit brief, dedicated to your top 25 and the teams on your watch list. It's very cool to get some insight from a voter. Have you ever thought about disclosing your ballot or is that top secret? Mind you I'm not asking or hoping for you to do so, just curious if that's something that you and perhaps some of the other voters have considered.
QuoteRe: Presidents' Athletic Conference
« Reply #128 on: Today at 12:12:00 AM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the three years of D3football.com having a Top 25, a top 10 team has lost to an unranked Division III team (during the regular season) 14 times:
Year Week Losing Top 10 School Winning Unranked School Unranked School's Rise in Votes (Rank)
2003 3 #8 Trinity, TX Pomona-Pitzer 0 (-) to 30 (26)
2003 4 #8 Bridgewater, Va. CNU 0 (-) to 61 (25)
2003 5 #5 Rowan New Jersey 2 (40) to 104 (22)
2003 7 #9 Brockport St. Ithaca 21 (33) to 134 (22)
2003 10 #4 Mary Hardin-Baylor East Texas Baptist 10 (36) to 107 (23)
2004 1 #7 Bridgewater, Va. McDaniel 0 (-) to 32 (32)
2004 3 #5 Wartburg Buena Vista 0 (-) to 0 (-)
2004 5 #8 Montclair St. Cortland St. 0 (-) to 0 (-)
2004 9 #5 Capital Ohio Northern 20 (34) to 145 (21)
2004 9 #4 Wheaton Carthage 2 (45) to 109 (23)
2004 10 #10 UW-Eau Claire UW-Stout 0 (-) to 10 (39)
2005 4 #10 Salisbury Montclair St. 0 (-) to 0 (-)
2005 5 #7 Ohio Northern John Carroll 0 (-) to 7 (43)
2005 5 #6 Wash. & Jeff. Thiel 4 (42) to 104 (22)
So to those out there complaining that Thiel isn't getting respect for their win over W&J this past weekend, keep in mind that the Tomcats made the fifth most dramatic jump in votes over the past three years.
But some "good" news for both Thiel and W&J ... of the 11 top 10 teams that lost in either 2003 or 2004, six still made the playoffs. Of the 11 schools that upset those top 10 teams, four made it to the postseason ... with three of the four being the #2, #3, and #6 most dramatic jumps in votes - E.T.B. (2003), Ithaca (2003) and Carthage (2004).
Great research posted by "kid" from the Presidents AC board. I applaud you, kid!
Ralph ... I copy and pasted (from the modify option) the table I made ... it's a bit more readable :)
((( and for those of you wondering why I did this, a couple Thiel fans were complaining on the PAC board about Thiel not getting any respect in the poll )))
In the three years of D3football.com having a Top 25, a top 10 team has lost to an unranked Division III team (during the regular season) 14 times:
| Year | Week | Losing Top 10 School | Winning Unranked School | Unranked School's Rise in Votes (Rank) |
| 2003 | 3 | #8 Trinity, TX | Pomona-Pitzer | 0 (-) to 30 (26) |
| 2003 | 4 | #8 Bridgewater, Va. | CNU | 0 (-) to 61 (25) |
| 2003 | 5 | #5 Rowan | New Jersey | 2 (40) to 104 (22) |
| 2003 | 7 | #9 Brockport St. | Ithaca | 21 (33) to 134 (22) |
| 2003 | 10 | #4 Mary Hardin-Baylor | East Texas Baptist | 10 (36) to 107 (23) |
| 2004 | 1 | #7 Bridgewater, Va. | McDaniel | 0 (-) to 32 (32) |
| 2004 | 3 | #5 Wartburg | Buena Vista | 0 (-) to 0 (-) |
| 2004 | 5 | #8 Montclair St. | Cortland St. | 0 (-) to 0 (-) |
| 2004 | 9 | #5 Capital | Ohio Northern | 20 (34) to 145 (21) |
| 2004 | 9 | #4 Wheaton | Carthage | 2 (45) to 109 (23) |
| 2004 | 10 | #10 UW-Eau Claire | UW-Stout | 0 (-) to 10 (39) |
| 2005 | 4 | #10 Salisbury | Montclair St. | 0 (-) to 0 (-) |
| 2005 | 5 | #7 Ohio Northern | John Carroll | 0 (-) to 7 (43) |
| 2005 | 5 | #6 Wash. & Jeff. | Thiel | 4 (42) to 104 (22) |
So to those out there complaining that Thiel isn't getting respect for their win over W&J this past weekend, keep in mind that the Tomcats made the fifth most dramatic jump in votes over the past three years.
But some "good" news for both Thiel and W&J ... of the 11 top 10 teams that lost in either 2003 or 2004, six still made the playoffs. Of the 11 schools that upset those top 10 teams, four made it to the postseason ... with three of the four being the #2, #3, and #6 most dramatic jumps in votes - E.T.B. (2003), Ithaca (2003) and Carthage (2004).
As you know, I started toying with a power-rating compendium that I also added a couple of components too. As the season rolls on, it seems to be very accurate.
Well, I just ran my power ranking compendium and all I have to say it's too early to do that, because some teams have just 3 games and some teams have 5 games and there's just a lot of static and noise in my system right now. Perhaps in a couple of weeks it will wort out.
Here is the top 25, though, for grins and giggles.
1. Mt. Union
2. Wisc - Whitewater
3. Wesley (see! 5-0 with a great SOS moves them up here)
4. St. John's
5. Ithaca
6. Linfield (only 3-0, will move up I'm sure)
7. Coe
8. Mary Hardin-Baylor (see Linfield)
9. St. Olaf
10. Concordia - Moorhead
11. Monmouth (another 5-0)
12. Central
13. Hardin-Simmons
14. Carthage
15. Rowan
16. North Central
17. John Carroll
18. Thiel
19. Wisc - Stout
20. Trinity (TX) (two of the power ratings I use have them downgraded)
21. Salisbury
22. Wabash (no, I'm not being a homer)
23. Wisc - LaCrosse
24. Otterbein
25. Hobart
As for the others in the D-3 top 25:
28. Occidental (SOS issues)
29. St. John Fisher
32. McDaniel
34. Bridgewater
35. Ohio Northern
36. Delaware Valley (big time SOS issues)
42. Washington & Jefferson (SOS)
43. Wooster
And for fun, the bottom 10:
219. Principia
218. Mass - Maritime
217. Mass - Dartmouth
216. Concordia (IL)
215. Nichols
214. Juniata
213. Greensboro
212. Macalester
211. Blackburn
210. Tri - State
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 03, 2005, 02:00:15 AM
Keith-
One of my favorite parts of ATN is the section, albeit brief, dedicated to your top 25 and the teams on your watch list. It's very cool to get some insight from a voter. Have you ever thought about disclosing your ballot or is that top secret? Mind you I'm not asking or hoping for you to do so, just curious if that's something that you and perhaps some of the other voters have considered.
Wally,
I'm glad you like that. I don't have a problem revealing my ballot. Initially I was going to ask Pat if he cared, but then I thought that might be crossing some sort of line, and keeping it close to the vest wasn't going to change what's really interesting ... the "is my team in there around 23-25, or not being considered at all?' factor.
I guess also, it's good not to have my rankings trump the poll itself. I'll take 25 minds over just mine anytime ... sometimes they're right and I end up being way off, and sometimes my gut feeling/research pans out.
As you may have noticed though, I don't have a problem discussing where I put a team or where I think one should go, or what my style of voting is. In the past, I have noticed things one week that I didn't notice the week before, and so we as voters aren't infallible either ... To answer the question clearly though, yes I have thought about revealing the whole thing, but I have not, and I'm not totally certain why.
Not only that, but he runs the fantasy league by hand. Must've been a math major.
Two things, the Massey Ratings aren't in your formula, and the D3football.com is not really a media poll. While it is run by a media organization, there are an equal number of coaches, media and SIDs on the panel, by design.
Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on September 28, 2005, 03:45:03 PM
Quote from: hscoach on September 28, 2005, 03:41:15 PM
Dude, you have WAY too much time on your hands........ ;D
I did it over a couple days (roughly three hours) ... what took the most time was manually putting it into a table, phew. That was an hours worth right there. :o
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 02, 2005, 11:52:12 PM
I feel the CCIW has 4 top-25 worthy teams: Augustana, Carthage, North Central, and Wheaton - plus Millikin still on the 'watch list'.
I'll agree with you and disagree with Pat on this ... Wheaton's opponent record is less relevant than the fact that they were a made two point conversion from tying the (now) No. 20 team in the nation. They and North Central certainly shouldn't be far from each other in the polls, but neither should Bridgewater and HSC (31-24) or Thiel and W&J (OT), etc.
What ends up happening when 4-5 teams from one conference are top 25 worthy is people have to slot the one they feel best about first, then let the others fall in. In other words, even if the results have me thinking NC, Wheaton, Augie and Carthage are even, there just aren't enough spots for me to rank them all in a row, plus acknowledge relevant teams from the other 25+ conferences.
So if more people prefer North Central to Wheaton, mathematically they drop ... Since the coaches had them super high to begin with, they don't drop as far, but people there surely bumped NC ahead ... for the moment.
They might also beat up on each other so no one team gets that high in the rankings, even if it might be likely that the last conference team standing will go deeper in the playoffs than an unbeaten team from a weaker conference ranked ahead of it ...
If that makes any sense ... all things serious voters try to take into account.
Oh, I just realize I responded to the same post earlier in the week. Hope my answers match up!
As far as power ratings ... well, that's why we need subjective polls. I like Wesley and all, but Linfield vs. Wesley = probably not a close game 9 times out of 10.
Also, Kid's table (Mr. Devil's Advocate, it seems) proves a very interesting point ... unranked to the top 10 in D3 is not quite as far as it is in D-1. Once those power conferences establish themselves in D1, their top 3-5 teams pretty much stay ranked. When was the last time less than 3-4 SEC, Big 10 or Big 12 teams were ranked?
In D3, being second in a conference can mean out of the top 25, and one victory over the big dog with the history of being ranked high and winning in the playoffs can boost you into the poll, and make voters question how good that top 10 team really was.
FWIW...
Well, I'm sure in a few weeks Wesley and Linfield will be where they are supposed to be in my compendium. It's just a little static right now since Linfield has played just three games.
Being a database guy I trust neutral computer observations myself.
Thanks for the follow up, Keith. And you're right, it's fun fun to think about whether or not your team is on ATN's radar or in ATN's top 25. I couldn't help but notice my Little Giants moved off the watch list this week...now I have to figure out if you're voting for them or have stopped paying attention. I think I have a decent idea. ;)
Another sweet column this week. Thanks for the contribution!
smedindy,
No sane person is going to blame the computer - what counts is who PROGRAMMED the computer. I've seen some awfully bizarre results on the BCS 'computer programs'.
Assuming your computer has not blown a circuit, whether or not we trust your rankings has eveything to do with whether or not we trust your algorhythm.
Computers are no more (or less) neutral than their programmers! ;)
I'm satisfied with the results and that's all I care about. Becuase I use three different power ratings and combine them, I think I've covered all of the bases.
It actually works better for hoops because of the larger sample size. It was developed to help me in the NCAA D-1 tourney.
The trouble with the polls that are out there is no one and I mean no one goes by head to head wins. How can you say that Augustana should be ranked ahead of Central. They lost to them the first game of the year. I know that Central has since lost, but head to head it was proved on the field the first game of the year. Yes Augustana won the battle of stats and moved the ball up and down the field on Central. But does one yard of offensive stats put one point on the scoreboard. The score is the only stat that counts. Which brings me back to my original point. Till pollsters look at the game results objectively and take all games into the mix its only people voting with their hearts and not their heads. It also occurs to me that voters vote with agendas of their own not facts. If you think I am blowing smoke just say so. I am biased for Central I am upfront about that, but when a team beats another they should not be ranked behind the losing team should they?
Dutch,
Ever hear of the term UPSETS? Of course head-to-head should be (and I'm sure is) considered, but the overall better team does NOT always win. If an 0-8 team beats an 8-0 team, would you immediately place them higher?
You're talking STANDINGS, not POLLS - a poll (properly) takes into account 'so what else have you done?').
If that were the only game that took place all season ...
If no game had been played to change voters' opinions ...
... then yes.
I agree with that. Upsets do happen. But the point I was trying to make is that the voters in the polls sometimes have agendas and do not look at head to head games. They vote their hearts and are not always objective in how they vote. That was the point i was trying to make. Look at what happened today MHB loses. Do I think that that team should now be ranked ahead of them not at all nor do I think that MHB should drop out of the polls. I just don't think that voters always look at the what happens on the head to head. Thats all I was trying to say.
So it's ok for voters to allow for upsets and rank accordingly except for when said upsets involve Central?
I'm sorry, Dutch, but I have no clue what you are attempting to say - could you clarify?
Do you have any SPECIFIC complaint about voters not dealing with head-to -head (on d3 or elsewhere), or is this just a vague, general complaint?
Dutchfan -
MH-Baylor will be ranked and Howard Payne will not be ranked.
If you run a computer simulation I bet 85 times out of 100 MH-Baylor would win that game.
If you ran a computer simulation Wooster beats Kenyon 85 times out of 100.
But yet, MH-Baylor and Wooster lost today. And while Wooster will not be ranked, if pollsters had to rank all of the teams Wooster would still be way ahead of Kenyon on the ballots.
The voters look at head to head but also look at the big picture. Who is really the better team. Time will always tell that.
How about when Iowa which I am a supporter of was ranked ahead of Iowa State after Iowa State had beaten them. Thats for D-1. Now do you see what I am talking about.
Um, Dutch, you may want to choose a different example!
Presumably the voters felt that the result WAS an upset, and that Iowa was the better team (a decision clearly justified yesterday when Iowa beat a solid Purdue team, while ISU lost at home to a dreadful Baylor team - BU's first-EVER road win in the Big 12)!
Head-to-head is obviously a factor, but not if the teams are CLEARLY mismatched and the result was CLEARLY an upset.
So Augustana is an upset? See it happened again. Carthage is ahead of Auggie today. I don't understand it. Iowa State man handled Iowa (which I was sorry to see) but they did. Thats what i mean about voters. They don't always look at the victories they say its an upset but that is not always an objective opinion. Now a question was Augustana's victory an upset? I ask because I really do not know. I don't follow Illinois football.
Wally Wabash that comment is a low blow. I do not think that the sun rises and sets over the Dutch. I follow them as they are a local team and I have a personal interest as my son plays for them. I am making an observation about polls in general and I think that my point was made again this week. With Auggies win over Carthage. An upset? by whos opinion? ask an Auggie fan and they may say it wasn't. I am just saying that polls are skewed by personal feelings and nothing concrete.
Dutch,
I haven't looked at the new poll yet, but I DO find it surprising that Carthage would be above Augie - I picked Augie in two pickems (so don't consider it an upset), AND the game was in Kenosha.
MUCH better example for your case than Iowa-Iowa St.!
So basically the polls are wrong unless you agree with them?
This is why I like data and play with my power ranking olio - but even then teams that win head to head can be ranked lower, due to SOS and how well they played in those other games.
Besides, polls don't REALLY matter, anyway, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over them.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 07, 2005, 09:07:16 PM
...but when a team beats another they should not be ranked behind the losing team should they?
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 08, 2005, 09:27:57 PM
Look at what happened today MHB loses. Do I think that that team should now be ranked ahead of them not at all nor do I think that MHB should drop out of the polls.
Those two statements are in direct opposition to one another. On the one hand, you're arguing that Team A should never be ranked ahead of Team B if Team B beat Team A at some point during the season. On the other, you're saying that there are times when Team A can lose to Team B and it's still perfectly sensible for Team A to be ranked in front of Team B. The difference in context here is that in the first one Teams A and B are Central and Augustana and in the latter post Teams A and B are MHB and HP. You can't have it both ways. So which is it?
Well, now I HAVE seen the new poll - Augie was only 1 point below Carthage, so not a big deal. However, I DO wonder that, collectively, Augie-Carthage LOST 149 points (Carthage lost 211 points, while Augie gained only 62)! Do the voters value offense over defense (it was a 7-0 game)?
I'm also a bit mystified that Wheaton gained 18 points (and rose from 32 to 27) by beating Millikin (at home) in TRIPLE overtime, yet Millikin received not a single vote. They sound pretty equivalent to me!
Millikin is only 3-2 and there are too many deserving one loss and unbeaten teams.
And in looking at Carthage and Augie - it is plausible that Carthage would still be ahead. They had the momentum from last season, and won at Millkin and beat two other decent teams. Augie already had a loss (to a pretty darn good team, in OT) but wins over Catholic, Platteville and North Park aren't going to really excite anyone. Carthage had the more proven resume, and even with a loss some may say still are a little more of a proven commodity this season than Augie.
Because on any given Saturday....
I suspect Carthage had several voters who were ready to "jump ship" should they lose a game based on less than impressive victories before last week's W over Millikin. McDaniel might have been in similar boat with their big loss in votes (130 last week to 1 this week).
I guess you have me there wally!
Smed,
I grant that there are a LOT of teams with better records than Millikin, but their only losses are to #22 Carthage and (in 3OT) at #27 Wheaton. I wouldn't expect them to be IN the top 25 (I'd rank 'em 30-35 myself), I'm just a bit surprised that NONE of the voters had them top 25.
(OMG, a Titan is again sticking up for the 'lower than dirt' Big Blue! ;))
Mr Ypsi, I did not interpret your last post as defending Millikin, but rather using your IWU stellar education to analyze the situation. This time the ostensible beneficiary of your analysis was Millikin. Facts are facts! ;D
Ralph,
It is quite obvious why you are a Hall of Famer with VERY high karma - you're so diplomatic!
But I'm starting to get concerned. I've now defended Millikin fb SEVERAL times on various boards (AND Wheaton! >:(), and was ecstatic over Millikin's national championship in women's bball. I may never be able to set foot in Bloomington again! :P
What's next - will I say something nice about Ohio State or Michigan State?
I've mellowed beyond repair - somebody just shoot me!
Now now Mr Ypsi don't go that far. Death is pretty permanant. Everyone has bad days. I'm sure that standing up for Millikin isn't as traumatic as it seems. I thought this year that Iowa State wasn't an upset and thats pretty hard for a Hawk fan to admit or accept. The sun will come up tommorow so my advice is stick around and watch it. ;D
Applaud to you Dutch!
Fear not, I think the 'mellowing' is actually just 'maturing'. Rivalries (including talking of them as though they were life and death) are fun, but they aren't REALLY much in the grand scheme of things.
Why, I even rooted for OSU against Texas - though it was ONLY so our destruction of OSU would be more impressive!! ;D
Actually, I nearly always root for conference teams (even bitter rivals) against 'outsiders'. It paid off in CCIW pickems - the last two weeks of the pre-conference season I picked a sweep for the CCIW, and was rewarded with a perfect score each week!
I've ranked the remaining undefeated Division III teams by their opponent's combined winning percentage. I did not count the undefeated team's win in their opponent's record and winning percentage.
| Pos. | School | Record | Opp. Win% | Opp. Record | Scoring Off. | Scoring Def. | QoWI Rank |
| 1 | #2 Mount Union | 5-0 | .714 | 15-6 | 48.2 | 8.8 | 2nd |
| 2 | #20 Coe | 5-0 | .682 | 15-7 | 29.8 | 13.2 | 5th |
| 3 | #4 Rowan | 4-0 | .667 | 10-5 | 33.8 | 16.3 | t-14th |
| Bowdoin | 3-0 | .667 | 4-2 | 16.0 | 14.0 | t-217th |
| 5 | #7 UW-Whitewater | 5-0 | .647 | 11-6 | 44.8 | 11.6 | t-7th |
| 6 | Monmouth | 6-0 | .621 | 18-11 | 45.8 | 20.7 | 6th |
| 7 | #12 Trinity (TX) | 5-0 | .600 | 12-8 | 22.4 | 13.4 | 10th |
| Hobart | 5-0 | .600 | 12-8 | 35.4 | 13.6 | t-3rd |
| 9 | Alma* | 4-1 | .591 | 13-9 | 34.2 | 25.8 | t-7th |
| 10 | #19 Thiel | 5-0 | .565 | 13-10 | 38.0 | 15.6 | 9th |
| 11 | #8 Ithaca | 5-0 | .545 | 12-10 | 44.2 | 24.2 | t-11th |
| 12 | #5 St. John's | 6-0 | .519 | 14-13 | 41.3 | 10.8 | t-36th |
| 13 | #24 Wesley | 6-0 | .478 | 11-12 | 42.8 | 13.8 | t-14th |
| 14 | #9 Delaware Valley | 5-0 | .476 | 10-11 | 33.2 | 11.8 | 22nd |
| 15 | Union | 5-0 | .455 | 10-12 | 30.4 | 13.8 | t-23rd |
| 16 | #6 Occidental | 5-0 | .438 | 7-9 | 39.0 | 15.2 | t-14th |
| 17 | St. Olaf | 5-0 | .429 | 9-12 | 46.4 | 17.8 | 27th |
| Johns Hopkins | 5-0 | .429 | 9-12 | 19.2 | 6.8 | t-14th |
| 19 | Wabash | 5-0 | .409 | 9-13 | 38.0 | 5.8 | t-39th |
| East Texas Baptist* | 4-1 | .409 | 9-13 | 18.0 | 23.4 | t-34th |
| 21 | #1 Linfield | 4-0 | .357 | 5-9 | 45.8 | 14.8 | 28th |
| 22 | #10 UW-La Crosse* | 3-1 | .353 | 6-11 | 29.0 | 18.8 | t-74th |
| 23 | #13 Concordia-Moorhead | 5-0 | .333 | 7-14 | 30.6 | 14.0 | t-56th |
| #3 Hardin-Simmons | 5-0 | .333 | 6-12 | 38.0 | 14.4 | t-47th |
| Trinity (CN) | 3-0 | .333 | 2-4 | 46.3 | 2.0 | t-217th |
| 26 | #16 North Central | 5-0 | .318 | 7-15 | 40.8 | 18.4 | t-14th |
| 27 | Ferrum | 6-0 | .269 | 7-19 | 43.0 | 22.2 | t-56th |
| 28 | Elmhurst | 5-0 | .227 | 5-17 | 35.2 | 12.8 | t-36th |
| 29 | Colby | 3-0 | .167 | 1-5 | 27.7 | 10.0 | t-217th |
*lost to a non-Division III school
kid: So much work for so little valuable insight.
I guess we define valuable differently, because I think something can be argued from this table by looking at the bottom five opp win %s (not counting the NE schools).
1) Elmhurst ... sure they're in the CCIW, but their two conference wins were against the two bottom teams in the league with their two impressive non-conference wins (score-wise) being against two 0-6 teams. They are also coming off a 4-6 season in 2004 and they haven't beaten Wheaton or Augustana since 1999 (22-16 win over Wheaton).
2) Ferrum ... also coming off a 4-6 season in 2004, the cause for concern is the amount of points they've given up against the poor competition they've faced. Since they've joined in the USAC in 2001, they have yet to beat Methodist and CNU in the same season. Also, the USAC is only 2-5 in the playoffs since the conference started four years ago.
3) #16 North Central ... defeated then ranked #18 Wheaton 35-26 already, a Wheaton team that has a 4-3 record in the playoffs over the past three years, losing only to Mount Union. North Central is also coming off two straight 7-3 seasons.
4) #3 Hardin-Simmons ... opened up the season with a convincing win over a WIAC school. Defeated the 2004 national runner-up MHB convincingly last season. Plays in a conference (ASC) that has five playoff wins over the past two seasons.
5) #13 Concordia-Moorhead ... the MIAC is 5-2 over the last two seasons in the playoffs. Defeated the 2003 national champs (SJU) last year.
So I think the above suggests why the unranked teams aren't getting national attention as of yet (Ferrum with 2 poll votes and Elmhurst with none), and why the three ranked teams are. If Ferrum can beat Methodist and CNU this year, then throw the above out the window. If Elmhurst beats three of the following: Augustana, North Central, Carthage and Wheaton this year ... again, the above will have been defeated.
Personally, I see Ferrum losing to one or both ... with Elmhurst losing all four.
Basically I'm arguing that the D3football.com is accurate in ranking H-SU, C-M, and NC while also being smart in not paying attention to Ferrum or Elmhurst's undefeated records.
On the flip side, I think this chart shows that Monmouth should be getting more respect than the 2 poll votes they currently have. They have the 6th best opp win%, and are 6th in the QoWI as well. The last two years they've gone 8-1 in the MWC, losing only to St. Norbert. This year they finally defeated the Green Knights. However, I'm pretty sure the D3football.com voters aren't even respecting that seeing the MWC is 1-6 in the playoffs over the last six years. So I can understand their hesitance.
Plus no Midwest Conference team has beaten a decent out-of-conference team, most choosing to waste their one non-conference chance on Macalester or Carleton.
This is crying out for a contextual QOW like I proposed in the Daily Dose (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/?p=49) over the summer.
Monmouth sits at 12.200 right now. But their opponents' opponents are not as good as those of the teams ranked ahead of them, I am quite sure.
My comment on the ATN board offers some counter evidence to the apparent Monmouth strength.
Toughest schedule in the land?
UW-Stevens Point:
Sept. 3 Hardin-Simmons L 38-12 No. 3 overall
Sept. 17 at Linfield • L 45-7 No. 1 overall
Sept. 24 Waldorf W 42-13
Oct. 1 at UW-La Crosse • * L 24-0 No. 10 overall
Oct. 8 UW-Whitewater • * L 44-12 No. 7 overall
Yikes. Hard to not be demoralized.
Sorry K-Mack
If you would have left Waldorf off you may have a point! LOL No I agree your AD didn't do them any favors other than the Waldorf game. ;D
Did I see DIII Top Ten (AFCA not D3) scores in the ESPN scroll?
Dutch,
I don't even know who my AD is. I have met the guy at my alma mater though, and it is not UW-SP. That was just an observation.
And I don't care if you play a girls middle school powder puff team for your fifth game, if your other four are against top 10 opponents. I doubt anyone could claim anything close. And there are some brave schedule-makers out there.
As far as the ESPN thing, I haven't seen it, but it would be long overdue. It's not hurting anyone who might have to wait another minute for their Tenn-Martin or E. Washington score ... I'd say D3 in the scroll is long overdue, at least the big games, and a 30-second or 60-second segment on game day final, even if it was all small colleges, would do wonders ... but I'm sure getting video for most of these games is a major limitation, since almost all the DI games are televised and they just cop the feed.
K-Mack,
I don't have cable :'( so it's hard for me to confirm now, but I know ESPN News used to scroll some D3 scores, especially during playoffs.
Week 7 top 25: Harrumph! >:( I know there were arguments on the PAC board about how much W&J fell and how much Thiel gained in the polls after W&J's loss to Thiel. Although I am a Thiel partisan, from a "respect for the PAC" standpoint I am puzzled by W&J's drop from 6 (478 votes) in week 4 to 16 (185 votes) after a loss to an undefeated Thiel by 3 in 1 OT in week 5 while Ithaca drops from 8th (402 votes) in week 6 to no worse than 15th (229 votes) after their loss to now 2-4 Lycoming by 3 in 1 OT in week 7. While Lycoming has made a postseason appearance in recent memory and Thiel hasn't, I would say that the last year and a half worth of games favors Thiel over Lycoming as being a challenging opponent. Further, W&J went fairly deep into the playoffs last year and Ithaca settled for a win in the ECAC Northwest championship. IMO Ithaca's loss to Lycoming is much more troubling than W&J's loss to Thiel. Yes I know that both the MAC and the E8 conferences have better overall playoff records than the PAC. Further, I know that W&J struggled with Grove City for the first half before winning convincingly. Still, this seems to be an odd ranking where W&J drops from 15 to 16 to make way for an Ithaca team that didn't make as much noise as W&J did last season and that lost to unheralded Lycoming.
I am not singling out any individual for my venting. I am a relative "newbie", so I hope that wiser heads can explain this apparent anomaly.
Yeah,
I meant to mention that. They usually kick in about quarterfinals, getting scroll-age and mentions on the big shows.
I mean, if you think about it, do you care if Grand Valley State beats Saginaw? I don't care about divisions I don't watch, but it wouldn't kill me to get a 30-second update on it (I guess TV doesn't want any opportunity for channel-changing) each week, and it would delight viewers.
Not that ESPN needs to worry about doing things better or anything. (CSTV, The Football Network, where ya at?)
Quote from: mhb8904 on October 16, 2005, 05:59:44 PM
K-Mack,
I don't have cable :'( so it's hard for me to confirm now, but I know ESPN News used to scroll some D3 scores, especially during playoffs.
Its a conspiracy. Haven't you seen all the postings from others about their teams.
On a more positive note, everyone who helped put Hobart in the top 25 many thanks. If I knew your addresses I'd put you on my Christmas card list. More seriously, I realize that they got there as much through attrition as their performance this year, but I still think they could run with teams like Wesley, Thiel, Coe, etc. I guess we'll never know.
Everyone who has experience with this site says that all that matters is the championship, but since many schools in different regions will never see each other some of the beauty for former/current players is too see where "experts" rate them against like schools. The balance of power in DIII is probably more concentrated than DI so with the exception of random years (RPI in 2003 for example), this is the best we can get.
If they can scroll those crap D1-AA non-sch scores among the other D1 scores, they can roll at least the top DIII scores.
As a voter,
let me address. I don't think the PAC helped itself this week, but because of the losses ahead, Thiel and W&J stayed pretty static on my ballot.
Frostburg's convincing win over PAC co-leader Thomas More was a score for the ACFC over the PAC, and could have helped Wesley and Salisbury in some voters' minds, against W&J and Thiel. The Tomcats also struggled, trailing 21-0 before coming back to win. Waynesburg isn't a bad team, and I'm never sure whether's it's a bad thing to have been trailing if you end up winning. Each team usually gets one "we struggled this week" free pass before it starts making them look inconsistent.
As far as Ithaca not dropping as far as W&J, I wouldn't read into that too much. Ithaca's loss was on the road, but W&J's opponent was better. Also, Ithaca has a big win over SJF under its belt. Still, in a poll, there are so many inter-related things, like how many other teams lost that week (or put out performances that helped people change opinions about them), how many points really separated the spots (i.e. 10 spots one week could be 200 votes, and another week it could be 125) or whatever.
As long as both drops were significant, that would satisfy me ... considering I've never once had my top 25 be the exact top 25 in the poll, in the same order ... You're allowed to disagree. Your top 25 might be different than the poll too. It's only fair, and normal.
Quote from: OldPhart on October 16, 2005, 06:19:11 PM
Week 7 top 25: Harrumph! >:( I know there were arguments on the PAC board about how much W&J fell and how much Thiel gained in the polls after W&J's loss to Thiel. Although I am a Thiel partisan, from a "respect for the PAC" standpoint I am puzzled by W&J's drop from 6 (478 votes) in week 4 to 16 (185 votes) after a loss to an undefeated Thiel by 3 in 1 OT in week 5 while Ithaca drops from 8th (402 votes) in week 6 to no worse than 15th (229 votes) after their loss to now 2-4 Lycoming by 3 in 1 OT in week 7. While Lycoming has made a postseason appearance in recent memory and Thiel hasn't, I would say that the last year and a half worth of games favors Thiel over Lycoming as being a challenging opponent. Further, W&J went fairly deep into the playoffs last year and Ithaca settled for a win in the ECAC Northwest championship. IMO Ithaca's loss to Lycoming is much more troubling than W&J's loss to Thiel. Yes I know that both the MAC and the E8 conferences have better overall playoff records than the PAC. Further, I know that W&J struggled with Grove City for the first half before winning convincingly. Still, this seems to be an odd ranking where W&J drops from 15 to 16 to make way for an Ithaca team that didn't make as much noise as W&J did last season and that lost to unheralded Lycoming.
I am not singling out any individual for my venting. I am a relative "newbie", so I hope that wiser heads can explain this apparent anomaly.
I think that SJU should be ranked #1 in the country because they have more wins than anyone else. ;D
They have two wins more than Rowan and Linfield and 1 more than MUC(k) among others.
If you take this post seriously you only have your self to blame
Actually the Top 25 is pre-determined by a cabal of Washington-New York-Boston elitists comprised of the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rothschild Family, Karl Rove and the "kayaking friends of Nancy Pelosi." Pat Coleman just selected 24 of his friends to serve as a front! ;)
Teams are selected from:
Top 5: Mount Union, top teams of the NJAC, ASC, Northwest Conference and MIAC.
Second 5: WIAC of the week, Best team in MAC, Pres AC and CCIW. Runner-ups of ASC and/or OAC and/or Trinity
Third Five: WIAC runner-up of the week until they have 3 losses. Runners- up MIAC and/or NWC, East Region #2 Team, Woo/Witt/Wabash, IIAC leader, ODAC/USAC/ACFC/CC leader (any 2 of 4)
Fourth 5: WIAC #3 team until 3 losses, East Region #3, OAC #3/NCAC runner-up, CCIW #2 and MIAC #3.
Fifth 5: Leftovers from above and newbie/surprise team of the year.
I just wanted to simplify it for you! ;D
You're assuming I have 24 friends. :)
Ralph,
Your conspiracy theory OBVIOUSLY has holes in it, since despite my protests, the top CCIW team is still only #14!
But, yes, lately the top 5 appears to be Linfield, MUC, 1 or 2 Texas teams, and 1 or 2 others! (Bring back the 80s, when Augustana ruled the world - and I HATE Augie, but at least they're from the right conference!) ;D
Mr. Ypsi,
I'm wondering why CCIW schools don't schedule more games with teams in the WIAC in neighboring Wisconsin? Other than Augie's seemingly annual game football game against Platteville, WIAC schools are virtually absent from the schedules on an annual basis. I know for sure that Whitewater has repeatedly sought to schedule CCIW teams with no luck. Whitewater's basketball team has also tried to get Carthage on its schedule. Wouldn't an interconference game (football and basketball) between Carthage (Kenosha) and nearby Whitewater be great for D3 sports in southern Wisconsin?
I, too, would like to see more CCIW-WIAC matchups.
I'm sure one reason why it doesn't happen is that surprisingly few of the games would be in-region.
Mr. Ypsi, the current situation with the Top 10 and the CCIW is that North Central is a relative newbie that is making the climb into the CCIW "slot". Should they run the table, then they will finish about 8th-10th!
Solid conference with a solid program that is making the ascent! :)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 17, 2005, 12:26:27 PM
I, too, would like to see more CCIW-WIAC matchups.
I'm sure one reason why it doesn't happen is that surprisingly few of the games would be in-region.
Really? I thought the NCAA changed that rule so that school's within a certain distance were always considered 'in region'. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Pretty sure if you play a team within 200 miles that it is treated as in-region.
I think even with 200 miles many games aren't in-region. Eau Claire, La Crosse, River Falls, Stevens Point and Stout are more than 200 miles from Chicagoland, let alone the non-metro area teams.
And for bball, add Superior to the list.
From the other direction, I'd imagine Millikin is not within 200 miles of anyone; IWU MIGHT be with WW (though I doubt it); Augie MIGHT be with Platteville.
Augie and Platteville are (http://www.d3football.com/school_info.php?school=Augustana&year=2005).
To answer Mr. Ypsi's question regarding "in region" games for CCIW vs. WIAC.
For UW-Whitewater all fall within the 200 mile NCAA III in region exemption.
According to Mapquest mileage, Whitewater to:
Augustana College is 171 miles
Illinois Wesleyan is 179 miles
and obviously Chicagoland schools including Elmhurst, North Park, Carthage, etc. are all well within the 200 mile radius.
Maybe their is another reason that the CCIW schools are ducking the WIAC?
That's one school out of eight, however.
voice,
You left out Millikin - if WW is 179 from IWU, they'd be at least 210 from Decatur.
I'd certainly agree that WW-Carthage seems a natural, and have no idea why it doesn't happen.
(For the record, note that mapquest is not the official arbiter, and it and Microsoft Streets and Trips have sometimes differed by up to 10 miles - which wouldn't matter here, but for distances between 190 and 210, better go to the NCAA's source.)
Carthage's president has reportedly forbid scheduling of WIAC teams in various sports.
Hmm, Pat,
Did you hear WHY? Carthage-WW seems like a natural rivavlry to me.
Perhaps he's in the 'state schools have an unfair advantage' camp.
I kinda figured that went without saying. Why else would they? :)
K-Mack
Sorry if that offended you. I agree that the four highly rated teams are a killer schedule. No one can accuse them of not wanting to play the best. That has long been a philosophy at Norte Dame and it seems to work for them. Not saying that they are in Notre Dames class just using it as a philosophy example. Some coaches and AD's want to play the best and I have no problem with that. It just struck me funny that Waldorf was on there. Sorry it was an off the cuff remark that I probably shouldn't have made.
Ralph Turner,
Thanks for the update on how the top 25 are selected. I knew that there was some reason out there. Your explanation cleared it all up for me. Thanks for that valuable explanation.
This week's AFCA poll was released.
Ithaca dropped from #6 to #19 with their loss to Lycoming.
Coe and Carthage dropped out with their losses. Augustana (#24) and Wesley (#25) replaced them.
One of many head-scratchers was UW-La Crosse falling from #12 to #22 with their six-point loss to #6 UW-Whitewater.
North Central jumped nine spots (21 to 12) with their win over Carthage.
http://afca.com/lev3.cfm/1084
I did my top 25 power ranking compendium (again, for grins and giggles) and it seems to have calmed down a bit - but many of these results are at loggerheads with the D3 top 25.
The computer ratings seem to believe in St. Olaf a lot more than the pollsters. Massey and La-Z have them in the top 10 and they have a good SOS.
The ratings seem to loathe Bridgewater, W & J and Occidental all due to SOS issues.
So here we go:
1. St. John's
2. Wisc - Whitewater
3. Mt. Union
4. Linfield
5. North Central
6. St. Olaf
7. Wesley
8. Hardin - Simmons
9. Central
10. Rowan
11. Augustana
12. Wheaton
13. Concordia - Moorhead
14. Coe
15. John Carroll
16. Wisc - Oshkosh
17. Monmouth
18. Wabash
19. Ohio Northern
20. Delaware Valley
21. Trinity (TX)
22. Thiel
23. Salisbury
24. Hobart
25. Union
Others in the top 25
26. Mary Hardin - Baylor (most power rankings agree)
27. Wisc - LaCrosse (3-2 knocks them here)
30. St. John Fisher
34. Ithaca
41. Wash & Jeff
45. Occidental
59. Bridgewater
And for the other end of the spectrum:
219. Principia
218. Mass - Maritime
217. Nichols
216. Becker
215. Concorida (Ill.)
214. Lewis & Clark
213. Tri - State
212. Juniata
211. Mount Ida
210. Macalester
smedindy,
Your computer seems to love my Dutch more than I do. Can you tell me what or how it processes the info that you feed to it. I just do not see Central at #9. I just wonder what it measures.
It's a mix of three power ratings, a SOS formula, and a wrinkle I put in myself. Central has two great power ratings (Massey 11, La-Z 14), but what helps them is going 6-1 with the 14th best SOS.
Ok I'm a dummy. What is a Massey and a La-Z, I think sos is strength of Scedule correct
Massey and La-Z are two power ratings I use, and SOS is strength of schedule.
Rule No. 1 of message boards. Never take anything personally.
No harm done. If it wasn't right there on the screen, I probably wouldn't remember half the stuff I say in message board formats.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 18, 2005, 01:30:12 PM
K-Mack
Sorry if that offended you.
Smed,
I can't figure out how to say this without it sounding worse than I mean it ...
But what do you think the compendium proves?
(Asking as a legitimate question, not a tough-guy defender of the D3 poll)
The ratings are very complimentary/skewed for teams in good conferences, but since St. Olaf hasn't played the MIAC's big dogs yet, I can see why pollsters would reserve judgement.
With the exception of the extreme ends of the spectrum, most good teams, no matter the conference, can compete with most of the other good teams in the nation.
Look at the first round of the playoffs a lot of years. Champions of not-so-great conferences hang in there all the time.
In other words, I think the ratings ... especially early on as Massey admits ... are too skewed towards SOS.
LaVerne was No. 3 in the country one week. Nuff said.
I don't know if it proves anything more than what the top 25 poll does. What it does for me is validate my feelings about some teams while eliminating others from my consideration as a top team. I tend to want data (since I'm a fan of sabermetrics in baseball) and neutral measures of greatness or heinousness.
Last year when I did this I thought by the last two weeks of the season I was fairly spot on - even though it still disagreed with the poll in some cases.
I think this is about the right time for Massey to start making sense (which is why the first time I did these I realized it was too early) as everyone has played at least five games. As it goes along, it will make more sense. Again, the method was developed for use with the D-1 basketball power ratings to help me forecast the NCAA tourney teams, but it's adaptable to football.
It's also a great way for me to learn more about all of the D-3 schools. I did this for D-3 basketball last year as well and that was fun, though more of a chore. And I may be an idiot, but I really care how the NCAC stacks up, and if Hiram and the like are really as bad as they look (sadly, the answer is yes). So it's interesting for me to see that Gustavus Adolphus is 149th and King's is 113th. But I won't post that many.
This is all in fun, anyway.
Quote from: smedindy on October 19, 2005, 04:25:37 PM
Last year when I did this I thought by the last two weeks of the season I was fairly spot on - even though it still disagreed with the poll in some cases.
This is all in fun, anyway.
If you did this last year, what Did UMHB look like on paper in week one of the playoffs?
And Enjoy the fun!
If I recall - I had UMHB in my top 3 to 5. I think I have it saved on my work computer.
Indeed, I had UMHB as #5.
smed,
I definitely think there is worthiness to numbers-crunching, there are just times when logic or subjective thinking has to overrule it. Like I'm sure there's a three-loss team each year in the OAC or somewhere that would smoke an unbeaten team from another conference.
And vice versa, a really crappy team that happens to play in the OAC isn't the 20th-best team in the country, just off SOS ... Or UW-Stevens Point, they've played a tough schedule, but they haven't beaten anyone ... so it's hard to judge what they really are, mathematically or subjectively.
But generally, yeah, the rankings are nice.
K-Mack -
Rest assured, Heidelberg is in their proper place!
It also shows why computer rankings alone, and "compilation" rankings (*cough-BCS-cough*) too, aren't good ways to pick who the top teams (especially national champs) are. The subjectivity someone mentioned above while an opportunity to favor some unreasonably also allows factors that mere numbers miss.
Fun to BS about, though ;)
This is a collateral issue, but not entirely irrelevant. Here's a rant I posted on the Liberty League Board (a board that has become something of a cult phenomenon):
The BCS was created in large part to overcome dissatisfaction over national polls--which often disagreed--being used to determine the mythical "national champion" in D1 college football. The BCS ranking system has been revamped several times, and before last year it included super-secret hidden equations to derive the rankings (maybe ktroutvon could help us uncover those hidden equations).
The 2003-04 BCS formula used (1) AP and ESPN-USA Today Poll Average; (2) Computer Average (Anderson-Hester, Billingsley, Colley, Massey, Sagarin, and Wolfe); (3) Schedule rank; (4) Losses; and (5) Quality Win Component. Using this formula, the human-ranked no. 1 team, USC, was not permitted to play in the BCS "Championship" bowl game.
To prevent such a debacle from reoccurring, the BCS revamped the BCS formula and even went so far as to publish all of the equations used in the BCS ranking system. Schedule rank, losses, and Quality Win Component were dropped from the system, and the BCS rankings are now determined by averaging the AP poll, the Coaches poll, and a composite of 6 computer polls.
Thus the BCS, which was created to end D1 football's reliance on polls to determine the mythical "national champion," now relies 2/3 on human polls, and 1/3 on number-crunched "computer polls" to determine the mythical "national champion."
And this doesn't even address the outrage of New Year's Day bowl games being played on January 5, or the crime of playing the Rose Bowl game at night.
Again,
this isn't a D-I board, but there are so many things wrong with the BCS ... and so many better ideas out there. Even a playoff with home games on campus would generate so much interest and funds that it's ridiculous.
I wish a billionaire like Paul Allen would just step up and provide the payouts if college chose his playoff over the BCS bowls ... We'll see how fast the Rose Bowl wants to be down, etc.
The most egregious BCS mess-ups are usually when there's a clear No. 1 and several teams jockeying for No. 2, like that year Nebraska got smoked by Colorado and then again by Miami at the Rose Bowl. The Okla-LSU year was child's play.
Seriously, how many times do they actually get it right? Only when there's a consensus 1-2 ...
makes us glad that other divisions have playoffs. we get to see the great games, and never have a fake, undeserving champion.
See, the BCS was INSANE to drop the margin of victory and SOS measures. INSANE. That's what separated the teams. Cap the max margin of victory at 21 points, use the SOS factor, and get the teams.
And I don't CARE AT ALL if the human ranked #1 team is left out. Because the eyes decieve sometimes. I think there are a lot more biases in the human polls than in the computers. It's just that sportswriters are afraid of them at times because sometimes they fly in the face of conventional wisdom. (no offense to you K-Mack)
It was the same problem Bill James and his sabrematricians had in the 80's. But now, most everyone is on board with OBP and OPS being the best measure for a batter, and that defense CAN be measured accurately, etc. etc.
Anywho, my stuff is all for fun.
If Occidental wins, could we be looking at four of the top five teams being from the West?
And given Rowan's perfomance in the semifinals last year aren't we really looking at the top four teams being from the West.
As a preemptive strike against any D3 voters who might see this:
While I expect that Hobart will be more closely scrutinized this week, every team gets a close one. Del Valley has made a living on it the last two years. Not to mention Thiel the previous week (and for anyone considering JHU, they win by a few every game). While the conditions are a part of the game, it was a complete mud bowl, which can add to the anomoly factor. Especially when SLU's rushing attack isn't even that strong in the LL and Hobart's D has done better against better rushing teams nearly every week (incl. RPI).
It will be very interesting to see how far Mount falls in the polls!! IMHO, they are still a top 5 squad. Would you want your team playing them next week?? :-\
I would think Mt. Union would still be in the top 5. Hardin - Simmons will take a big tumble.
Wabash, I think, is the only school to break into the top 25.
K-Mack or Pat,
This may be a stupid question but when is d3.com doing its first playoff projection?
I figure Wesley will drop out, but what about UW-LaCrosse? How far will they drop? I know that the WIAC gets a lot of respect, despite a rather modest post-season track record. I know that the last two losses have been close. Still, a 3-3 team in the top 25 seems a bit dodgy.
oldphart,
one of UW-Lacrosse's losses was to DII South Dakota State
Division I-AA scholarship South Dakota State.
Mt. Union losing was a shock and I imagine they fall somewhere like 4-6.
HSU will likely drop out of the top 10 IMHO.
LaCrosse is too high up and lost to too good of a team to fall completely out...as far as I can tell.
There's been speculation on how far MUC will drop (and I'd agree that 4-6 is probably a good guess), but none on the reverse question: how far will ONU jump? I'll take a stab at all the way to 8-10, though that would mean jumping an AWFULLY lot of very good (in some cases, undefeated) teams.
I wanted to retract my rant from yesterday (I don't like the quote system b/c I think people manipulate and abuse it so anyone interested will have to go back and check it). People who played for Coach Cragg eraly in his tenure take a lot of ownership for the success that the program has had the last five years. Prior to the mid-90's the school had one or maybe two +.500 seasons in the prior two decades and so consistently getting to .500 or a little better paved the way for the playoff teams and getting over the hump against teams like IC and Union.
Hobart had a bad day. D3 voters and experts, do your worst. They have a week off and then play Union. Win that game and they are in the playoffs.
I figure that I might know the answer to this question already - but I am curious as to the depth of analysis that voters get into in their rankings of the teams. My guess is that it is highly variable among the voters, but I assume that everyone at least goes beyond the wins and losses and looks at the strength of schedule and recent playoff history.
My question is do voters actually dig through the stats and the play-by-play on the games that they were unable to attend or listen to? If so, to what depth? ??? I know there is a time crunch and that I recognize that you are allowed to have a life - I am just curious as to how deep the analysis goes. A couple of "for examples" would be interesting. TIA.
OldPhart, this is what the info looks like that we send to the voters. What they do with it is their choice, but we provide them with a good amount of the info you suggest straight out of the gate:
No. 30 Alma (5-2):
Sep 10 HOME Aurora (4-3) W 48-12
Sep 17 HOME Wittenberg (3-4) W 38-27
Sep 24 AWAY Tiffin (4-5, D-II) L 56-23
Oct 01 HOME Olivet (3-4) W 49-24
Oct 08 AWAY Adrian (5-2) W 10-13
Oct 15 HOME Tri-State (0-7) W 42-26
Oct 22 AWAY Kalamazoo (3-4) L 38-37
Oct 29 HOME Wisconsin Lutheran (1-6) -
No. 21 Augustana (6-1):
Sep 03 HOME Central (6-1) L 24-25
Sep 10 AWAY Catholic (3-4) W 26-52
Sep 24 HOME UW-Platteville (1-6) W 45-14
Oct 01 HOME North Park (3-4) W 50-6
Oct 08 AWAY 13 Carthage (5-2) W 0-7
Oct 15 HOME Illinois Wesleyan (2-5) W 41-15
Oct 22 AWAY Millikin (4-3) W 0-23
Oct 29 HOME Elmhurst (5-2) -
No. 19 Bridgewater (Va.) (5-1):
Sep 03 HOME McDaniel (4-3) L 35-36
Sep 10 AWAY Shenandoah (1-6) W 20-49
Sep 17 AWAY Hanover (3-5) W 42-56
Oct 01 AWAY 22 Hampden-Sydney (5-2) W 24-31
Oct 15 HOME Guilford (2-5) W 62-46
Oct 22 AWAY Emory and Henry (0-7) W 17-31
Oct 29 AWAY Washington and Lee (5-2) -
No. 28 Capital (5-2):
Sep 03 AWAY Wittenberg (3-4) W 0-54
Sep 17 AWAY Otterbein (5-2) L 17-14
Sep 24 HOME Heidelberg (0-7) W 66-0
Oct 01 AWAY 3 Mount Union (6-1) L 42-24
Oct 08 HOME Marietta (3-4) W 41-10
Oct 15 AWAY Muskingum (1-6) W 13-30
Oct 22 HOME Baldwin-Wallace (3-4) W 34-0
Oct 29 AWAY Ohio Northern (6-1) -
Poll posted.
Wow, UW-Whitewater leaps to 2nd, overtaking St. John's and Rowan (among others). Must have been that big win over a top-notch UW-Platteville. ::)
Also, UW-Lacrosse still in the top 25. I know they've lost to tough teams but enough is enough. UW-Eau Claire has only lost to Whitewater (#2) and St. John's (#3) and they BEAT LAX. Seems like they deserve a spot in the top 25.
Otherwise, poll looks fair to me.
WooHoo!! We got a vote. ;D Way to go Hawks!
Pat I'm kinda surprised to see Mount at 6th. I thought I might be going to high with them at 7, which is where I think I had them, but that felt right. I'd be interested to know what the highest is someone had them and the lowest if it is not too much trouble to look that up or if you share that type of stuff.
They were #3 on one ballot, #4 on two ballots, #5 on two.
I think part of the problem is perception -- regardless of the loss, can a voter really justify someone like Delaware Valley or Occidental ahead of Mount Union? That's hard to imagine.
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 23, 2005, 07:27:28 PM
WooHoo!! We got a vote. ;D Way to go Hawks!
And here I was going to have the "Huntingdon Voter Death Watch" in the column until someone finally did give them a vote. So much for that idea! :D
Wow, a lot to digest in this week's poll.
Certainly the big question now seems to be who is the true number 2, as 3 teams are within 5 points of the spot. Its a wide open race for the BCS bowl spot alongside Linfeild ;).
I had a feeling Mount Union wouldn't drop a great amount (6 sounds right), but I wonder about the fall for Hardin-Simmons. I mean, if UMHB is considered better than ONU, then it would only follow that UMHB would get a bigger win in my mind. No matter, doesn't make a major difference in my book.
A lot of flipping spots in the 12 to 16 portion. North Central (up 2), Concordia-Moorhead (down 1), and Saint John Fisher (down 1) rotates around, and W&J and Ithaca switch places, and all of this while all 5 teams won.
Wesley drops out. No suprise there.
Wabash moves in. No suprise there either.
UW- La Crosse holds on. I'm not suprised (11 to out is a rather huge drop), but at 3-3, I wouldn't be suprised they did a slow drop off to Coe or Capital in the next few weeks.
It looks like a fun few weeks to the playoffs are in store. I can't wait.
Mt Union and HSU fell just as I thought they would!
The pollsters are better than we give them credit for!
Apropos of not much but teams 20 - 50, it seems clear that the vast majority of d3Football.com poll voters don't look at the scores for those "second tier" teams, they only look at the records.
Even a quick comparison of the scores of Union v. RPI makes it clear that RPI has a much stronger record against common opponents, as Pat the Guru mentioned in his Week 8 Wrapup blog (http://d3football.com/dailydose/?p=125). I realize--and the d3Football.com poll voters realize--that common opponent analysis is dangerous, but if they don't know anything about the teams, it's all the d3Football.com poll voters have. Union getting 22 points to RPI's 2 (http://d3football.com/top25.php?year=2005&week=8) means that every Union voter only looked at the records, and didn't look at the scores.
Pat,
Was wondering what your thoughts are on Central and Coe. With Coes loss to Wartburg they fell behind Central yet Coe beat Central. Do you feel that that has more to do with when Central and Coe played and how the teams are performing at this time than actual head to head results. I was also wondering where some of the voters are putting them. 98 divided by 25 is less than 4. Some voters must think they are better and some must think worse or they would be about 22 with a 4 average. Just curious what they are thinking about them at this point.
Just like I posted on the MAC page, to have Delaware valley ahead of Mount Union is an absolute joke. MUC is on an entirely different level of football compared to any MAC team.
couldn't agree with ya more chum...!!
This certainly knocks down the credibility of the AFCA poll ::)!!
Absolutely. I played in the MAC for 4 years, we played W&J, Bridgewater, Union, Springfield, CNU, and Mount Union. Delaware Valley is not even in the same sentence as those guys.
I agree that MUC is on a different level than any MAC team. However, DVC is not the same team they were a few years ago and can probably beat W&J, Bridgewater, Union, Springfield, and CNU.
No way, i just dont see it. and ive been to a few DVC games this year.
You have got to be kidding -- Springfield is 2-5 this year. W&J hasn't even beaten a winning team yet. The combined record of their opponents in games they have won is 11-41. Remember what happend when they played Wilkes in the ECAC? Although undefeated, Union is struggling right now just beating the Coast Guard (2-4) 7-0 on a defensive TD. CNU is 4-3 and not by accident or bad luck. Bridgewater is playing decent ball and that would be an interesting matchup.
I'm not saying DVC is ALOT better than those other teams, just that after the top 5 or 6 teams, there is a big drop off in ability. MUC would probably crush all of those teams, including DVC.
According to the real Massey ratings (far right column) - Del Val is 38th.
If HSU and UMHB win out HSU wins the conference but will UMHB get another pool C bid this year?
You are right this year they are not very good. But traditionally W&J Bridgewater are strong programs, and MUC is the cream of the crop. To even have DelVal up there is a joke in my opinion. Put DelVal in the OAC and I would be shocked if they went 3-7.
Quote from: TXCowboy on October 27, 2005, 01:05:04 PM
If HSU and UMHB win out HSU wins the conference but will UMHB get another pool C bid this year?
I would think that's as much a lock as you can picture.
The only way UMHB does not get a pool C is if something totally inexplicable happens. Well, they did lose to Howard Payne. But a second one this season? Highly unlikely.
(Though, we said that about anyone winning in Alliance recently, too...)
Quote from: coocooforcoekohawk on October 22, 2005, 06:20:52 PM
If Occidental wins, could we be looking at four of the top five teams being from the West?
And given Rowan's perfomance in the semifinals last year aren't we really looking at the top four teams being from the West.
This has happened before, or something similar. I think St. Norbert went 10-0 and had to go on the road in the first round b/c Linfield, SJU and someone else was also unbeaten.
Hold on (looks in trusty crate of old D3 books)
OK, the '03 West bracket
1. SJU 10-0
bye
Simpson 9-1
St. Norbert 10-0 (at home though)
Wartburg 10-0
Bethel 9-1
Redlands 6-3
Linfield 9-0
So basically the top six West teams had two losses, and Redlands won the SCIAC with three. And only lost by eight.
I think that's the roughest bracket, by won-loss record at least, that I have seen.
Quote from: ACMob on October 26, 2005, 09:56:17 PM
This certainly knocks down the credibility of the AFCA poll ::)!!
Boy, I hate when that happens. ::)
As far as the Central-Coe question, I hate to rank any team behind a team its beaten head-to-head, but sometimes it's inevitable. Central's win over Augustana is really helpful, and the 17-14 margin of victory in the Coe-Central and Wartburg-Coe games means the three teams are probably pretty close.
In which case, if you're looking at just those scores (Central's actually squeaked out a bunch of wins, but we digress), you don't want to put Central, Coe, Wartburg or Augustana too far from each other, but you also don't know if have room for all four in your top 25 if you aren't necessarily convinced that any of them are that great.
Just some thoughts, FWIW. Not necessarily reflecting how I voted this past week.
And, indeed, the West was best that year.
Also, that year, the West sent UW-LAX to the North, where they gave Mount Union its toughest playoff game . . . until the Stagg.
Quote from: religion_major on October 22, 2005, 09:22:07 PM
K-Mack or Pat,
This may be a stupid question but when is d3.com doing its first playoff projection?
Not stupid, and there usually are three of them that appear mid-week, so work backwards from the final week, 11 ... 10 ... 9.
Should be one out around Wednesday, if my calculations are correct.
The message board one should suffice for now, no?
First, I must say that I have always relied upon the D3football rankings over the AFCA rankings. However, LAX regularly appearing in the top-25 had me puzzled. I am glad that we can move beyond that now and have Capital move in with their big win today.
Will Salisbury will drop all the way out with the pasting they endured today ???
Quote from: OldPhart on October 29, 2005, 08:30:40 PM
First, I must say that I have always relied upon the D3football rankings over the AFCA rankings. However, LAX regularly appearing in the top-25 had me puzzled. I am glad that we can move beyond that now and have Capital move in with their big win today.
Will Salisbury will drop all the way out with the pasting they endured today ???
Salisbury will certainly drop all the way out. Unlike LAX last week, Salisbury has a much lower position (17 vs 11) and a much worse loss (44 points vs losing in overtime). I can't see any way Salisbury holds on to the poll this week.
OldPhart:
UW-Lax's performance today is what makes the WIAC so maddening. The Eagles lose to a Division I-AA scholarship team, play Whitewater close and then drop two straight including today's game against Stout. I'll admit I was one of the voters that didn't drop UW-Lax all the way out. I can't count the number of times I've been burned voting for a WIAC team only to see them go up in smoke. Whatever the number is, add another one to it.
At least I can take solace in knowing I never dropped Capital off my ballot. :)
And, combined with Brockport clobbering Wesley 47-0, I think the decisive loss will dump Salisbury from the Top 25. At
So, it looks like Capital and John Carroll will move in, making four OAC teams in the top 25, unless the voters really punish ONU. Wow.
ONU has lost to Cap and JCU so if they stay in the top 25
they should be behind the other two.
You know the polls don't work that way...well, other polls anyway.
But I doubt if they will be - they'd have to fall too far.
I think loosing Bond is almost as bad as loosing Orihel.
IMHO the defense is the glue to this Rowan team!
but that is coming fron an old linebacker ;)
Quote from: jdean on October 29, 2005, 09:47:55 PM
ONU has lost to Cap and JCU so if they stay in the top 25
they should be behind the other two.
Then where do we put Mount Union, jdean? :)
Right Pat, and by that same logic Howard Payne should be ahead of UMHB, right???
I find polls to be nothing more than public relations stunts
so I really could care less if they name Heidelberg #1.
As far as polls "don't work that way" that only adds to their irrelevance for me.
Would football or basketball be any less enjoyable if there were no polls and teams played their games, tried to win their conference title and after the season was over learned whether they had been selected for post-season or not? Then those that are selected play games and by elimination rank themselves. There is no need for these silly guessing games.
How does SJU fall 8 more votes behind UWW after demoralizing the only undefeated team left in their conference?
Both teams gained votes, but UWW gained more.
I realize that much, I just thought SJU trouncing a previously undefeated (albeit untested) team by 54 would gain more votes than UWW beating a Oshkosh, a team that lost to 3-5 UWRF earlier this season.
I guess SJU'll just have to put up when it counts in the playoffs again.
Quote from: kiltedrat on October 30, 2005, 05:34:01 PM
I realize that much, I just thought SJU trouncing a previously undefeated (albeit untested) team by 54 would gain more votes than UWW beating a Oshkosh, a team that lost to 3-5 UWRF earlier this season.
Sure, when you put your Johnnie spin on it, it sounds reasonable. However, UW-Oshkosh was a 6-1 team. Their 6-1 was equally as suspect as St. Olaf's 7-0.
Fair enough. I can't really complain considering we were like 10 to start the season.
Hopefully UWW and SJU will meet in the playoffs and settle it face to face.
It is fun to have your team ranked. However, I know polls don't mean a whole lot in D3. That being said, I wonder if anyone besides myself was irritated by Carthage's use of their 38th place "ranking" and other sub-25th "rankings" in their press releases. >:( Maybe I am feeling overly peevish due to an insufficient quantity of raisens in my raisen bran - but I am grateful that Carthage received no votes this week.
What are others thoughts on sub 25th "rankings"? I don't mind seeing press releases that indicate that the team received votes in a poll or the number of votes that the team received - I just find the idea of attaching a ranking to them odd unless the outfit doing the ranking actually assigns a position for it.
OldPhart, to be honest, I didn't really care for it and I heard from three or four SIDs over the course of the past couple weeks who didn't like it either.
I had one ask me if he could use "#43" in his releases because they were tied for 43rd (along with every other team who didn't get a vote).
Quote from: OldPhart on October 30, 2005, 08:11:16 PM
Maybe I am feeling overly peevish due to an insufficient quantity of raisins in my raisin bran.
What are others thoughts on sub 25th "rankings"? I don't mind seeing press releases that indicate that the team received votes in a poll or the number of votes that the team received - I just find the idea of attaching a ranking to them odd unless the outfit doing the ranking actually assigns a position for it.
Raisin Bran is very important to us old pharts, it's good that you're keeping your priorities in order.
As an old phart engineer (I'm pretty good with numbers), I don't see the illogic in teams that receive the 38th highest vote total concluding that they rank 38th in that poll. The only nitpicky polling argument would be along the lines of "the voters only vote for 25 teams, not 38."
What if a team said something like "several voters in the d3football.com national poll ranked Wassamatta U #25 or higher?" It would be true, but I think it'd be more misleading than the press releases that you suspect of having an impact on your . . . um, . . . mood.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2005, 09:00:39 PM
I had one [SID] ask me if he could use "#43" in his releases because they were tied for 43rd (along with every other team who didn't get a vote).
It's nice to see that some SIDs still have a sense of humor. Jim Greenidge, former sportswriter for the
Boston Globe, was SID at RPI, and he was hysterical.
Pat - I figure that you as the publisher own the rights to the rankings in the d3football poll. I think it would be reasonable for you to require that those who wish to utilize d3football poll rankings in their publications to respect your republication requirements - whatever those might be.
I do get a kick out of the idea of the numerous matchups between #43 ranked teams. :D I trust that even if you give permission that nobody would have sufficient chutzpah to actually go through with it.
I confess that I cannot understand the problem here. 38th might be stretching it a bit (I assume that would be 3 or 4 points!), but if a team had the 28th highest number of votes, why is it outrageous if they claim to be #28?
While it is the top 25 poll, and each voter only votes for 25 teams, it is still possible to rank at least several more teams before it starts to become pretty eccentric and arbitrary.
Perhaps (maybe even probably!) the Carthage SID deserved to be laughed at, but what did he do WRONG?
Quote from: OldPhart on October 30, 2005, 09:34:50 PM
Pat - I figure that you as the publisher own the rights to the rankings in the d3football poll. I think it would be reasonable for you to require that those who wish to utilize d3football poll rankings in their publications to respect your republication requirements - whatever those might be.
I do get a kick out of the idea of the numerous matchups between #43 ranked teams. :D I trust that even if you give permission that nobody would have sufficient chutzpah to actually go through with it.
I agree with everything OldPhart (and Dr. Ypsi) just said.
(Historical--and mostly irrelevant--note: Immediately after
Casey Stengel testified before the Senate Anti-Trust and Monopoly Subcommittee on July 8, 1958 (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/casey_stengel_senate_testimony.shtml) ("I'm in the baseball business, it's been run cleaner than any baseball business that was ever put out in the hundred years at the present time."), Mickey Mantle was called to testify. Mantle's first words were "I agree with everything Mr. Stengel just said.")
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2005, 09:53:14 PM
I confess that I cannot understand the problem here. 38th might be stretching it a bit (I assume that would be 3 or 4 points!), but if a team had the 28th highest number of votes, why is it outrageous if they claim to be #28?
While it is the top 25 poll, and each voter only votes for 25 teams, it is still possible to rank at least several more teams before it starts to become pretty eccentric and arbitrary.
Perhaps (maybe even probably!) the Carthage SID deserved to be laughed at, but what did he do WRONG?
It's called the D3football.com Top 25, not the D3football.com Top 42. How can you rank #38 in the Top 25?
We don't recognize anyone beyond 25 as being ranked.
Pat,
I understand your argument (I think), and perhaps no one below #25 should use the word 'ranked'.
But the team that got the 26th highest number of votes is certainly the #26 rated(?), assessed(?), ranked(?!) team in your poll! And so on for #27, #28, etc. Now, for those 'ranked' (rated, listed?) #38, it may well be silly, but why is it WRONG? They had the 38th highest number of votes in your poll.
If you wish to stand by the point of the opening paragraph, OK, but otherwise I honestly don't understand why this is an issue for anyone.
maybe the #26 rated school could claim to be the #1 runner-up (should any of the top 25 be unable to complete their duties...) and #27 could be #2 runner up, etc.
its all about the marketing
Maybe they should just say they received the 43rd (or whatever) most votes in the voting for the 25 top teams in d3football. Not that it would really mean much, but it would be more accurate, IMHO.
Wow! Your voters are ROUGH!
Capital beats then-#25 JCU by almost 2 TDs, and moves not a whit.
ONU beats Wilmington by NINE TDs, and FALLS 3 spots!
Actually, the poll looks highly defensible, just those two jumped out at me.
They did gain 28 votes, more than a slot per voter, but yeah, the cumulative effect was negligible.
One thing I hate about our poll is sometimes voters have late reactions and teams slide the second week after a loss. But in this case, it put Cap ahead of ONU, which makes sense, since Cap won at ONU.
Quote from: jdean on October 30, 2005, 01:14:24 AM
I find polls to be nothing more than public relations stunts ... There is no need for these silly guessing games.
And yet there is a demand for it, moreso by the fans than players ... as evidenced by a 16-page thread on them, etc.
Cudos to Pat Coleman & his crew for making deadlines and mostly sticking to them!
It is now 5:50 pm Eastern time Tuesday. I have yet to see an updated AFCA Top 25 Poll. ???
Now add that with the regional rankings being a day late Oct, 20th and half reported on Oct. 26th & half Oct. 27th the following week. >:(
Pat,
I'd make sure they have the brackets ready to roll on Sunday. Based on their track record this year you may be at the ESPNzone a little later than expected. :-\
AFCA released it. It's just not a high priority for me to post it. It's behind Around the Region, Team of the Week, not to mention feeding my kids and putting them to bed.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 08, 2005, 06:12:45 PM
AFCA released it. It's just not a high priority for me to post it. It's behind Around the Region, Team of the Week, not to mention feeding my kids and putting them to bed.
Not busting you Pat! I must not have hit the refresh button because I went to the NCAA site and it wasn't there. I didn't expect you to release it pronto as D3Football.com's is the gold standard by me anyway. ;)
Check that Pat. They still have not loaded it onto NCAAsports.com. Guess its not that important to them in the whole realm of college football. :-\
For fun, I did my final power ranking compendium of the year.
Basically, I take three power ranking, SOS, and another factor and see what the results are. Just for fun.
Here's the top 25.
1. Wisc - Whitewater
2. St. John's
3. Augustana
4. Linfield (SOS weaker than Augie)
5. North Central
6. Central
7. Concodria - Moorehead
8. Mt. Union
9. Coe
10. Wesley
11. Mary Hardin-Baylor
12. Delaware Valley
13. St. Olaf (the power rankings have always liked them)
14. Trinity (TX)
15. Capital
16. Rowan
17. Wabash
18. Union
19. Ohio Northern
20. Wisc - Oshkosh
21. Thiel
22. Wheaton
23. Monmouth
24. Carthage
25. Occidental (the power rankings have always disliked them)
Other Playoff teams:
26. Cortland State
27. Hobart
31. Ithaca
34. Wilkes
36. Washington & Jefferson
40. Mt. St. Joseph
45. Ferrum
48. Bridgewater
53. Lakeland
54. Albion
62. Johns Hopkins
93. Curry
And for fun, the Bottom 10
219. Nichols
218. Mass Maritime
217. Concordia (IL)
216. Becker
215. Principia (hey, they WON a game!)
214. Macalester
213. Eureka
212. Mt. Ida
211. Hiram
210. Tri-State
Where is Trinity bible college? Are they considered DIII? I thought they would make the bottom for sure.
They're not D-3. I don't know what they are, really, but they're not D-3. They may not have been last, they did win a game as well.
TBC is a Division II member of the NCCAA (the extra "C" is "Christian") and a football-only member of the mixed division UMAC.
Not bad, really ...
Quote from: smedindy on November 15, 2005, 01:23:45 PM
For fun, I did my final power ranking compendium of the year.
Basically, I take three power ranking, SOS, and another factor and see what the results are. Just for fun.
Here's the top 25.
1. Wisc - Whitewater
2. St. John's
3. Augustana
4. Linfield (SOS weaker than Augie)
5. North Central
6. Central
7. Concodria - Moorehead
8. Mt. Union
9. Coe
10. Wesley
11. Mary Hardin-Baylor
12. Delaware Valley
13. St. Olaf (the power rankings have always liked them)
14. Trinity (TX)
15. Capital
16. Rowan
17. Wabash
18. Union
19. Ohio Northern
20. Wisc - Oshkosh
21. Thiel
22. Wheaton
23. Monmouth
24. Carthage
25. Occidental (the power rankings have always disliked them)
Other Playoff teams:
26. Cortland State
27. Hobart
31. Ithaca
34. Wilkes
36. Washington & Jefferson
40. Mt. St. Joseph
45. Ferrum
48. Bridgewater
53. Lakeland
54. Albion
62. Johns Hopkins
93. Curry
And for fun, the Bottom 10
219. Nichols
218. Mass Maritime
217. Concordia (IL)
216. Becker
215. Principia (hey, they WON a game!)
214. Macalester
213. Eureka
212. Mt. Ida
211. Hiram
210. Tri-State
See, it all sorts out in the end. Just like I said! ;)
The poll is back.
http://www.d3football.com/top25/
Kind of curious on how the voters' minds operate on this. While I probably could dig through the beginnings of the last few seasons to divine a few inferences I am particularly interested in the dive in the rankings that W&J took and the dropping out by Thiel - despite their 7-0 win over the #20 NAIA team.
My speculation is that the factors that play into this are 1) some teams that weren't expected to impress in week #1 actually did impress (UW-LAX especially) - now room has to be made for them in the top 25 and 2) W&J's fall from grace and the generally poor performance of the PAC this week had a trickle down effect on Thiel. Perhaps that is why 0-0 Whitworth moves ahead of Thiel. Regardless, I'm betting that Thiel would have dropped out even if W&J had won - due to the need to make room for LAX. I'm just guessing it wouldn't have been quite as far of a drop if the rest of the PAC had played better.
Any insights from voters? Are there other factors I should be considering that play into your deliberations?
I think you're right about making room for UW-La Crosse. I also think there was some room made for Ithaca, which had some questions to answer about its freshman quarterback.
Trinity was impressive in their opener against ETBU, as well--which was surprising to many in the South. At first blush it looks like the predictions for that game were 50-50, one way or the other. Nobody was expecting a blowout, though, which might lead voters to believe that Trinity is stronger than first expected.
You guys nailed three teams that moved up or into my poll, and I did some serious juggling after Week 1, although I admit I wasn't voting for Thiel either week.
As a voter, I tend not to follow the "win and move up by however many teams ahead of you lost" theory. I like to re-rank from scratch every week, especially in the early going. Quite often, a lot of my ballot stays the same, but some teams make big moves up or down for different reasons.
The reasons aren't always the same, but there is a reason for why every team is where it is.
That said, I hate for a team to not play and move too far either way, and wins generally shouldn't move teams too far down, although unimpressive wins can cost a team. The deal is in D3, there's 10-15 teams knocking at the top 25s door each week, and if one scores a big win and another doesn't, the right thing to do is rank the team you think is better/deserves it.
Then there's also the voters who project how good a team is/will be, even if it hasn't proven anything yet, and those who go only by past results ... early in the season, deviations from expectations built on past results can cause wild swings in the polls.
I'll discuss my own ballot further in ATN, but I thought it was a good discussion to contribute to.
This place is as good as any to catch up on...
QuoteWhich will be the first highly ranked team to lose?
Who was it please?
I'm guessing UMHB-
then LINFIELD?
Quote from: DenSLA D.O.C. on September 12, 2006, 05:27:16 PM
This place is as good as any to catch up on...
QuoteWhich will be the first highly ranked team to lose?
Who was it please?
I'm guessing UMHB-
then LINFIELD?
Not sure, but I think Augie's loss was earlier in the day (unless they're not included as 'highly' ranked).
No hatred for the poll?
Odd, but I'll take it.
Nice showing by New York schools. Similar to the WIAC most of those teams will knock eachother out by years end. but good for now.
Why is Linfield,with 0-2 start,still in top 25? Last season is over.....base placement on what is happenening during THIS season.
If you want standings, you can certainly take teams and order them by win-loss record yourself.
The two teams that Linfield has played are better than anyone Union will face the entire regular season. Our voters are smart enough to know that Linfield is still a top 25 team.
Quote from: dea on September 19, 2006, 04:26:45 PM
Why is Linfield,with 0-2 start,still in top 25? Last season is over.....base placement on what is happenening during THIS season.
Dea,
I respond to this argument on the Daily Dose, and will probably also share it in ATN.
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/?p=233#comments
Quote from: enginegro on September 19, 2006, 08:33:42 AM
Nice showing by New York schools. Similar to the WIAC most of those teams will knock eachother out by years end. but good for now.
One small problem to your theory. Cortland has already played 3 of the 4 NY schools on its schedule and beaten them all. The only one left (on the NY side of the schedule) is Ithaca on Veterans Day.
Cortland probably will be 8-0 going into November. Its last 2 are at Rowan and the Cortaca game (at Cortland this year) v. Ithaca.
Quote from: jmw73 on September 28, 2006, 06:16:29 PM
Quote from: enginegro on September 19, 2006, 08:33:42 AM
Nice showing by New York schools. Similar to the WIAC most of those teams will knock eachother out by years end. but good for now.
One small problem to your theory. Cortland has already played 3 of the 4 NY schools on its schedule and beaten them all. The only one left (on the NY side of the schedule) is Ithaca on Veterans Day.
Cortland probably will be 8-0 going into November. Its last 2 are at Rowan and the Cortaca game (at Cortland this year) v. Ithaca.
So cortland stays... how does that ruin my theory?
I don't think the NY schools will knock each other out. I think 2 or 3 will make the D3 tournament.
Yes, but I think 'Gro was talking about the Top 25. It's possible that teams could make the playoffs and not be in the poll.
Incidentally I think the LL and E8 will get the benefit of the doubt and keep a team in the Top 25 even if they suffer one loss. Two loses is another story.
Quote from: enginegro on September 30, 2006, 06:29:57 PM
Quote from: jmw73 on September 28, 2006, 06:16:29 PM
Quote from: enginegro on September 19, 2006, 08:33:42 AM
Nice showing by New York schools. Similar to the WIAC most of those teams will knock eachother out by years end. but good for now.
One small problem to your theory. Cortland has already played 3 of the 4 NY schools on its schedule and beaten them all. The only one left (on the NY side of the schedule) is Ithaca on Veterans Day.
Cortland probably will be 8-0 going into November. Its last 2 are at Rowan and the Cortaca game (at Cortland this year) v. Ithaca.
So cortland stays... how does that ruin my theory?
(I was thinking the same think but wasn't going to mention it)
Actually, I think "Gro" as we're calling him, was talking mostly about the LL and E8.
yes and no and maybe...
My point is that its good to see all these NY teams in the poll this early. but sooner or later only a few teams will remain because most of them play eachother (through the E8 and LL, but you have brockport, cortland, and buffstate in the mix too). Much like the 1st couple of polls every year has most of the WIAC teams in there... only a few will remain in the end because of the losses, doesn't mean they are bad teams though. Long story short NY is getting respect and I like it. A nice ali G style "Big up" to the pollsters.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuartmorrison.com%2Fimages%2Fmain_ali_g_04.jpg&hash=1d5a44c5176ab6fca8cea51f14ddfaf951d381f1)
as far as the playoffs go expect 3-4 teams easy. Fisher has the early lead on the E8 and a 1 loss Ithaca will most likely get a bid (Springfield, MA is my spoiler pick). Top teams in the LL are from NY and a 1 loss runner up should get a pool C also. Cortland looks like a 1 loss team too.
Respek!
Quote from: enginegro on October 04, 2006, 03:21:34 PM
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuartmorrison.com%2Fimages%2Fmain_ali_g_04.jpg&hash=1d5a44c5176ab6fca8cea51f14ddfaf951d381f1)
I'm beginning to wonder about the AFCA poll.
This week, UMHB moves up three spots after beating (previously #6) HSU. If I were voting, I may have moved them up a few spots more, but hey--that's the way the vote goes.
HSU, however, falls 11 places. 11 places! Ohio Northern, who lost to the #1 team in the country, drops 10! Granted, the Polar Bears were beaten soundly by the Raiders, but there's no way Mt. St. Joseph's ought to be ranked ahead of ONU.
Sheesh.
What's taken you so long to start wondering about that one? :)
Senility beginning to set in, I suppose. :)
Couldn't believe Wheaton was top 10 this week in AFCA, but I give it up to them for having Cortland ahead of Rowan, no matter how that actually pans out. I don't think the Robert Morris loss should've affected their ranking, but lackluster results since have.
I think I am the only person in the country voting for CNU over Mary Hardin-Baylor, which I saw with my own two eyes. It was not a fluke. Sure UMHB was far from home, in their first game in a new offensive system and new season and fumbled on the 1, but CNU had two loooong scoring plays called back at the end of the first half. They definitely could have tacked more points on. I think CNU compares with the Wesley team that beat UMHB in last year's playoffs.
I just don't agree with CNU and UMHB being so far from each other in either poll. (It's not like this is a reaction to UMHB playing tougher competition, although I'm sure they surged some after HSU) And Rowan has to stay ahead of CNU. Springfield over Union. Baldwin-Wallace before Augustana.
Seems simple enough. A team you beat head-to-head is a team you're better than, more often than not.
(starts beef)
Only FOUR games involving two teams from D3football.com Top 25 this week, and three of them include teams from the "Other Receiving Votes" section.
#14 St. John Fisher (7-0) vs. #17 Springfield (6-0) (thanks to "theoriginal")
#31 Wartburg (5-1) takes on #24 Coe (6-1)
#33 UW-Platteville (4-2) faces #2 UW-Whitewater
#40 Baldwin-Wallace (5-1) has #1 Mt. Union (6-0)
There won't be any debating about whether a Top 25's loss THIS week is an upset...
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on October 16, 2006, 12:07:00 PM
Only three games involving two teams from D3football.com Top 25 this week, and all three of them include teams from the "Other Receiving Votes" section.
#31 Wartburg (5-1) takes on #24 Coe (6-1)
#33 UW-Platteville (4-2) faces #2 UW-Whitewater
#40 Baldwin-Wallace (5-1) has #1 Mt. Union (6-0)
There won't be any debating about whether a Top 25's loss THIS week is an upset...
How bout St. John Fisher vs Springfield???
Last time I check they were both ranked....
corrected.
Thanks, original.
Yeah,
That's really the only one since the others are not actually in the top 25 ... but again, D3 being so big, the No. 2 or 3 team in some conferences can be ranked 40th or whatever and flip-flop with No. 15 on one Saturday.
Normally, I would try to avoid making this statement, but this is really bugging me:
I have to question the poll when a team (Capital) can lose by 26 points--even if it was to MUC--and only fall one spot. I also have to question a UMHB team losing their second game of the season (their offense stinks, folks--look at the season stats: they're next-to-last in the ASC in total offense) and not dropping at all.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 30, 2006, 10:21:11 AM
Normally, I would try to avoid making this statement, but this is really bugging me:
I have to question the poll when a team (Capital) can lose by 26 points--even if it was to MUC--and only fall one spot. I also have to question a UMHB team losing their second game of the season (their offense stinks, folks--look at the season stats: they're next-to-last in the ASC in total offense) and not dropping at all.
Josh,
I won't disagree... What we need is an ASC hybrid team. HSU's O and MHB's D.
While Capital might have lost by 26, I'd still take even money on them versus anyone ranked below them in the poll other than LaCrosse from the WIAC because of the physical nature of the WIAC teams. The weather conditions Saturday (35 degrees, rain/freezing rain/snow mix, 30+ mph winds) sure didn't help the Capital offense either since they typically throw it 50+ times a game. Their defense had no answer for Kmic and the MUC running game so the 38 points MUC scored was legit, but in decent weather conditions I would have expected Capital to score in the mid-20's for a 2 TD spread.
One thing to keep in mind on why the stayed near the top is that a few other top 10 teams lost too.
I'm not saying that either team isn't worthy of the top ten, but you lose, you should drop--and more than one spot (unless #2 beats #1 in the Stagg Bowl). That's the way it's always worked in the poll before, and I'm really surprised about this week's voting results.
Not to be unobjective, I will say in defense of the pollsters as a group, that the vote totals show a significant degree of disagreement between the voters, as only 39 votes seperate #5 Capital from #8 Occidental.
Josh, I wouldn't expect a #6 team to drop very much, if at all, when they lose by 4 to the #2 team. Those were 2 great teams playing and I would think that both are Top 5.
Sometimes a loss confirms a team's place in the poll, thus leaving them where they were.
Keep in mind what happened in the Top 7.
No. 1 won by a large margin at home against No. 4.
No. 2 won barely on the road at No. 6.
No. 4 lost by a large margin on the road at No. 1.
No. 6 lost barely at home to No. 2.
No. 7 lost on the road at a .500 team.
And remember that No. 6 has a head-to-head win against No. 8.
The only way to really satisfy all of this data would have been to drop both UMHB and Hardin-Simmons below someone in the poll. I don't think too many voters believe Occidental is that good. UW-La Crosse is a better candidate in my book but not everyone has the ballot in that order.
I'm not overly convinced, either, that Wesley is better than Capital, in all honesty.
So, sure, we'll drop UMHB more than one spot, but your alma mater gets dragged down in the process. :)
I am sure the AFCA will ignore the HSU/UMHB head to head result and drop UMHB significantly.
Quote from: JT on October 30, 2006, 11:53:47 AM
Sometimes a loss confirms a team's place in the poll, thus leaving them where they were.
Yes, exactly. If the poll ain't broke, don't fix it.
Pat, when does the AFCA poll come out?
Tuesdays.
Quote
Josh,
I won't disagree... What we need is an ASC hybrid team. HSU's O and MHB's D.
Toby, that's what we had @ HSU before UMHB started their football program. If you can get the Crusaders to focus on some other sport we can have it again! :)
Seriously, I'm only arguing in favor of HSU by default. I didn't expect UMHB to really drop precipitously after such a close game against the #2 team. It is worth pointing out, though, that UMHB now has two DIII losses and is still in the top 10. Averett, for example, who has lost to only Mt. Union and Wesley--isn't even receiving votes in the poll!
It's the Capital poll placement that surprises me the most. Although, Ohio Northern only dropped seven spots after they were beaten by 42 by Mt. Union. Given Capital and ONU played a tight game (17-10) it's hard for me to understand their only dropping one spot after losing by four touchdowns.
And speaking of the Polar Bears, have the wheels just come completely off up there?
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 30, 2006, 01:06:04 PM
Seriously, I'm only arguing in favor of HSU by default. I didn't expect UMHB to really drop precipitously after such a close game against the #2 team. It is worth pointing out, though, that UMHB now has two DIII losses and is still in the top 10. Averett, for example, who has lost to only Mt. Union and Wesley--isn't even receiving votes in the poll!
Come on now, Josh, who did Averett beat? Isn't that apples and oranges to a UMHB team that has a win against someone currently in the Top 10?
Capital could very well have dropped below both UMHB and HSU. But then UMHB moves up a spot for losing. You'd certainly be upset by that as well. :)
The poll is a poll,
It does not take into the consideration of bias of the voters. The logic that you state makes sense but I don't think it is used completely through with all the teams. Whitworth comes to mind. Who have they played? They have not played a winning team yet and they are a top ten team? It is an opinion of 25 informed yet bias people. It will never be perfect because we as human's aren't. It is what we have and right or wrong we will have to live with it.
Thankfully with 25 people we can represent a bunch of conferences and eliminate the bias by spreading the ballots out across the country.
I'm just sayin' that I'm sayin'.......aw, fhuggedaboudit. ;)
WELL SAID JOSH! ;D I couldn't have said it better myself. I gave you a karma point for that.
Not sure I can say this right but I will try.
You get a team that has beat everyone in the conference. Yet you peg them because they haven't beaten anyone with a winning record. They don't have a choice in the matter as to who they play in the conference. They are not god and are unable to make everyone they play have a winning record. Why toss them to one side if they are winning. Just because the conference foes are weak, doesn't mean the winning team
is weak. I know they will have to prove themselves at some point in time.
Take Averett for example, the two out of conference teams they played are ranked # 1 and #3 (I think) this week. Everyone thought they were stupid to schedule those guys, but at least they had the B.... to get on the same field with those guys and give it a shot. I don't see where it has hurt them yet. Averett has won all their conference games thus far. Plus they beat Guildford who has knocked off some good teams in the ODAC conference as well (Bridgewater). They beat NCW who turned around and beat CNU whom everyone believed was the best in the conference and rated in the top 20.
At what point do you say OK, this team deserves some recongination, yet
because of their opponets records you shove them to one side and say
oh well.
Does Averett belong in the top 10, NO but they should be looked at somewhere in the top 30, until someone knocks them out again, and given credit for winning thus far within the conference.
Ask yourself this if Mount Union or UMHB was undefeated and their conference foes were as weak and didn't have winning records, would you still rank them #1 or would you knock them down to the bottom of the pile.
kickerdad, nicely said. Averett gets their chance for some respect this Saturday when they play @ CNU. Win that game and the votes should start coming!
Pat,
I hope you didn't infer a negative post with my last post here. I was just saying that the poll is an opinion. With that being said when ever you get that there is going to be room of arguments.
With 25 ballots you do spread the bias out. Hopefully it does even out. But with opinions there will always be bias was all I was saying. I don't have glaring differences with the poll. D3 does a great job of covering football. And really reading Kmacks reasons and column explain a lot. I really like it when he explains who he voted for and why gives me more insight to what the rest of the country is all about.
No, that's OK, I didn't really tak it that way. Just wanted to put on the record that that is something which is on my mind when making up the voter pool.
Hm.
A hybrid UMHB-HSU team? Mary-Hardin Simmons Cowsaders? They would be pretty good.
For that matter, so would a Delaware Valley-Rowan team this year. Del Val wide receivers, meet Mike Orihel. They could be the Rowan Valley Agricultural Professors.
Or we could combine Mount Union with..um..uh..well, themselves. :)
And Orihel played his H.S. Football less than a quarter of a mile from Del Val at CB West. I still wonder how he has a N.J address....Maybe the same way most of CB Wests championship players did...
I'm not complaining at all, especially with their weak schedule, but how many weeks now has Carnegie Mellon been floating around the 25 spot in numerous polls.
Like I said, I'm not complaining, I was just interested to see how long they've been hanging around that 26-30 spot but haven't cracked the top 25 yet.
History of CMU receiving votes in the D3football.com Top 25:
The numbers are year, week, "rank" and total points received.
2004 1 53 Carnegie Mellon 1
2006 2 50 Carnegie Mellon 2
2006 3 50 Carnegie Mellon 3
2006 4 39 Carnegie Mellon 5
2006 5 37 Carnegie Mellon 6
2006 6 36 Carnegie Mellon 9
2006 7 34 Carnegie Mellon 15
2006 8 30 Carnegie Mellon 18
2006 9 27 Carnegie Mellon 32
Thanks Pat, I see they've garnered the most respect in recent years with a win at WUStL. I know they've been hanging around the high 20's, low 30's in the AFCA poll for a couple weeks now.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 30, 2006, 02:47:17 PM
Pat,
I hope you didn't infer a negative post with my last post here. I was just saying that the poll is an opinion.
Pat,
I hope you do take this as a negative post (my karma isn't really an issue at this point) b/c I think its OK to disagree with the guru sometimes. I can't believe you called Averett out like that and didn't respond to what kickerdad said. And whoever said AU needs to beat CNU to start getting noticed is full of it b/c they WON THE LAST MATCHUP!
Averett's won 9 USAC games in a row and 11 of its last 13 with losses to 2 of the top 5 teams in the country. For the HANDS DOWN best team in the conference to have to beat CNU again to even get a vote in the top 30 is crazy.
Here's the deal - no playoff experience, no fans who have cool websites, and not enough posters on these boards with thousands of posts and a zillion karma rating who do columns and polls so Averett gets overlooked as the best team in VA.
No biggie - Averett will do to the national poll just what they started doing to the regional fan poll - keep winning! Pat, come up with every excuse in the book, just make sure you make other VA teams beat "SOMEBODY" before earning your vote.
Like when Christopher Newport beat Mary Hardin-Baylor?
You can't get respect simply by losing to the good teams on the schedule until you beat one of them. In the case of the USAC, that means beating the big dog, Christopher Newport. When/if you do, and not before, Averett will get poll respect. And that would be in 2006, not in 2005, when Christopher Newport didn't make the playoffs. I mean, shoot, beating CNU last year wasn't exactly unique to Averett.
Pat, when do this weeks regional rankings come out?
Should be Wednesday, same as last week.
All right, thanks. Expecting any changes in them?
One big change is Rowan going KERPLUNK in the eastern Region.
Oh yeah, I forgot about them getting knocked off.
Well I am confused. You say that Averett beating CNU last year wasn't unique????
All of a sudden everyone becomes old and senile. Did the folks at D3Football.Com forget that you had CNU ranked #16 in the country at the
beginning of the season and picked to win the USA South Conference?????
And you made sure to mention that they were without 4 staters when
they lost to Rowan.
It may not mean anything to the rest of the world but for Averett to beat
two teams last year that they have never beaten since they began to play football, one being CNU, and the other being Shenandoah who I remind everyone was picked by the "Guru's" of D3Football to also be at the top of the hill in the USA South. I think that was exciting and unique for the
Averett folks.
But I hear what you are saying, because CNU didn't make it to the playoffs then thier loss to Averett didn't mean squat. I suppose that after 5 years of kicking Averetts butt that losing to them didn't bother CNU fans either, because they weren't going to the playoff's. Interesting.
With ref to CNU being ranked #16 in Country. I was referring to last year (2005) in case anyone forgot.
Kickerdad, in the event you say anything relevant to Averett 2006 let me know, ok? :)
Pat C. - didn't mean to step on your toes. Nice come back.
Pat C - just to clear up one thing, I went back and reviewed my post from yesterday and I don't see anywhere in that post where I made mention to 2005. You tossed the ball with 2005 across the net, I just returned it.
I didn't respond to your post from yesterday either, if I recall correctly.
Josh Bowerman posted about Averett. I responded to him. You posted. Then Eh-You posted. I responded to him. You responded to me. I responded to that.
In the event that's as confusing as it is when I'm writing it, sorry.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2006, 11:55:52 AM
in the event you say anything relevant to Averett 2006 let me know, ok? :)
I'm giving it a shot. I honestly am judging Averett on the basis of what they seem to be regionally - NOT South Region - but their area of the country. I don't (as I have been very honest about) have much knowledge of D3 football on a national level, but here's what I see:
Averett is the best team in the USAC, their
2006 conference record proves it. Based on what they did in
2006 against Guilford,who defeated Bridgewater in
2006, who defeated W&L in
2006 and what AU did against Ferrum in
2006 who nearly beat Bridgewater in
2006 I think its safe to say that Averett is the best them in the USAC or ODAC in
2006. That would logically make them the best D3 team in a very large area of the Southeastern United States in
2006.
I've seen other teams (CNU, Bridgewater, W&L) get votes in the top 25 poll in
2006 and either not meet this
2006 criteria that you are setting forth (Bridgewater, W&L) or lose a game that they shouldn't have (CNU) in
2006.
I simply think AU deserves the same respect that these teams have gotten.
On a national level, AU does deserve credit for a few things. They gave Wesley all they wanted for 57 minutes in
2006. In AU's first game EVER in that environment on the road their team responded well after getting BLOWN OUT in week one. If you say that they get no credit for that, then put UMHB with other two loss teams. Is a loss a loss, or not? Play it the same for everyone in
2006. And Averett also has established themselves as the top team in a conference that beat a top ten team (UMHB) in
2006.
If the
2006 versions of Bridgewater, CNU and W & L have been worthy of votes so is the
2006 version of Averett. I'm sure you still disagree - fine - but don't act like there isn't anything to be said about the
2006 Cougars.
Pat---Can you clearify what this means (Who's in: Occidental (SCIAC), St. Norbert (MWC), Concordia, Wis. (IBC), Mt. St. Joseph (HCAC).
I read this on the front page of the site. Does this mean these teams from the conference are in a good spot for a lead to be sent into the postseason?????
THanks
From "The Confused B.E.64"
They have clinched automatic bids.
Eh-you: A loss is a loss. A win is a win.
What is the Averett win that stacks up with UMHB's win against Hardin-Simmons? Do tell.
<<sound of crickets chirping>>
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 30, 2006, 11:24:51 AMI'm not saying that either team isn't worthy of the top ten, but you lose, you should drop--and more than one spot (unless #2 beats #1 in the Stagg Bowl).
Josh,
Looks like some other people have tackled this from some of the other angles, so all I wanted to say is this: I don't believe it's a function of the poll to "punish" teams for losing by requiring them to fall when they lose. Not all losses are the same, and as noted, not all weeks are the same. When the rest of the top 10 has a rough week, what can you do?
The poll's sole goal is to rank the 25 best teams in order each week. So if Capital gets crushed by Mount Union, but a voter doesn't feel confident that say ... Occidental ... would beat Capital, then he doesn't have to drop them behind that team. Maybe there's just a huge gap between No. 1 and No. 4.
Same for UMHB. When you play basically a coin-flip game with the consensus No. 2 team in the country and your defense shuts them out, you might even be able to argue that Mary Hardin-Baylor helped itself in the loss.
I have not read in detail this Averett stuff, but I can say this: Their best win is against 5-3 Guilford. If they beat CNU they will get some shine, but when you lose your opener 64-7 and you start out 0-2, it takes a while to gain enough momentum for people to notice. That's just a fact of the schedule you built and the size of Division III.
Also, contrary to someone's argument, being the best team in the ODAC or USAC is not very significant this season. Maybe if you beat CNU you can extrapolate that to being as good as the Texas teams, but perhaps Averett caught a whiff of the OAC's strength in that Mount Union game.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 31, 2006, 07:20:27 PM
I have not read in detail this Averett stuff, but I can say this: Their best win is against 5-3 Guilford. If they beat CNU they will get some shine, but when you lose your opener 64-7 and you start out 0-2, it takes a while to gain enough momentum for people to notice. That's just a fact of the schedule you built and the size of Division III.
Also, contrary to someone's argument, being the best team in the ODAC or USAC is not very significant this season. Maybe if you beat CNU you can extrapolate that to being as good as the Texas teams, but perhaps Averett caught a whiff of the OAC's strength in that Mount Union game.
Now that is a good post. Disagreement, facts, no smart remarks
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2006, 06:44:36 PM
Eh-you: A loss is a loss. A win is a win.
What is the Averett win that stacks up with UMHB's win against Hardin-Simmons? Do tell.
and nothing that screams "I'm the guru, and you are all idiots".
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2006, 11:55:52 AM
Kickerdad, in the event you say anything relevant to Averett 2006 let me know, ok? :)
Thanks K for your insight - and 4 the record I wasn't saying AU is anywhere near as good as the Texas teams.
Pat - not sure what post you were reading, but how about responding to any point I tried to make and not acting like I said something I didn't. In reference to UMHB, here is what I said (for the second time)- try to follow the logic
1. Averett @ Wesley was an 11 point game until 3:00 left.
2. Averett should get a little bit of credit for a decent game @Wesley. Saying otherwise would be saying "a loss is a loss"
3. If a loss is a loss than UMHB can't get credit for the CNU or UW-W games
At no time did I mention that AU had a win that compared to that of UMHB win against Hardin Simmons - They DON'T
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 31, 2006, 06:44:36 PM
Do tell.
(I am telling) and AU is not ready to be in the same conversation with them. How about reread my post and instead of shooting your mouth off like some hotshot, respond to a point I actually made - Why does AU not get the same respect that other teams in its area previously got,
FROM YOU, until falling flat on their faces?
Because Averett has yet to do anything ever in its history as a football program to merit a spot in the Top 25, that's why. If you ever do something, it gains you a little bit of benefit of the doubt in the future.
Salisbury played a much more decent game against Wesley than Averett did, and they are also not in the Top 25. It's not who you lost to, it's who you beat.
I already made the point that beating CNU would get Averett a little run, but I guess you weren't interested in hearing it from me.
Being down 11 with 4:00 to go against Wesley (I checked the box score) is not the accomplishment you make it out to be. At that point you weren't driving with a shot to tie, you were down by two scores and you didn't even have the ball. You keep holding this stat up as if it's some magic combination, when it really just isn't. I'm sorry. And the final four minutes count, too. The NCAA has already shortened the games enough as it is -- you don't get to shorten them further by calling 56 minutes a game.
The Massey Ratings, a computer ranking untouched by human hands and not subject to bias, puts Averett at 51. Only 37 teams received votes this week.
Pat C. - thanks for your explanation to En You on the last two post. I personally like to see you guys at D3Football.Com respond in that tone
and fashion (at least showing that you have a little compassion) rather than your sharpe responses (previous to me and En You) that made it appear you could care less about Averett and you wanted to be a Smart
A__.
We totaly respect your knowledge and your insight but when you respond
in the fashion as you did earlier yesterday and day before, then you just
create hate and discontent among your followers. We look to you guys
for the truth and insite. We sometimes don't want to agree with what you
tell us, but it certainly is easier to swaller when you don't come across
like jerks.
Again, thanks for all you guys do and keep up the good work. I left you a
question on the ODAC Board when you have time.
Why is it:
D-IA can have updated polls up before the Sunday paper goes to press?
D-II can have updated polls (Regional Rankings) in time for the area D-II schools to email me Sunday afternoon about where their teams are now listed?
D-III can't get them (Regional Rankings) before NOON on WEDNESDAY??????
Can somebody tell me, please????
Quote from: kickerdad on November 01, 2006, 09:38:20 AM
Pat C. - thanks for your explanation to En You on the last two post. I personally like to see you guys at D3Football.Com respond in that tone
and fashion (at least showing that you have a little compassion) rather than your sharpe responses (previous to me and En You) that made it appear you could care less about Averett and you wanted to be a Smart
A__.
I appreciate your response. It's much preferred to the attitude EY has shown all over the message board this fall.
What goes around, comes around.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 01, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
Why is it:
D-IA can have updated polls up before the Sunday paper goes to press?
D-II can have updated polls (Regional Rankings) in time for the area D-II schools to email me Sunday afternoon about where their teams are now listed?
D-III can't get them (Regional Rankings) before NOON on WEDNESDAY??????
Can somebody tell me, please????
The most knowledgeable poll on D3 is usually on the web page by 8:00 pm EST every Sunday! ;)
And "kid" has the South Region Fan's Poll on the Message board ASAP! ;D
Ralphy boy, pal of mine---
You KNOW I wasn't referring to D-3 Football.com, the MECCA of the D-3 World.
I'm all over the D-3 Top 25 when it breaks.
I'm all over the Fan Poll for the South.
But, my inquiry was about the workings of the NCAA Regional Rankings, that little Official Poll thing.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 01, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
Why is it:
D-IA can have updated polls up before the Sunday paper goes to press?
D-II can have updated polls (Regional Rankings) in time for the area D-II schools to email me Sunday afternoon about where their teams are now listed?
D-III can't get them (Regional Rankings) before NOON on WEDNESDAY??????
Can somebody tell me, please????
Sure, Bob. It's probably like this:
Sunday: Pollsters vote. Carrier pigeons dispatched (that's all the budget the AA allocates to DIII postage matters).
Monday: Carrier pigeons arrive by early evening in Indianapolis after overnight stay in Poughkeepsie and a couple of lunch/restroom layovers in Chicago. Isn't the hub-and-spokes system grand?
Tuesday: NCAA interns scrape carrier pigeon poo accumulated overnight off documents for first half day, then hang votes outside on clothesline to dry and de-odor overnight.
Wednesday: Votes tallied to ensure accuracy by 27 AA bureaucrats before Miles Brand signs off on releasing the data. Brand is overheard asking "now what poll is this again?" Votes are released online by erstwhile intern hoping to rid the office of poo smelling paper votes.
It puzzles me a little, too. The regional committee conference call is Monday, national committee is Tuesday. Why can't they release them on Tuesday?
And if they're REGIONAL rankings, why can't they release them MONDAY!@!@!@!@!@!
Because the national committee goes over them in their Tuesday morning call. But why not Tuesday, great question.
(cue music from 'Psycho')
I'm telling you both, it's the pigeons... 8)
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on November 01, 2006, 12:15:07 PM
(cue music from 'Psycho')
I'm telling you both, it's the pigeons... 8)
Wouldn't music from "The Birds" be more appropriate?
Will someone please tell the new kid on the boards (Me) what a Karma
is and where do the numbers come from or go to.
Quote from: kickerdad on November 01, 2006, 12:23:22 PM
Will someone please tell the new kid on the boards (Me) what a Karma
is and where do the numbers come from or go to.
Frequently Asked Question 34. What is karma?
Posted On
Sep 07, 2005 at 12:00 AM Karma is similar to the post rating on the old message boards, except it rates an individual poster and follows the poster wherever they post.
Only more veteran posters are allowed to affect a poster's karma, and this is done via links titled "applaud" or "smite" under a poster's name. The restriction is in order to limit the ability of so-called one-star bandits to affect a poster's karma without being registered for the board or a true member of the community.
You cannot applaud or smite yourself, and you can only applaud or smite each individual poster every few hours. Also, if you continually praise or smite an individual poster, eventually you'll run out of karma to give that individual.
Applauding a poster raises their karma by one; smiting lowers it by one.
Quote from: Just Bill on November 01, 2006, 12:19:33 PM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on November 01, 2006, 12:15:07 PM
(cue music from 'Psycho')
I'm telling you both, it's the pigeons... 8)
Wouldn't music from "The Birds" be more appropriate?
Probably, but I liked the 'Psycho' music better. Screech, screeech, screech, screech....
:)
Pat I've got good news and bad news buddy! Good news - I had a little back and forth with Kid, Llama, Josh, Ron and the gang over at the South Region poll for a few days and we're boys now - so I think there's hope for me and you Bad news - I'm afraid you might like the kiss and make up process too much!
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 01, 2006, 11:39:34 AM
Ralphy boy, pal of mine---
You KNOW I wasn't referring to D-3 Football.com, the MECCA of the D-3 World.
I'm all over the D-3 Top 25 when it breaks.
I'm all over the Fan Poll for the South.
But, my inquiry was about the workings of the NCAA Regional Rankings, that little Official Poll thing.
;D :D :) ;) 8) The following posts were very clever! Thanks to all for making me smile!
Bob, Good luck to the Generals!
polls are posted:
http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/polls/polls/diviii
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on November 01, 2006, 12:15:07 PM
(cue music from 'Psycho')
I'm telling you both, it's the pigeons... 8)
Josh if the pigeons theory is true, if the wind is blowing the wrong direction the votes get there late and you get the stink to boot... Ooooops my bad the that smell wasn't from the pigeons. It was pe-you opps I mean eh-you
Here's a good one that we have tossed around on the UAA board. Why is Whitworth ranked in the top 10 and CMU hasn't cracked the top 25 yet?? Let's take a look at the schedules and other things concerning 2006.
Whitworth
@ Redlands (3-4) W 28-3
Vs. La Verne (2-5) W 37-16
@ UW-Stout (3-5) W 14-13 2 OT
Vs. Azusa Pacific (2-6) W 17-14
@ Pacific Lutheran (3-5) W 19-7
Vs. Lewis and Clark (0-7) W 70-3
@ Menlo (3-5) W 26-7
Vs. Williamette W 28-14
@ #15 Linfield (5-2)
Vs. Puget Sound (6-2)
Opponents W/L record= 28-47
CMU
@ Hiram (0-8) W 27-6
@ Grove City (1-7) W 28-0
Vs. Westminster PA. (2-6) W 33-6
Vs. Franklin & Marshall (3-5) W 34-14
Vs. Colorado College (3-5) W 50-26
@ Case Western Reserve (4-4) W 20-10
Vs. Chicago (2-5) W 27-0
@ Washington U (5-4) W 10-7 OT
Vs. Bethany (4-4)
@ Thiel (4-4)
Opponents W/L record= 28-52
CMU has a higher QOWI by .857. Both teams have played 6 teams in the bottom half of QOWI. So far out of the opponents each team has played CMU's opponents avg. QOWI is 6.795 and Whitworth's opponents avg. QOWI is 6.457. Plus, Whitworth only beat a 2-6 Azusa Pacific team 17-14 and the game was in Spokane. I understand that Azusa played UWW and UW-LaCrosse the two previous weeks, but other than those three straight games it looks to me like Azusa plays a pretty weak NAIA schedule.
I would appreciate any feedback. I'm not trying to rip the polls, its just something that I found interesting.
BDT -
I am pretty sure it comes down to the voters knowing there is a definite difference in quality between a 3-5 Stout team and a 3-5 Colorado College team. Same could be said for PLU vs. CW Reserve and several of the other teams on the lists.
Going into the Whitworth game, Azusa had losses to San Diego (top team in I-AA mid majors - whatever that means), Whitewater and LAX. Once Azusa got past Whitworth, they went down to a third string QB and things really went into the tank.
I think we've already discussed this. And pineconefan nailed it on the head: Not all 3-5's are created the same. Not sure I buy into PLU but I definitely do buy into UW-Stout.
It's harder to get into the top 25 than to lose your way out....
So what? All I've ever seen as far as the knock on CMU is their schedule and their opponents W/L record. If you go by the numbers(and my numbers aren't lies) then there shouldn't be that huge of a disparity between the two teams. I'm not saying CMU should be ranked in the top 10, but does Whitworth deserve to be there? I am sure there are teams that are 10-20 in the polls that are much better than Whitworth. In fact, we will se when Whitworth and Linfield match-up.
As I said over on the UAA Board, Whitworth played Linfield close the last two years and I understand they returned a great QB and most of their D. And UAA teams lost all of their games this year against top level teams (and they weren't close). Whitworth started the year ahead of CMU by a good bit and they've stayed there.
And there's nothing magic about the number 25, in fact it's almost the equivalent of a Top 10 DI (BD)
A good finish will mean CMU will start higher next pre-season.
I don't know if your numbers lie, but they certainly aren't telling the whole story. Stout is 3-5 against the 21st-hardest schedule in the country (so says Massey, who is doing a lot more number crunching than you are). Colorado College is 3-5 against the 149th-"hardest" schedule in the country.
Pat,
where do you get this schedule strength info? Are you using one of the rating systems out there?
Since I kinda started this Whitworth/CMU comparison, maybe I can conclude. When the CMU doubters pointed out the lack of "beating anyone with a winning record" as shorthand for say "not beating anyone with quality credentials", they short changed their point. The latter is a better and more complete analysis. As Pat said just W-L records do not tell the whole story, but those were the numbers the doubters used.
Quote from: cwru70 on November 01, 2006, 09:48:09 PM
Since I kinda started this Whitworth/CMU comparison, maybe I can conclude. When the CMU doubters pointed out the lack of "beating anyone with a winning record" as shorthand for say "not beating anyone with quality credentials", they short changed their point. The latter is a better and more complete analysis. As Pat said just W-L records do not tell the whole story, but those were the numbers the doubters used.
In the end, if you win a game in the playoffs, you will get your respect. If not, then they were right all along.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 01, 2006, 09:08:10 PM
against the 21st-hardest schedule in the country (so says Massey,
Yikes! Holy glossing over an entire line!
Sorry about that!
Basically, I wanted to see how hard Brockport's schedule actually is from according to "the numbers"...and as I suspected, pretty tough!
Pat, sorry about the double board thing, believe me I am not about to get into the kind of debate Eh-You had you guys in over in the South Region boards. I just wondered where Whitworth was getting with the comparable opponents W/L record that CMU wasn't. Even in ATN on the home-page I saw it mentioned about CMU not playing a winning team. I'd like to know how Massey rates these schedules. Colorado College lost by two scores at (7-0) Occidental, lost by a score to Huntingtdon who is 5-4 with 3 of their losses coming to Trinity, Wesley, and Ithaca. They also played a good Rhodes team. I don't know. Like you said, maybe I'm not crunching enough numbers. Maybe I'm just a little piss-ant to you and you're the guru but I don't care. I am happy for my brother and CMU. This was something brought up on the UAA board and I thought it was something that could be debated.
Well, when you've played eight games and your opponents have each played about that many, that's around 64 games and 64 opponents to be taken into account. Any game that is interconnected tends to get taken into account in a computer ranking.
If you look at UW-Stout, you'll see they played an NAIA scholarship school and a D-II school, which is going to raise their ranking.
So what you're saying is that a team may be rewarded or punished based on how well your opponents do? I am sure Whitworth is a good team and deserve to be ranked, but all CMU has done is beat everybody on their schedule. I realize its not the toughest schedule, but with all due respect, what more can you ask a team to do than win? As I said before, I'm not going to get heated over this because I am smart enough to listen to what you say. Plus, I really feel like any poll other than the Coaches' Poll is going to have extremely bias voters and I know that the coaches do some of their own jerry-rigging in their poll, but to give credit to one team for having played no winning teams and not give credit to another for the same reason is just ridiculous. If what I was seeing in ATN and on these boards had been about CMU's opponents strength of schedule then no problem, but the issue was clearly being stated as CMU's opponents W/L record. I know that nothing is ever perfect, and I applaud the work you guys have done for small college athletics. I don't know, too bad there isn't a way to come up with an independent poll where all of us here on D3 could vote.
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 10:51:43 PM
I don't know, too bad there isn't a way to come up with an independent poll where all of us here on D3 could vote.
SHHHHH! Then I couldn't raise heck with the guru's who vote!
Yeah, I think that may be part of the problem. Guru's may have more knowledge, but are much more set in their ways that sometimes they are blind to something new.
Actually, that was an idea I (and Matt from the ODAC board.... he's very involved in D3) had before (like a year and a half ago ).... to have a "Fan's" top 25...picking 25 of the posters, with 6 from each region, and then Pat as the 25th. Maybe just make topic in this general section and go with it. However, I have never gotten the time to take on such an undertaking! If someone wanted to do that, I'd think it would be great.
As for the guru's, I think they are, no matter what people think, the best ones to be making polls....they see so much more of it all than most of us
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 11:03:30 PM
Yeah, I think that may be part of the problem. Guru's may have more knowledge, but are much more set in their ways that sometimes they are blind to something new.
Uh OH - can't wait to hear the response to this one! Bring the thunder Pat (in case you don't remember - me and you r boys right about now)
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 10:51:43 PM
So what you're saying is that a team may be rewarded or punished based on how well your opponents do? I am sure Whitworth is a good team and deserve to be ranked, but all CMU has done is beat everybody on their schedule. I realize its not the toughest schedule, but with all due respect, what more can you ask a team to do than win? As I said before, I'm not going to get heated over this because I am smart enough to listen to what you say. Plus, I really feel like any poll other than the Coaches' Poll is going to have extremely bias voters and I know that the coaches do some of their own jerry-rigging in their poll, but to give credit to one team for having played no winning teams and not give credit to another for the same reason is just ridiculous. If what I was seeing in ATN and on these boards had been about CMU's opponents strength of schedule then no problem, but the issue was clearly being stated as CMU's opponents W/L record. I know that nothing is ever perfect, and I applaud the work you guys have done for small college athletics. I don't know, too bad there isn't a way to come up with an independent poll where all of us here on D3 could vote.
Let everyone vote? A democracy? What a novel thought... Would never and could never work!!! There would be teams with no wins getting vote. Then again there are no DIII schools in Fla. so a loser would not win...
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 01, 2006, 11:06:50 PM
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 10:51:43 PM
So what you're saying is that a team may be rewarded or punished based on how well your opponents do? I am sure Whitworth is a good team and deserve to be ranked, but all CMU has done is beat everybody on their schedule. I realize its not the toughest schedule, but with all due respect, what more can you ask a team to do than win? As I said before, I'm not going to get heated over this because I am smart enough to listen to what you say. Plus, I really feel like any poll other than the Coaches' Poll is going to have extremely bias voters and I know that the coaches do some of their own jerry-rigging in their poll, but to give credit to one team for having played no winning teams and not give credit to another for the same reason is just ridiculous. If what I was seeing in ATN and on these boards had been about CMU's opponents strength of schedule then no problem, but the issue was clearly being stated as CMU's opponents W/L record. I know that nothing is ever perfect, and I applaud the work you guys have done for small college athletics. I don't know, too bad there isn't a way to come up with an independent poll where all of us here on D3 could vote.
Let everyone vote? A democracy? What a novel thought... Would never and could never work!!! There would be teams with no wins getting vote. Then again there are no DIII schools in Fla. so a loser would not win...
A shot against florida! I can't believe it! I'm hurt (well not really)
not Florida, just the way the elect people, hehehehe
I'm glad I wasn't here then....that would have made me mad...especially since I'm in THE VERY COUNTY that the biggest issues occured..
Chads for all. BPORT did they toss your vote?? I didn't know you were a SR citizen
No definitely not..I was actually a freshman in College then...hence I was not in florida to be part of such a disgrace
Hey now, let's not compare any of the polls and their voters to Florida. Well maybe Hansen.
I see the problem with everyone voting and having 0 win teams in the top 25, but it would still be fun to see how everybody thought the teams stack up. I don't think I would put CMU above 20 but they would definitely be in the top 25.
Also, I understand the guru's have seen more than we have, but sometimes that leads to them acting like the pet-owner holding the treat just out of the dog's reach just because he can.
Ok then!!! Back to football...
Pat
I really think that there is something wrong when a team is undefeated and gets no love. In reality there are only a few schools who can sustain the top ten ratings year after year and when a team does go undefeated even for one year I believe they should get to see that they're hard work paid off.
But as has been hashed and rehased the rankings are nil when CMU gets into the playoffs.
Boy oh boy, wouldn't there be a bunch of crow eating and scrambling for cover if CMU actually made a playoff run.
Wake me up when you beat Wesley.
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 11:24:53 PM
Boy oh boy, wouldn't there be a bunch of crow eating and scrambling for cover if CMU actually made a playoff run.
Wesley pulled some big ones off last year BD. I think your team just has to be ready to go toe to toe. There won't be any sympathetic ears though if CMU gets they're doors blown off.
Hahaha, now see, this is what I am talking about. I by no means have seen as many teams as the gurus but I am willing to bet that no more than 1/4 of the posters on D3 have ever seen CMU in action. And I am being generous with that number.
I could care less really, because thats the way the cookie crumbles, but I will wake whoever needs woken if CMU pulls what everybody believes will be a miracle and wins a playoff game.
I rather doubt I would be looking for sympathy on here or anywhere else. Considering the UAA has had only one play-off representative(CMU, 1990, lost first round to Lycoming) for them to get in is an accomplishment to me. If they get their doors blown off then so be it. At least they got to play one more week when 200+ other teams were sitting at home thinking about next year.
I think 1/4 would be a gross exaggeration... Maybe 1/100 would be more like it.
I agree, the first step to getting noticed is just getting into the playoffs...
Yes. Thank you for agreeing with me on that subject at least. And it would be a great first step considering that a very large and experienced nucleus will be returning for the Tartans in 2007.
The only thing they truly have to replace is the secondary next year. Very young team where most of the starters either started last year as fresh. and soph. or got a lot of PT.
And maybe this season will help them schedule slightly tougher out of the conference? It can only get easier when meeting unfamiliar teams in the playoffs (Such things happened with my School, Brockport, the first couple years they ever made it to the playoffs, they played Rowan, Springfield, two teams that would get on their schedule soon after).
Pat, PAfan, Tarzan you have all made the latest version of the Hater List:(see signature) This poll will be voted on as needed. There is no criteria or logic, strictly emotions. What makes it the best is that there is only one voter and he can expand the poll to include as many posters as deserve mentioning (up to 300 characters)
I couldn't say really. CMU likes having a couple PAC teams on their schedule. Usually the weak ones, other than Thiel. Here is what their future schedules look like.
2007
@ Rochester
Vs. Grove City
Open
Vs. Allegheny
Open
@ Randolph-Macon
Vs. Case Western
@ Chicago
Vs. Wash. U
@ Bethany
Open
2008
@ Ohio Wesleyan
@ Grove City
Open
Vs. Hiram
Vs. Kenyon
@ Allegheny
Open
Vs. Wittenberg
@ Wash. U
@ Case Western
Vs. Chicago
2009
Vs. Ohio Wesleyan
Vs. Grove City
Open
@ Hiram
@ Kenyon
Vs. Allegheny
Open
@ Wittenberg
Vs. Wash. U
Vs. Case Western
@ Chicago.
As you can see, they have two open dates next year and one open date each of the following years. I can't really say if those schedules are better than their current schedule. The gurus are better prepared to answer that than I am.
Eh-You, Jane was nowhere to be found, so I threw you in there during that conversation. Go ahead and hate away man. Nothing new to me. Been hated on all my life. Just so you know, I'm glad my buddies at Mt. Union pounded your Averett into the dirt.
Tarzan - no matter how hard you try, I WILL NOT accept bribes to move up on the hater list! I see your clever attempt to pass Coleman and the karma bandits. You'll have to be way more hateful than that!
Haha. No seriously, I felt bad for Averett not getting any respect until you black-balled me and put me on your hater-list. Coleman is an animal all by himself. He must feel good picking on the little guys huh? Oh well, what can be done about it? Revolution?
Quote from: BDTartan on November 02, 2006, 12:14:24 AM
Oh well, what can be done about it? Revolution?
Hater polls in signatures to undermind the karma system
If others see you making attempts to conversate with me it will result in a MASSIVE decline in your karma (Please see that large negative number on the left of your screen.)
I see. Yet my karma remains the same. Maybe you pissed off some people I haven't. What's karma anyways?? It'll come back and get those who wield it without cause.
Eh-You,
Or perhaps the reason you have a "large negative number" at the left of your screen (and BDTartan does not) is because you have been behaving as an A**H*** while he has been a gentleman. Have you ever considered that possibility?
Just a thought.
Thank you Mr. Ypsi. I try to post intelligently and keep my feelings out of it. Seems to be working. Me and Eh-You were in similar situations as far as our teams lack of respect in certain polls. I thought I had quite a good argument yet I kept my cool and waited on the Gurus' response. I still think I have a good argument, but it seems that I don't. Just hoping CMU can come through and win a playoff game. Crossin' my fingers and hoping that I don't have to go to Alliance to see the Tartans in the first round. Although it will be nice to see some of my friends from Mt.
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 11:24:53 PM
Boy oh boy, wouldn't there be a bunch of crow eating and scrambling for cover if CMU actually made a playoff run.
This is beginning to sound like Ferrum 2005.
Hey, listen, I'm all for CMU getting inthe playoffs, but let's remember, there are 32 playoff teams and only 25 in the Top 25. Sure, all you've done is beat everyone on the schedule, but shoot, what about the teams that have played harder schedules?
Kudos to CMU for doing better than previous years on a similar schedule, but there is no automatic bid to the Top 25. Step out and see the rest of Division III play.
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 11:33:42 PM
Considering the UAA has had only one play-off representative(CMU, 1990, lost first round to Lycoming) for them to get in is an accomplishment to me.
Washington U. made the playoffs in 1999 and accounts for the 0-1 record listed on our front page.
Quote from: BDTartan on November 01, 2006, 11:19:39 PM
Also, I understand the guru's have seen more than we have, but sometimes that leads to them acting like the pet-owner holding the treat just out of the dog's reach just because he can.
Yeah, you're just really getting out of hand here. You seem to think I'm the only one who votes, where in fact there are 25 voters. At least one voter has seen CMU play in person this season and I'm sure several others have on tape.
How about the unbiased computer ranking from Massey? They have CMU 44th, 39th once you removed the on-an-island NESCAC. Is the computer a hating guru too?
http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf#Div%20III
I think you're a little overreacting. Playoffs -- assuming you see a ranked team -- will be quite an awakening.
Quote from: kickerdad on November 01, 2006, 09:38:20 AM
Pat C. - thanks for your explanation to En You on the last two post. I personally like to see you guys at D3Football.Com respond in that tone and fashion (at least showing that you have a little compassion) rather than your sharpe responses (previous to me and En You) that made it appear you could care less about Averett and you wanted to be a Smart A__.
We totaly respect your knowledge and your insight but when you respond in the fashion as you did earlier yesterday and day before, then you just create hate and discontent among your followers. We look to you guys for the truth and insite. We sometimes don't want to agree with what you tell us, but it certainly is easier to swaller when you don't come across like jerks.
Again, thanks for all you guys do and keep up the good work. I left you a question on the ODAC Board when you have time.
KickerDad,
I appreciate the kudos and kind words, but with regard to tone of posts on the message board, Pat and I have long seen eye-to-eye on this.
Generally speaking, our posts reflect the tone of the posts we're responding to and/or the overall discussion going on on the board at that particular time. You will rarely if ever see one of us deliver a curt response to a polite question. But if people choose to carry themselves in a certain way on the board, and/or drag our names into the muck, both of us are willing to mix it up, without truly crossing the line set forth in the Terms of Service. It is a message board, after all, with a certain culture and attitude deemed acceptable, although it varies from board to board.
Some people think being "professional" for some reason means absorbing abuse silently. Professional for me is being able to carry on conversations with fans/readers in all forums, from the message boards, to the blog, to e-mail to face-to-face, and remain dedicated to providing the best work possible for all fans/readers no matter how some act. Fans of Division III are our lifeblood, of course, and generally speaking we respect you guys to the fullest. As Pat as noted elsewhere, however, we are fans too and don't consider it a requirement of the job to be talked down to, called names and have our integrity/intentions questioned.
Certainly if someone is uninformed and taking an aggressive "I am informed" stance, the proper information will be delivered in a similar tone, and that's necessary, lest someone read the uninformed posts and spread that information. If someone is uninformed and asking for help, no way would we ever disrespect that person for what they did not know. It's clear that few people have the time or desire to spend this much time on Division III, and doing so does not make any of us smarter than you, we just recognize we have put the work in over the years to know (most of the time) what we are talking about.
Bottom line is to get respect you have to give respect. We understand we have to treat you that way, but we're human and susceptible to the same behaviors shown on the board by others. Please do not attempt to hold us to a standard that you do not hold yourself to.
Quote from: Eh-You on November 02, 2006, 12:09:53 AM
Tarzan - no matter how hard you try, I WILL NOT accept bribes to move up on the hater list! I see your clever attempt to pass Coleman and the karma bandits. You'll have to be way more hateful than that!
You're on fire today. When I first looked at your karma a couple hours ago, after reading your remarks about karma in your sig, you were at -18.
You are now at -28.
What have you done, man!?!?!
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on November 01, 2006, 11:22:40 PM
Ok then!!! Back to football...
Pat
I really think that there is something wrong when a team is undefeated and gets no love. In reality there are only a few schools who can sustain the top ten ratings year after year and when a team does go undefeated even for one year I believe they should get to see that they're hard work paid off.
But as has been hashed and rehased the rankings are nil when CMU gets into the playoffs.
That's exactly it.
I don't think an undefeated team should be kept from the playoffs, but if you're asking me to vote my conscience each week, I'm not going to tell you an 8-0 Carnegie Mellon team is better than a Baldwin-Wallace team that held Mount Union to 14 points. There is plenty of data to support our strength-of-conference rankings, which support the poll votes, and although things can most definitely change from year-to-year and surprises can and do take place (who had Wesley in last year's final four, for instance?), there are plenty of instances when a team's schedule comes into play and proves that the better record does not always make the better team.
I am assuming you guys know this.
So as much as I agree that if Carnegie Mellon goes 10-0 they should be in the playoffs, there's also nothing on that schedule that would lead me to rank them ahead of a team that has lost to Christopher Newport and UW-Whitewater, or Hardin-Simmons and Western Oregon, or even just Marietta and Mount Union.
I can't participate in a poll any other way. I vote for the teams, best I can, in order of which I think have proven themselves to be the 25 best at the time I vote. New data comes in each week and proves last week's poll wrong ... that's half the fun of having a poll to watch in the first place.
As far as CMU's future schedules, if you played Rochester and Wittenberg this year, those would have been games which helped determine strength. However, I feel your pain in that teams schedule most games years in advance and there's no telling if a game that looks strong now will be one three years ago.
That's why I favor all unbeatens making the playoffs. You can only play who is in front of you, and without a loss there is no way to tell if the team wouldn't have beaten stronger opponents had it played them, except for conjecture, which should probably play as small a role possible in playoff selection.
That was a big problem with the old 16-team system. Reputation seemed to play a large role in the regional polls, which had a direct effect on the playoffs.
In any case ...
Thank you K-Mack for using a different and more personable response than Pat. If Pat mis-understood where I was going than I apologize, but I just wanted to know what was what. I could care less what anybody thinks of me. I just thought there was somewhat of an argument based on past posts about CMU and their schedule and opponents' W/L record. That's all. I'm not trying to turn this into a Ferrum of 2005. I was just stating that there will be a lot of crow-eaters if CMU actually makes a playoff run. I NEVER said they would, I said IF. And I'm also not ignorant, if Pat thinks I am then he has another thing coming, I know he's not the ONLY voter. I know there are 25 of them. Unfortunately, he was the only one responding to me at the time. I fully understood the way the polls and the voters themselves portrayed the top 25. I understood CMU would probably have a tough time beating, let's say, 10 teams from #10-#25. Believe me, I'm not going to live or die based on what you, the voters, think of me or CMU. For all of this, I could just as easily never get on here again, but I will, because as I said, I applaud what you guys have done for small college athletics. You guys make it easier to access D3 football than any other level but D1A.
I propose this: Let's drop the whole poll argument because this could go on for light-years. I know that if CMU gets the job done and wins out and gets into the playoffs then you guys will give them some love next year in the polls since they will be returning all but two players on offense and all but 5 players on defense. So there, take my karma, berate me, burn me at the stake, I'm done.
Watching the game on TV last night made me think: CMU, the Boise State of D3...well not exactly. And can you imagine a tartan football field?
Quote from: cwru70 on November 02, 2006, 08:20:38 AM
Watching the game on TV last night made me think: CMU, the Boise State of D3...well not exactly. And can you imagine a tartan football field?
:D :D :D :D :D
+1 Karma!
As for a Fans' Top 25 Poll, that would require quite a bit of work!
With the help of Grayfox and Proudmcmdad, I spend up to 2-3 hours per week tracking the ASC pick'em's contest in which we have about 25 participants.
I am not sure how much time it takes Kid to do the South Region Fans' Poll.
Finding the time and the enthusiasm for such a poll will require considerable effort. Good luck.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2006, 02:18:47 AM
You are now at -28.
What have you done, man!?!?!
K-Mack - 3 possible things
1. T.O. syndrome (people love to hate)
2. Posters trying to move up on the hater list. Which I might add Mr.IHaveTheYips did quite nicely at,
3. Could be a little reverse "I told ya so". In the past six weeks I've made cases against Guilford, Bridgewater, CNU, Washington & Lee when they've been on top! They all went tumbling down and posters are mad b/c I was right. The only posters that can take my karma are those "veterans" who I've been making these cases to. They don't like a new guy coming in and being right when they said he was wrong.
BTW - Here is my next "sniper got um" pick - Wesley. Not saying they'll lose before the playoffs, but they will be a big flop! If AU can't get credit for playing a decent game against them, then I guess I'll say it was close b/c they stink. (by the way know it alls, who have they beaten?)
K-Mack- if you think my karma is bad now - if AU beats CNU this weekend it might hit triple digits,
Quote from: Eh-You on November 02, 2006, 09:04:50 AM
K-Mack- if you think my karma is bad now - if AU beats CNU this weekend it might hit triple digits,
Only if you're an ass about it. Of course, given past posts that seems likely. But that's the data we've been waiting for. It's the only toss-up game on Averett's schedule. You've lost to all the teams you were supposed to lose to and beaten all the teams you were supposed to beat.
Quote from: Eh-You on November 02, 2006, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2006, 02:18:47 AM
You are now at -28.
What have you done, man!?!?!
K-Mack - 3 possible things
1. T.O. syndrome (people love to hate)
2. Posters trying to move up on the hater list. Which I might add Mr.IHaveTheYips did quite nicely at,
3. Could be a little reverse "I told ya so". In the past six weeks I've made cases against Guilford, Bridgewater, CNU, Washington & Lee when they've been on top! They all went tumbling down and posters are mad b/c I was right. The only posters that can take my karma are those "veterans" who I've been making these cases to. They don't like a new guy coming in and being right when they said he was wrong.
BTW - Here is my next "sniper got um" pick - Wesley. Not saying they'll lose before the playoffs, but they will be a big flop! If AU can't get credit for playing a decent game against them, then I guess I'll say it was close b/c they stink. (by the way know it alls, who have they beaten?)
K-Mack- if you think my karma is bad now - if AU beats CNU this weekend it might hit triple digits,
Eh-You, I don't know why you are wearing such a chip on your shoulder.
As I previously posted, everyone likes a Cinderella, but if she is as ugly as a mudfence, they don't miss her when she is gone.
Being a solid fan is one thing. However, you are doing nothing to win fans for the Averett cause, which is sad! CNU and its success in multiple sports is such an easy "bad guy/overdog" to pick on! ;)
On these boards, civil responsible intelligent posting that contributes to the greater understanding of what is affecting the teams and the seasons sways more posters than rantings and hating.
Personalities aside, plenty of us have been around up to 6-8 years to remember who has been a reputable source for information and who hasn't.
Eh-you, I docked you one, just to help you along toward your goal. ;)
Man, I'm glad the ASC board is not this brutal. We are always cool, calm and rational (except for occasional misguided HSU posters :D) Just kidding. I find a lot of passion and knowledge on these boards and have always enjoyed the exchanges.
Eh You,
Regarding your sig line: "3. Mr. Ypsi - Bet he can't putt", the 'yips' is just about the only fault I DON'T have in my golf game! ;D
To eh and BDTartan:
Every year there seems to be a Cinderella team or two. They usually bring supporters who want to know why their team isn't ranked above Mount Union, who after all hasn't won a championship since last year and have the same record as their team. Folks respond with what is usually good information based on years and years of following the sport. Some of the new fans, who aren't used to the way D3 works, then escalate the discussion, or just keep repeating their heartfelt but often mistaken assertions because they simply don't know better. The next step is to start trotting out the insults against Pat, Keith, and whomever else is visible on the site, and people who are insulted publicly tend to respond in kind. If you throw the first stone, don't whine about it when some are thrown back your way.
Lost in all the hullabaloo is the fact that teams which ring up unimpressive 10-0 records against less than distinguished competition usually get their clock cleaned the first time they make the playoffs. That would apply to what CMU has done so far ... OT to beat a WashU team isn't going to get you far when you actually play a team that has a clue. And as for Averett - show that you can at least hang in there against a good team before going ballistic on us for not jumping on the bandwagon.
BD has been respectful while he has been repeating his assertions, and I think everyone appreciates it. As for eh ... we'll see if you're just another of the Ferrum-type fans who were blowing smoke all last season and then just disappeared when said smoke got blown away in the playoffs (e.g. a 59-14 loss to the Wesley team you so willingly dismiss). There are certainly more appropriate ways to express your support than slamming everyone who doesn't agree with you and putting that garbage in your .sig.
For Ralph, Ron, Josh -
thanks for trying to calm Eh You down. He is making it hard on the rest of us Averett folks. As for me I am just excited that we get to play a game
of this magitude with CNU this week.
As for Eh You, he is currently out of control and seems to be on a speed trip to see how many of those K points he have have removed and how many folks he can get to hate him.
If Averett gets beat Saturday, you are right he may disappear but I doubt it.
K - Mack - thanks for the the information.
This is my first, and hopefully my last post. I have been following this discussion for a while because it involves us, and I was trying to do some research on our playoff chances (hoping that we win our next two games against a pair of good PAC opponents).
BDTartan, first let me say this. Yes I know your brother, he is doing an
outstanding job this year given the fact that he was moved to DL right as the season began, he provides a very aggressive and quick changeup to our starter and he does play at least half the time if not more. He makes a lot of big plays and I have a lot of respect for him.
Now, BDTartan, moving on. Please stop arguing that we belong in the top 25 and we belong in the playoffs. Getting into a fight with the gurus, poll voters, and the people that decide who gets into the playoffs is NOT going to help us in any way. The only thing we can do is play the best we can over the next two weeks, let the chips fall where they may, and then move on to whatever playoff/ECAC game we get and do our darnedest to win the next one. Our team has come together in a very special way this year to go from mediocre 5-5 to 8-0 and conference champs. We want more,
we are not satisfied yet, but realize that arguing with pollsters and such is not going to get you OR us anywhere.
For the record, I don't think we belong in the top 25 yet either. We are 8-0 but have not played anyone near the caliber of a top 25 team yet. I am excited about the possibility of testing ourselves against whomever we are matched up against, but first we have to get by a Bethany team with a pretty good offense AND a Thiel team that went undefeated last year (beating us in the process).
Gurus (Pat Coleman, Keith McMillan, et al) - please do not take BDTartan's opinion to represent that of the CMU football team, and please do not get a vendetta against CMU because of anything he says. BDTartan is a brother of a player on our team, and he's just gotten a bit carried away in his arguments that we belong in the top 25/playoffs. We will get a chance to prove that, God willing, on November 18 or thereabouts.
Hopefully signing off (maybe a reply to anyone who replies to this post, but that should be it),
TartanPlayer
TartanPlayer:
You're one of the few exceptions to the general rule (at least in many of these boards) that current players are best not posting . . . until their playing days are done. Thanks for the perspective and thoughtful post.
Tartan Player:
Appreciate your input. If you win the next two you'll have the chance to prove yourself in the playoffs.
I don't let fans affect my ballot. :)
All right then. i believe I said I was done with this last night, but I'll throw my comment in after TartanPlayer's comment.
TartanPlayer: I wasn't trying to rep CMU and don't put the negative on my brother because of my opinions. Its happened in the past. Anyways, I just asked the question because we tossed around the Whitworth question over on the UAA board. I don't believe I have ever been out of line when speaking about your football team and I feel the same way. In fact, I have stated many times that I am happy for you guys for just doing what you've done so far i.e. being undefeated, winning the conference, having a chance at the playoffs. Believe me, we the fans would like more as well, but I'm not on here trying to make you guys seem like Supermen. I probably should have never brought up the Whitworth thing, but it seemed like a reasonable debate to me. I apologize to you, your teammates, and most of all my brother. Any negative effect this has is on my shoulders squarely. And finally, best of luck to you guys this weekend and every weekend you continue to play. Go Tartans!
Pat: As I said, let's chalk this one up as history. I'm tired of arguing what can't be argued. I just wanna watch some football this weekend. Sorry if I offended you in any way.
Quote from: kickerdad on November 02, 2006, 12:01:27 PM
For Ralph, Ron, Josh -
thanks for trying to calm Eh You down. He is making it hard on the rest of us Averett folks. As for me I am just excited that we get to play a game
of this magitude with CNU this week.
As for Eh You, he is currently out of control and seems to be on a speed trip to see how many of those K points he have have removed and how many folks he can get to hate him.
If Averett gets beat Saturday, you are right he may disappear but I doubt it.
K - Mack - thanks for the the information.
+1 Karma Kickerdad,
We are glad to have you aboard. Being a fan of your team is one thing. Being able to step back and provide cogent commentary on the events surrounding your team, its games, its opponents and the conference for all of us to enjoy is something else!
We are always glad to have intelligent voices who will shed light on parts of D3 that you know better. We certainly aren't likely to find that information anywhere else (unless you can give a hyperlink to the local paper! ;) )
Good luck to Averett! A change at the top of a conference is always good for the conference as a whole! It just makes everyone else better because they think that if Ferrum or if Averett or someone else next year can do it so can they!
Woo Hoo made it too EH-You top ten list . Now thats respect!!!!
Ron
You are so right. When AU goes back to the middle of the pack in the USAS then EH will fade away.
For you other AU fans . There are always over exuberant fans that get a little too excited and make well lets just leave it at being over exuberant. There were even a few Wesely fans you only made an appearence to pound their chests and disappeared.
Good luck to Tartanplayer. CMU kept Wesley out of the playoffs a few years a go with an early win.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2006, 11:03:52 AM
Eh You,
Regarding your sig line: "3. Mr. Ypsi - Bet he can't putt", the 'yips' is just about the only fault I DON'T have in my golf game! ;D
I feel ya brother! But it sure has been some pretty weather for it.
You can't compare yourself to T.O.... TO has talent! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on November 02, 2006, 10:27:50 AM
Eh-you, I docked you one, just to help you along toward your goal. ;)
I've been telling everybody we're boys now but they don't believe me - Thanks for the smite.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2006, 06:44:02 PMBeing a fan of your team is one thing. Being able to step back and provide cogent commentary on the events surrounding your team, its games, its opponents and the conference for all of us to enjoy is something else!
Quote from: Eh-You on August 11, 2006, 09:32:41 AM
Team pictures and lunch were yesterday and I was told that Todd Parsons was in uniform. Details are fuzzy but something about the NCAA granting him another year of elig. That might be HUGE!
Hey Ralph - hows that for "cogent commentary on the events surrounding your team"? (I'm mocking you by pushing my glasses up my nose and fixing my tie) That post was from early August before any games were played. I was here then, I was here at 0-2, I'm here now, and I'll be here if there is an 0-10! (Unless I get tired of watching thin skinned whining!)
To all the haters: Here's a news flash- we don't know each other, we're on a message board, my posts have nothing to do with your "character" or who you really are beyond your screen name. We can go back and forth, take it and dish it out if you'd like, just calm down with all the serious stuff. You're going to make me cry :(
BDTartan: I meant no offense, sorry if it came off that way. I was just worried that you might get a little too edgy and start trying to "write checks that we can't cash" if you know what I mean. I am truly glad that you support us very strongly - will you be at the Bethany game this weekend?
Wesleyfan: I was a freshman and played a bunch on special teams in that game vs Wesley a few years ago, we won something like 24-13 I believe. It was a fun game, Wesley had a solid team that year and an unbelievably quick little RB - I think his name was Kevin Nelson, he was like 5'2" but incredibly quick. He ran for well over 100 yards in the game.
Yes TartanPlayer, I will be at the game this Saturday. I see its Senior day. The depth chart is changed up a bit. I'm glad to see those guys get a start. They put the work in. Good luck in the game on Saturday.
Quote from: BDTartan on November 02, 2006, 07:52:28 AM
Thank you K-Mack for using a different and more personable response than Pat. If Pat mis-understood where I was going than I apologize, but I just wanted to know what was what. I could care less what anybody thinks of me. I just thought there was somewhat of an argument based on past posts about CMU and their schedule and opponents' W/L record. That's all. I'm not trying to turn this into a Ferrum of 2005. I was just stating that there will be a lot of crow-eaters if CMU actually makes a playoff run. I NEVER said they would, I said IF. And I'm also not ignorant, if Pat thinks I am then he has another thing coming, I know he's not the ONLY voter. I know there are 25 of them. Unfortunately, he was the only one responding to me at the time. I fully understood the way the polls and the voters themselves portrayed the top 25. I understood CMU would probably have a tough time beating, let's say, 10 teams from #10-#25. Believe me, I'm not going to live or die based on what you, the voters, think of me or CMU. For all of this, I could just as easily never get on here again, but I will, because as I said, I applaud what you guys have done for small college athletics. You guys make it easier to access D3 football than any other level but D1A.
I propose this: Let's drop the whole poll argument because this could go on for light-years. I know that if CMU gets the job done and wins out and gets into the playoffs then you guys will give them some love next year in the polls since they will be returning all but two players on offense and all but 5 players on defense. So there, take my karma, berate me, burn me at the stake, I'm done.
That's fine and fair. I gave you +1 for what it's worth.
I don't think it's necessary to drop any discussion where people disagree. That's what the board is here for, for everybody to air everything out.
So long as we all operate with the understanding that "what said on the message board stays here" or something to that effect, I'm sure we'll all be fine.
Quote from: Eh-You on November 02, 2006, 09:04:50 AM
K-Mack- if you think my karma is bad now - if AU beats CNU this weekend it might hit triple digits,
That's funny.
You're more than a third of the way there, -36.
I helped you out yesterday, but I don't think it's been 24 hours ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2006, 10:38:07 PM
Quote from: Eh-You on November 02, 2006, 09:04:50 AM
K-Mack- if you think my karma is bad now - if AU beats CNU this weekend it might hit triple digits,
That's funny.
You're more than a third of the way there, -36.
I helped you out yesterday, but I don't think it's been 24 hours ;)
Geesh! I can only imagine what would happen if people were allowed to assign karma as many times as they wanted...I can see people just hitting the smite button over and over again....
Quote from: Eh-You on November 02, 2006, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 02, 2006, 11:03:52 AM
Eh You,
Regarding your sig line: "3. Mr. Ypsi - Bet he can't putt", the 'yips' is just about the only fault I DON'T have in my golf game! ;D
I feel ya brother! But it sure has been some pretty weather for it.
Maybe where you're at, but it has been a b**** in Michigan - my last round was mid-August! (Every decent day (few!) since then, I had some other commitment.)
Quote from: TartanPlayer on November 02, 2006, 02:33:27 PM
Gurus (Pat Coleman, Keith McMillan, et al) - please do not take BDTartan's opinion to represent that of the CMU football team, and please do not get a vendetta against CMU because of anything he says.
Not to worry. I wouldn't let one or a few fans do the damage (or help) a team; I was a player not long ago, and all you want is to be judged fairly on what you've done and could do.
That's the great thing about D3. You get to prove yourself on Saturday. None of this 1 vs. 2 jazz ... imagine if the NFL did that, the Colts would have played in about four Super Bowls by now!
Quote from: repete on November 02, 2006, 02:42:04 PM
TartanPlayer:
You're one of the few exceptions to the general rule (at least in many of these boards) that current players are best not posting . . . until their playing days are done. Thanks for the perspective and thoughtful post.
I agree.
As a player, my thinking was so MyTeam-centric ... when we lost (every time but once in my 4 years it was by 14 or less) it was always what we didn't do, not so much what the other team did.
You are drilled from Day One to be all about your team, to think you can and will beat anyone if you play well, etc. ... it is very tough to think any differently as a player, to take everything into perspective and look at the big picture.
Quote from: Eh-You on November 02, 2006, 09:09:46 PM
To all the haters: Here's a news flash- we don't know each other, we're on a message board, my posts have nothing to do with your "character" or who you really are beyond your screen name. We can go back and forth, take it and dish it out if you'd like, just calm down with all the serious stuff. You're going to make me cry :(
When I do, take a picture so I have proof.
K-Mack,
My profile pic shows what happened the last time you went too far and used big words a didn't understand.
You're a black woman? I had you pegged as a white college student.
Never judge a post by its keystrokes. Or something like that.
Would a +1 (or another -1) make you feel better?
Quote from: K-Mack on November 02, 2006, 11:23:35 PM
You're a black woman? I had you pegged as a white college student.
Never judge a post by its keystrokes. Or something like that.
Would a +1 (or another -1) make you feel better?
Everybody wants to put a label on me and T.O. Can't a balck woman like me be a D3 fan? (joke) Adding karma might even put you, Keith, on the list. A smite would be more deserved!
K-Mack, I realize these boards are here for "arguing" and airing things out, but I said all I was going to say on the subject. I didn't feel the need to beat a dead horse. Apparently I was wrong in my figuring and I took my lumps and now we've moved on. By the way, I believe it was you on another board that was asking if any D3 stadium has home-stands that stretch from the 10 yd. line to 10 yd. line. It could be mistaken identity, but I'm pretty sure it was you. If there is ever a big enough game at Gesling Stadium, check it out. Home-stands stretch from goal-line to goal-line, (Probably to account for not having a visitor's side.)
And Case (Western Reseve) Field's stands go from beyond end zone to beyond end zone. Possibly for field events in the "Ds", but also because of no vis side and lack of space so only 12 rows.
BW's also goes endzone to endzone on both sides.
Whoever had doubts about Averett b/c they weren't sure what they would do at CNU was right. The only thing I have to say about CNU is: 1st class, EVERYTHING. Saturday seemed like a playoff atmosphere at POMOCO and AU got beat by a better team. Hopefully it will be added to the list of "helpful" losses in 2006. GO FERRUM!
a lot of one loss teams in the east. Important week for many with playoffs on the line. Still looking for some feedback on who will be the top seed in the east?
talk about no respect in a poll , OXY wins and drops three spots.
Go NWC
desertcat1,
I noticed that as well. Both Whitworth and Central passed them. I was very surprised by that. Maybe the voters finally looked at the regional rankings and decided to get more in line with that is the only thing I can think of.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on November 06, 2006, 04:15:30 PM
desertcat1,
I noticed that as well. Both Whitworth and Central passed them. I was very surprised by that. Maybe the voters finally looked at the regional rankings and decided to get more in line with that is the only thing I can think of.
Check the SCIAC board for a bit more info.
Not really sure where to post this, so I'll post it here. While looking at the QOWI numbers, I was a bit curious as to how UMHB and Wittenberg--both two loss teams--were ranked so highly in the QOWI. I did the math, and unless I'm wrong, this is what I come up with for both teams:
UMHB
07 L @ CNU (.778)
13 W @ SRSU (.625)
12 W vs. TLU (.556)
11 W @ McM (.333)
14 W vs. HSU (.875)
13 W @ LC (.500)
10 W vs. MC (.444)
06 L vs. UW-W (1.000)
09 W @ ETBU (.300)
------------------------------------
95 total points/9 games = 10.55 as opposed to 10.778
Wittenberg
07 L @ Capital (.889)
12 W vs. Alma (.556)
15 W @ Wooster (.778)
10 W vs. Earlham (.333)
14 W vs. Wabash (.778)
01 L @ Ohio Wesleyan (.300)
13 W @ Oberlin (.556)
12 W vs. Allegheny (.556)
-------------------------------------------
84 points/8 games = 10.5 as opposed to 10.750
Statistically, I think it's [almost] impossible for a two loss team to have a QOWI than an undefeated team, and unusual that they would have a QOWI higher than that many one-loss teams.
Josh your math looks good to me.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on November 06, 2006, 04:15:30 PM
desertcat1,
I noticed that as well. Both Whitworth and Central passed them. I was very surprised by that. Maybe the voters finally looked at the regional rankings and decided to get more in line with that is the only thing I can think of.
d fan1:
And don't forget UW-LA Crosse jumped to # 9 in front of OXY too .. ;)
Quote from: desertcat1 on November 06, 2006, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on November 06, 2006, 04:15:30 PM
desertcat1,
I noticed that as well. Both Whitworth and Central passed them. I was very surprised by that. Maybe the voters finally looked at the regional rankings and decided to get more in line with that is the only thing I can think of.
d fan1:
And don't forget UW-LA Crosse jumped to # 9 in front of OXY too .. ;)
desertcat, Remember, Oxy is undefeated and has a QOWI of 11. UW-Lacrosse has one loss and a QOWI of 9.50. The top 25 Ranking means nothing on Selection Sunday!
I think that tomorrow OXY is ranked higher in the West Region.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on November 06, 2006, 04:15:30 PM
desertcat1,
I noticed that as well. Both Whitworth and Central passed them. I was very surprised by that. Maybe the voters finally looked at the regional rankings and decided to get more in line with that is the only thing I can think of.
We never have done that.
Whitworth finally played a defcent team, beating a ranked team on the road, and was rewarded.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on November 06, 2006, 04:30:32 PM
Not really sure where to post this, so I'll post it here. While looking at the QOWI numbers, I was a bit curious as to how UMHB and Wittenberg--both two loss teams--were ranked so highly in the QOWI. I did the math, and unless I'm wrong, this is what I come up with for both teams:
UMHB
07 L @ CNU (.778)
13 W @ SRSU (.625)
12 W vs. TLU (.556)
11 W @ McM (.333)
14 W vs. HSU (.875)
13 W @ LC (.500)
10 W vs. MC (.444)
06 L vs. UW-W (1.000)
09 W @ ETBU (.300)
------------------------------------
95 total points/9 games = 10.55 as opposed to 10.778
Wittenberg
07 L @ Capital (.889)
12 W vs. Alma (.556)
15 W @ Wooster (.778)
10 W vs. Earlham (.333)
14 W vs. Wabash (.778)
01 L @ Ohio Wesleyan (.300)
13 W @ Oberlin (.556)
12 W vs. Allegheny (.556)
-------------------------------------------
84 points/8 games = 10.5 as opposed to 10.750
Statistically, I think it's [almost] impossible for a two loss team to have a QOWI than an undefeated team, and unusual that they would have a QOWI higher than that many one-loss teams.
ETBU is .333 in-region -- Ouachita Baptist is not in D-III and is not a regional opponent. UMHB gets 11 for that.
Similarly, OWU is .333 in-region -- Catholic is not a regional game for them. Witt gets 3 for that.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2006, 11:14:26 PM
Whitworth finally played a defcent team, beating a ranked team on the road, and was rewarded.
It may be just semantics, but Whitworth
won on the road against a ranked team. They sure didn't
beat Linfield.
Whatever. You guys can whine and play that game if you like but the result on the field is counted by total points.
Pat ,
If you were at the game ( oh that's right you have never been to the catsdome) even you would have seen that the cats controlled both sides of the line ..
85yd. to 329 yds.
but could not hang on to the ball... They therefore did not get beat in the game they turned over the game to the rats. Hence WON the game.. ;D
I thought you were a semantics man for sure . ;)
Don't forget to comb your hair this year for T.V. :-*
Keep up the good work :)
Go cats
Chip ... shoulder ... blinding ... you.
Hasn't your son asked you to stop posting yet? I know we've gotten requests from Linfield to remove you.
Wow!
If you think it is whining Pat, so be it. I was making a distinction that as a player and a coach I have been acutely aware of. On more than one occasion I have let my teams know that although they got the win, they dodged a bullet because they got out played. I have also had to console teams that came up on the short end of the score despite controlling a game. Such is the nature of athletics and sports. I congratulated Whitworth and answerd some questions with stats. No whining here.
Linfield was given the gift of the ball at the Whitworth 16 with 2 minutes to go. A championship team punches the ball into the endzone. Linfield went four and out and lost the ball on downs.
It just isn't the Cats' year this year. Afterall, the NWC is still too strong year to year to let Linfield do what MUC has done to the OAC! ;)
You get no argument from me.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 07, 2006, 01:06:17 PM
Chip ... shoulder ... blinding ... you.
Hasn't your son asked you to stop posting yet? I know we've gotten requests from Linfield to remove you.
Pat : NO ,
I have not broken YOUR rules for this to happen ? :o So why would he? Do you think he reads this (cr_p ) stuff??? It's only a posting board come on . :)
Just because we don't see eye to eye . I know it's your
ball and ball game and i have stayed within YOUR rules ... ::)
No chip here buddy , I have offered to buy the first round any time you get to a cat game . :-* :o
Take it all with a grain of salt??? Did you not say that or something about the same , it's been so long ago at my age ( "old man" ) i can't remember the quote ? ;) :)
I'm confussed then? Gee No GTE? ;)
GO CATS ...
Well, we may receive something more official from the athletic department. I have left the lines of communication open on this subject.
Quote from: BDTartan on November 03, 2006, 02:52:33 PM
K-Mack, I realize these boards are here for "arguing" and airing things out, but I said all I was going to say on the subject. I didn't feel the need to beat a dead horse. Apparently I was wrong in my figuring and I took my lumps and now we've moved on. By the way, I believe it was you on another board that was asking if any D3 stadium has home-stands that stretch from the 10 yd. line to 10 yd. line. It could be mistaken identity, but I'm pretty sure it was you. If there is ever a big enough game at Gesling Stadium, check it out. Home-stands stretch from goal-line to goal-line, (Probably to account for not having a visitor's side.)
Yeah,
I wrote that, in ATN I think. I've seen the aerials of CMU's field (did a CMU-JHU road game a few years back) and thought it looked like a great place to see a game.
I don't have QuickTime on my work PC, but I think this is a photo/video of the stadium.
http://www.cmu.edu/vrtour/nodes/gesling.html
I guess I'm a D3 stadium geek or whatever.
Now back to your regularly scheduled top 25 beefs and faulty math. :)
(moved from the Stagg Bowl XXXIV thread)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 19, 2006, 01:20:07 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 09, 2006, 08:24:05 PM
repete, you asked for a Top 5.
As dangerous as it is before the Stagg Bowl, I will give you 10:
1) MUC/UWW
2) UWW/MUC
3) SJF
4) Capital
5) SJU
6) Wesley
7) Rowan
8 ) UMHB
9) HSU
10) UWLC
1 Mount Union (25) 15-0 625 1 Def UW-Whitewater 35-16 Season Over
2 UW-Whitewater 14-1 599 2 Lost to Mount Union 35-16 Season Over
3 Capital 11-2 558 4 — Season Over
4 St. John Fisher 12-2 539 16 — Season Over
5 St. John's 11-2 511 12 — Season Over
6 UW-La Crosse 9-2 506 7 — Season Over
7 Wesley 13-1 464 3 — Season Over
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 10-3 455 5 — Season Over
9 Whitworth 11-1 382 8 — Season Over
10 Springfield 10-2 355 15 — Season Over
11 Central 10-1 351 9 — Season Over
12 Rowan 9-3 325 13 — Season Over
13 Hardin-Simmons 8-2 317 6 — Season Over
I stand by my post. I undervalued UWLC, Whitworth, Springfield and Central and dramatically overvalued Rowan.
I think that HSU lost out by not getting to play a first round opponent, before UMHB, but geographic proximity rules, even with msn.mappoint.com shortest distance notwithstanding.
Well,
I asked Mount Union folks their opinions of the teams they played specifically as it related to UWW, Capital, SJF and Baldwin-Wallace, four teams I knew I wanted in my final top 25 vote, but where?
Kehres wanted no part of influencing the vote, but at least one very articulate, thoughtful player (I'd say who, but I think I prefaced my question by saying the answers were just for me) said the best team they played was Whitewater, hands down, followed by Capital.
The way I saw it after the Stagg Bowl pretty much fell in line with what the player said (which is always nice to know).
I know that myself and a couple of the other D3 guys voted accordingly. We are never in the same room when we vote, except for the other day at the Stagg Bowl post-game ... and the cool part is we saw eye-to-eye on some stuff, and disagreed on other stuff, and people stuck to their opinions. It wasn't like a big group in a room going "well if you like Rowan at 10, so do I." ... and then that was only 4 voters anyway.
I think that helps for balance, anyway.
Holding your own against one of the two titleists was clearly a big influence in the top 10, despite other losses (UWL, Cap, SJF and SJU)
The final top 25:1 Mount Union (25) 15-0 625 1 Def UW-Whitewater 35-16 Season Over
2 UW-Whitewater 14-1 599 2 Lost to Mount Union 35-16 Season Over
3 Capital 11-2 558 4 — Season Over
4 St. John Fisher 12-2 539 16 — Season Over
5 St. John's 11-2 511 12 — Season Over
6 UW-La Crosse 9-2 506 7 — Season Over
7 Wesley 13-1 464 3 — Season Over
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 10-3 455 5 — Season Over
9 Whitworth 11-1 382 8 — Season Over
10 Springfield 10-2 355 15 — Season Over
11 Central 10-1 351 9 — Season Over
12 Rowan 9-3 325 13 — Season Over
13 Hardin-Simmons 8-2 317 6 — Season Over
14 Wilkes 11-1 311 11 — Season Over
15 Occidental 9-1 261 10 — Season Over
16 Wheaton 10-2 238 18 — Season Over
17 Bethel 9-2 224 17 — Season Over
18 Washington and Jefferson 10-2 206 20 — Season Over
19 North Central 9-3 155 -- — Season Over
20 Hobart 8-2 147 19 — Season Over
21 Cortland State 9-2 139 14 — Season Over
22 Carnegie Mellon 11-1 124 24 — Season Over
23 Linfield 6-3 75 21 — Season Over
24 Christopher Newport 8-3 56 -- — Season Over
25 Union 7-3 55 22 — Season Over
Ralph, I don't think Hardin-Simmons would have been in a much different slot had it been placed according to seed and lost in the second round to UMHB.
No. 13 Hardin-Simmons is ranked ahead of the other teams in the South Region, two of whom advanced to the second round. If HSU had beaten either No. 18 W&J or No. 24 CNU, or No. 21 Carnegie Mellon, unranked Millsaps or Dickinson and lost to the second round, they still would have been ranked right about where they are. You can argue about some of the teams right around them, like Whitworth, Central, Springfield or Rowan, but I think all of them except for maybe the Pirates had tight games with playoff teams that went deep into the field (or in Rowan's case, went deep themsevles)
Certainly HSU didn't belong ahead of UMHB or Wesley.
So I'm not sure what merit there is to saying "I think that HSU lost out by not getting to play a first round opponent, before UMHB."
Show me how.
I'm actually kind of proud of the D3 pollsters as a whole for looking at that, not just ranking by what round a team went out in.
I know I had Baldwin-Wallace 15th, I think. You hold the national champions to 14 points, you're probably as good or better than many of the 32 playoff teams.
(Pat and them countered with "they lost to Marietta though.")
Only fair to also include these comments from the same Dec. 9 discussion on the other board.
Quote from: repete on December 09, 2006, 11:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 09, 2006, 10:50:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 09, 2006, 10:11:30 PM
Quote from: repete on December 09, 2006, 09:40:21 PM
Hey Ralph,
Thanks. Didn't mean to put you on the spot, PA-W had just mentioned that Wesley was still a top 5 team and I couldn't think of it in any scenario.
Your caveat about the dangers of pre-Stagg rankings is well taken. I think if MUC wins that's a pretty good list. And it's pretty good if the game is close.
In the unlikely case that UWW wins substantially, SJF and Capital might slide and SJU and UWLX could climb. I think UWLX is a little low either way, given that its two losses are to UWW and it has a very high quality victory.
But knowing your posts there's undoubtedly logic that I am not seeing. Plus, things will play out soon enough.
I'm kicking myself right now for agreeing to change a BB practice from Thursdays to Fridays, which means I might miss what I believe will be a heckuva Stagg. (The good news is my newest 8th grade player has size 14 feet and is getting recruited by DeMatha or Good Counsel (Md.) for football and another player is likely headed to DeMatha for hoops.)
I can understand Pa Wesleyan's pain, and considerable it must be...almost as much as Bridgewater at MUC about 3 years ago. :o
I agree with your assessment if UWW wins by more than a TD.
Ralph, no SERIOUS complaints about your list, but I would flip-flop Cap and SJF (Cap lost ONLY to MUC, while SJF lost to MUC and Springfield; also, Cap lost in the playoffs by only 3, SJF by 12 - it's not Cap's fault they had to play them a week earlier!). And while SJF was simply not competitive in the fourth quarter, Cap was.
Also, I think you have LaX WAY too low (if UWW beats MUC I'd put LaX all the way up at #3; even if they lose, probably #5). As with the Cap/SJF comparison, LaX lost ONLY to UWW [even if the first game was a real spanking], while SJU lost to UWW and Bethel, with the playoff losses to UWW both being by 3 points.
Otherwise, I can't think of a team I'd place in the top ten to replace any of these.
Yeah, those kind of thumpings are never fun. Wesley does sound like a program on the the rise. I was really hoping to have been in Dover today.
I'm now thinking about going down anyway, leaving the gym at 9 with a couple of stinky kids and probably getting in around 1 a.m. I have the feeling this could be a classic. (And it's also the weekend my wife wants all males out of the house so she can bake for Christmas.)
Salem is such a great host. Anybody on the fence who hasn't been before ought to take it in.
Unfortunately, there's no YES clinic scheduled this year. The 2003 one was a huge hit with my son and his buddy. They worked with some great players from SOUTH Region teams (BC and Emory and Henry) who left a tremendous impression on them (and allowed me to tailgate). Plenty of good things to recommend this -- even if you don't have a dog in what looks to be a very good fight.
Mr. Y: As for where to place UWLX, I can see it both ways, but the impression I got from UWW was they thought SJU was a bit better. Still, UWLX beat Bethel, which beat SJU ... For this week, however, I'm going to try to focus on 1 vs. 2.
Quote from: K-Mack on December 20, 2006, 01:08:50 AM
So I'm not sure what merit there is to saying "I think that HSU lost out by not getting to play a first round opponent, before UMHB."
Show me how.
This wouldn't have an effect on the poll, but since we do go to all the trouble of tracking wins and losses for teams and coaches and stats for players (including playoffs) it does seem unfair to seed HSU out of a first-round win.
Not that Jimmie Keeling is going to challenge John Gagliardi but he's not playing on the same field as Gagliardi is either -- he's term limited by the NCAA to one less game.
Quote from: K-Mack on December 20, 2006, 01:08:50 AM
No. 13 Hardin-Simmons is ranked ahead of the other teams in the South Region, two of whom advanced to the second round. If HSU had beaten either No. 18 W&J or No. 24 CNU, or No. 21 Carnegie Mellon, unranked Millsaps or Dickinson and lost to the second round, they still would have been ranked right about where they are. You can argue about some of the teams right around them, like Whitworth, Central, Springfield or Rowan, but I think all of them except for maybe the Pirates had tight games with playoff teams that went deep into the field (or in Rowan's case, went deep themsevles)
Certainly HSU didn't belong ahead of UMHB or Wesley.
So I'm not sure what merit there is to saying "I think that HSU lost out by not getting to play a first round opponent, before UMHB."
Show me how.
I'm actually kind of proud of the D3 pollsters as a whole for looking at that, not just ranking by what round a team went out in.
I know I had Baldwin-Wallace 15th, I think. You hold the national champions to 14 points, you're probably as good or better than many of the 32 playoff teams.
(Pat and them countered with "they lost to Marietta though.")
K-mack, thanks for the chance to discuss the HSU seeding. :)
The trend that I saw (retrospectively) is that I undervalued West Regon teams, Whitworth and Central. I looked at HSU's good wins over UW-SP and Linfield early in the season and took them as a fair assessment of HSU's strength. As dangerous a relative scores can be, HSU's opening weekend UW-SP victory was as solid as UWW's and UWLC's wins were at comparable times in each school's schedule. HSU's Linfield win in the second game of the season for both teams was also good and as solid as the Whitworth win for clinch the NWC championship.
(I saw HSU play twice, the Linfield game and the UMHB playoff game. I consider the HSU-UMHB football games as "rivalry" games, because they have been the best programs in the ASC.)With "
9 degrees of Kevin Bacon" we can get from HSU to Springfield and the East. I posted in September that opening game UMHB, on a 1446.4 mile road trip (msn.mapoint.com shortest possible distance ;D ;)) to CNU, for the Captains'
second game, is not a fair comparison. I do appreciate the shift in opinion towards the LL vs. the NJAC.
Keith, one other "value proxy" that we see amongst the voters is that Whitworth is #9 with 382 votes. On a perfect 625 vote system for the perfect Top 25 that works out to a very solid "11th", which is 375 votes in the "perfect 625 system". #14 Wilkes comes in at 311 votes which is almost closer to "13th" (325 votes) in that same "perfect 625 system". Six teams are separated by less than 71 votes. That is much consensus that those teams are awfully close in the opinions of the 25 best D3 minds. It just doesn't present itself that way without careful analysis of the vote totals.
Thanks for the chance to respond. :)
Wikipedia credits the creation of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon) to Albright students in 1984.
Interesting.
Funny you should mention the "perfect 625" system. I didn't have a cool name for it, but I was looking at the poll with that in mind yesterday. Like UWW came in with 599, meaning one voter had them third, right?
Anyway, the point Pat makes above, I've never disagreed with. The committee could have followed its own seedings had it gotten the 491-mile number out of the software, and HSU probably would have beaten the six seed, W&J, and played at UMHB the next week (although no assumptions in the CNU-UMHB rematch).
In any case, yeah, I enjoy the discussions too.
How do we do it without calling each other names and questioning each other's manhood?
K-mack, I may as guilty of this as anyone, but let's call it the "regional pull effect".
MUC pulled UWW, Cap and SJF.
UWW pulled SJU, UWL, Whitworth and Central. Maybe even Oxy and Bethel.
SJF pulled Springfield, Rowan and Wilkes.
Wesley bombed again this year when they went to UWW, and were almost overtaken by UMHB. They probably had insignificant pull for anyone else in the South Region. The remainder of the South Region was 18, 22 and 24.
I would guess that UMHB and HSU managed to withstnd the "negative or absence of" pull and sustained their position from their pre-playoff non-conference games.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2006, 09:34:31 AM
Wikipedia credits the creation of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon) to Albright students in 1984.
And I picked Randolph-Macon over Albright.
We have, uh ... the CEO and founder of Dollar Tree!
Quote from: K-Mack on December 21, 2006, 02:08:36 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2006, 09:34:31 AM
Wikipedia credits the creation of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon) to Albright students in 1984.
And I picked Randolph-Macon over Albright.
We have, uh ... the CEO and founder of Dollar Tree!
Last summer, we learned that
Chuck Fallon (http://investor.bk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=87140&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=871954&highlight=), a McMurry football player from the old NAIA/Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association days in the early 1980's, has been named president of Burger King North America.
Ok
Hypothetically!! Give UW-W the ball on the two and give Welsey the ball at the 20 twice. What happens??
Ralph how do you justify that SJF is not # 2???? They played Mt Union closer for a lot longer than UW-W!! that was your reasoning for some of you other rankings correct? Wesley has gone to the semi's two years in a row and still they don't get respect. And no # 7 is not respect. Not after winning 25 games in two years!! >:(
Ralph you are a Texas homer. ;D (Not that there's anything wrong with that) You can't stand that Wesley has beaten a Texas team twice in a row. UMHB had a nice two drives other than that Wesley stomped 'em. ;D
As I have said before end of season rankings don't matter unless you are #1. And after Kleppe being snubbed it seems that the rankings and all american teams are all come down to where the voters are from.
OK enough of that!!!!
Ralph
Have a safe and healthy holiday!!! PEACE!!!!
Pa Wesleyan, I think that UWW is in Wesley's head.
I think that Wesley is getting into UMHB's head.
I think that UMHB is getting into HSU's head and HSU is going to address that this off-season!
I think that HSU would have been a stronger match for Wesley, because HSU QB Jordan Neal is a more "Staubachian" or a more "Vince Young - type" QB for being able to do everything that he possibly can to "will" his team to victory.
Respectfully, I see UMHB's Josh Welch as being able to execute a game plan precisely and not lose the game for his team. I see HSU's Neal as being better able to take a bad situation and pull it out or "die trying". Those are different football gifts and graces. Aikman would not lose a game. However if I were behind, I would want Staubach to QB my team for the best chance for a win.
Digressing, I think that the best QB in the Staubach mold in the NFL today is Vince Young. I think that Vince can get more out of his 52nd player on the roster than anyone in the NFL. I hope that he can learn some real "NFL QB skills" before he is lost to injury.
As for Wesley, I would love for them to play SJU in Minnesota. It would be a non-region game for both, so the consequences would only impact the secondary criteria, but it would be "Game of the Week". Shucks, tell Keith when to buy the airline tickets! ;)
Ralph
Here is Wesley's opponents as promised.
Wesley is playing Widener, Del-Val, Huntingdon(H), Chowan (A), Morrisville (A) and conference NNA (A), BPort (A), SSU(H) and Frostburg (H). Still looking for a 10th game. That was as of two weeks ago!!
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on December 21, 2006, 05:40:59 PMAnd no # 7 is not respect.
You know you're my boy. But what on God's green earth are you talking about here? Of course No. 7 is respect ... and given how they finished the season, it's probably right where they belong. Any team that played UWW tough could have had that "pull" effect over Wesley and any comparable South Region team, and dropped the Wolverines even further, had UMHB not stalemated UWW. You should be thanking Texas.
I agree that No. 1 is the only ranking that really matters, yet for some reason we all seem to be really interested in 2-234.
I justify not putting SJF at No. 2 because Mount Union said UWW was the toughest team it played, followed by Capital.
Where better to get it than from the source?
SJF finished at 4, I think, and did well representing the East and itself vs. two big-name programs.
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on December 21, 2006, 05:40:59 PMAs I have said before end of season rankings don't matter unless you are #1. And after Kleppe being snubbed it seems that the rankings and all american teams are all come down to where the voters are from.
Or your source.
Kleppe was D3football.com's Defensive Player of the Year.
Just want to make sure the lurkers and casual readers know you aren't referring to us when you say a man was snubbed.
Keith
I understand your thinking. One game doesn't make a season... And yet it does!!
But I still wonder how UMHB gets a pass yet Wesley doesn't. But nothing is perfect.
If you go by who beat who and how and when, then shouldn't you consider that Wesley did get to UW-W and was seated third. Enough double talk for now...
I gotta be the voice here Keith, you know where I am coming from? :D
Kleppe not getting his props is unfortunate but they must have not seen the final.
He reminds me of Demetrius Stevens from Wesley in the late 90's. Their only weakness is they are not tall enough for the know alls..
Perhaps because UMHB was competitive against Whitewater.
And Wesley is still ranked ahead of UMHB. Is that getting a pass? No. It's appropriate, in fact.
cortland should be lower... tanking an ECAC game is still tanking a game.
So, before we see the preseason polls for '07 (should I start a new thread? I don't mind keeping this one going), what are people's thoughts on No. 2 and the rest behind Mount Union?
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
OK . . . not much substance to offer, but I'll pose a question . . . what impact does Danny Jones' transfer from CLU to UWW do to UWW's preseason ranking, if any?
tooth
tooth, realistically, how much influence could it have? I mean, WW will arguably be top 5 pre-season. Without Jones, they have 2 very good QB's. If he lives up to advanced billing that makes 3. Do you think it will really be reflected in the re-season rankings? I don't.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:47:04 AM
So, before we see the preseason polls for '07 (should I start a new thread? I don't mind keeping this one going), what are people's thoughts on No. 2 and the rest behind Mount Union?
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
K-Mack...anxious to see your top 25. Street & Smith's 07 magazine has an interesting list...MU, St Johns, SJF, Whitewater, MHB top five. Thought their breakdown of the top 25 was very well done.
I put together my top 25 poll. I want to see how it compares to the preseason poll for this season. This is how I determined it. I went back and looked at the poll from last year went through the teams looking to see how many returners should be coming back. I came up with a range of numbers of where I thought they could be. I then and went and looked at teams big stat makers. I then put them in where I thought.
Preseason Top 25-By PrideSportBBallGuy
1. Mount Union
2. St John Fisher
3. St Johns
4. UW-Whitewater
5. Springfield
6. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Capitol
8. Central
9. Wesley
10. UW-Lacrosse
11. Rowan
12. Whitworth
13. Occidental
14. Hardin Simmons
15. Wheaton
16. Wilkes
17. Bethel
18. Washington & Jefferson
19. North Central
20. Linfield
21. Hobart
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. Baldwin-Wallace
24. Wabash
25. St. Olaf
Enjoy it.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:47:04 AMwhat are people's thoughts on No. 2 and the rest behind Mount Union?
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
I think that anwsers your question. I think we all are anxious to see your poll.
That looks like my top 25 in some ways, and doesn't look like it in some other ways.
I too, went with a strong focus on what was coming back, with a few exceptions. Even though UW-Whitewater was gutted, for example, usually two years of recruiting off a Stagg Bowl and getting 5 extra weeks of practice in pays huge dividends.
I feel like I can justify where I put everyone, but there's definitely some room to disagree.
Also, copy editor nerd point I should make here ... Pride, yours and mine are top 25 RANKINGS. An actual POLL, like D3football.com's, involves a group of people voting and then numbers being sorted out to determine each team's ranking.
Don't worry though, many people who get paid to do this don't recognize the difference.
As far as the top 25 itself, it's supposed to be on newstands and at your local 7-Elevens today. SOMEbody's gonna have to drop $4.95 on that puppy, sorry ...
K-Mack-
I make that poll/rankings mistake all the time. Growing up and seeing polls after polls after polls, I just keep calling it poll when it should be called a ranking. I need to get out to the store and pick one up, I guess. What can you tell me about your rankings? How many teams I got in the same spot as yours or How many teams to we both have together in the Top 25? Or am I going to have to go out and get a USAToday?
Somebody please go out and get one.
Pride,
No big deal. I'll give you a few reactions to yours.
I felt like Linfield was right there with Whitworth last season, and the Pirates lost their star QB and NFL tight end ... they were built for last season, if I remember correctly, on defense, so I gave the nod to Linfield to reclaim the NWC title this year and only ranked one team from that conference. Which is not uncommon given that there are 26 conferences and 25 spots in the top 25, but our power conferences often have multiple teams ranked.
I won't give you my top five ... I think the answers will shock some people, but that was the most carefully dissected part of it, and I consulted heavily with Pat and Gordon on that one.
I had Whitewater and La Crosse right together, and this was a great example of doing it so early, there's
The best I could do for a lot of teams in terms of returning starters was look at their last (playoff) game and seeing how many of those guys were back, but even that's an inexact science.
It's tough to do this so early, it's really better in August when coaches have a better idea of what's what ... I can't say that top 25, which I'm solely responsbile for, is the one I'll submit as my vote in the first D3 poll.
Pride,
you and I had Mount Union, Central, W&J and Linfield in the same spots, and a couple more one spot difference. I think we ranked 21 of the same teams.
There is definitely room to disagree. I thought there were some teams I didn't rank, like Wartburg, who could easily have been in there. I also thought there were some races, like in the ODAC, where we'll need to see a few games to see which team, if any (Bwater, E&H, Guilford, defending champ W&L?) is top 25 worthy.
The question I do have about Linfield is how many of thier stars are returning. Several of them are seniors but have Junior eligibilty. They can play an extra year. I just question whether or not all of them are still using it. As from my conference Christopher Newport. I couldn't see them in the rankings at all. i would be surprised to see them in d3football's top 25 preseason. They may get some votes, but I have already went through thier numbers already. They are losing a big portion of thier offense: Take a look.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 07, 2007, 04:02:18 PM
I am just pointing out that they have never had a bad defense. I still don't understand why the defense would be such ?. I know that you are losing Rob, but considering what you are losing on offense should raise the question marks.
Some numbers
Offense CNU is losing 2773 yards out of 3526. That is 78.6% of the total yards lost.
TD #'s 31/41 will be lost that is 75%
Now on the defensive side you are losing 158 tackles / 732 thats only 21%
INT's 4/8. 50%
Sacks 2.5/20. 12.5%
All these numbers could be a little higher. I only took the numbers from the big core group. (But for CNU's sake lets hope not)
I am just not sure if the defense is the big worry for next year.
Then again CNU always finds a way to make it in the poll at some point in the season. They have a consistent program over there.
Also, Pat consulted with me, but did not fully endorse my top 5. It's definitely not the same old, same old rehashed top 5 from last season, and there's room to disagree.
I don't think there will be many that will see Springfield as a top 5 team :-\
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 25, 2007, 09:01:08 PM
I don't think there will be many that will see Springfield as a top 5 team :-\
I have them in the top 10. I don't see why they'd be too far down the list if they split with St. John Fisher last season and Fisher went to the semifinals and gave Mount Union a game. Whether you know D3 football or not, you can extrapolate the same thing from that, and then they have Chris Sharpe and some other talent back.
I forgot to finish this thought:
"I had Whitewater and La Crosse right together, and this was a great example of doing it so early, there's "
there's little information out there about the team's upcoming season. It's easiest to have a concrete number of starters back to work with, but even with that, everyone does it differently; some count return men and long snappers, some count kickers and punters, some count neither ... some count a starter from two years ago that missed last year but is back this year ... so putting too much stock in that number is dangerous too.
What you like to see is significant players back or significant groups ... eight or nine on defense, or four or five on the offensive line. On the flipside, you almost have to take into account significant losses, like Thiel last year for example.
If you try to think too far ahead, you can use home/away games, try to project where the playoff games will be and who will win ... but bottom line, you try to come up with the best ranking you can, knowing that as soon as the real games kickoff, the thing is entirely fluid.
And if it weren't, how boring would the season be?
Quote from: KennethK on June 25, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:47:04 AM
So, before we see the preseason polls for '07 (should I start a new thread? I don't mind keeping this one going), what are people's thoughts on No. 2 and the rest behind Mount Union?
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
K-Mack...anxious to see your top 25. Street & Smith's 07 magazine has an interesting list...MU, St Johns, SJF, Whitewater, MHB top five. Thought their breakdown of the top 25 was very well done.
Would appreciate a reposting of this or a link to it. Same with Lindy's ... I haven't seen either.
If S&S is the one who's had the same guy doing it for ages (Mike Goens, from Ala. somewhere), I can at least understand why they'd have a good feel for things.
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
And you can see the Lindy's poll about halfway down this page...
http://65.36.138.212/publicus/blog/read.asp?BlogID=4&ID=6755
I could just paste them but why not drive some traffic their way as a sign of my appreciation? :)
There certainly seems to be a large disparity in the placement of St. John Fisher on these polls.
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
Can always count on my guy to assemble this stuff.
I'm pretty sure I can count on Bridgewater fans to protest their non-mention in USAT as well. :guilty:
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
And you can see the Lindy's poll about halfway down this page...
http://65.36.138.212/publicus/blog/read.asp?BlogID=4&ID=6755
I could just paste them but why not drive some traffic their way as a sign of my appreciation? :)
Much appreciated. :)
Quote from: K-Mack on June 25, 2007, 10:11:10 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
Can always count on my guy to assemble this stuff.
I'm pretty sure I can count on Bridgewater fans to protest their non-mention in USAT as well. :guilty:
Funny thing is, I had both Lindy's and S&S in my hand at Barnes & Noble two days ago to purchase. Actually made it to the check out line. But I then realized I could save $15 if I simply wrote down on a piece of paper what I needed (Bridgewater-related) and placed the two mags back on the newsstand. Which is what I ended up doing. :)
I was kind of disappointed Bridgewater was even mentioned by a national magazine. After our performance (or lack there of) last season, I think we have some proving to do before we are mentioned as a top 25 team.
Hopefully D3football.com's preseason poll gives the Eagles that "chip on the shoulder." Can you help make that happen? :)
Quote from: pg04 on June 25, 2007, 09:52:23 PM
There certainly seems to be a large disparity in the placement of St. John Fisher on these polls.
I think that plays along with what K-Mack said. People look at different things.
I wish I had my numbers in front of me, but my pre-rank (looking at SR, JR, SO, FR what the expected make up is) on St. John Fisher I believe was 2-5 (means either 2, 3, 4, or 5) I believe I had UW Whitewater at 2-6 and St John's 3-7. When I went back and looked at what is "expected" to return, St. John Fisher just had more key people coming back.
K-Mack-
as for my Springfield pick, I do know off the top of my head, they were in the 5-10 range. I never thought they could be any lower than that. That I believe was one of my bigger ranges for any of my schools I had on the list.
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.vox.com%2F6a00c225207cec8fdb00cdf7f2b622094f-120pi&hash=8f3abc462385d766bbfae671b2ee01f809e5f9c2)
coast guard? Coast.... Coast Guard? Coast Guard?
I remember when coast guard was good (96-98ish) but they are not good anymore. They went from LL doormat to kicking the crap out of the NEFC in one year. Does that deserve a preseason ranking? sorry, no. not by any means. Will the SID at coast guard roll with this or what?
Coast Guard?
Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on June 25, 2007, 10:35:41 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 25, 2007, 10:11:10 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
Can always count on my guy to assemble this stuff.
I'm pretty sure I can count on Bridgewater fans to protest their non-mention in USAT as well. :guilty:
Funny thing is, I had both Lindy's and S&S in my hand at Barnes & Noble two days ago to purchase. Actually made it to the check out line. But I then realized I could save $15 if I simply wrote down on a piece of paper what I needed (Bridgewater-related) and placed the two mags back on the newsstand. Which is what I ended up doing. :)
I was kind of disappointed Bridgewater was even mentioned by a national magazine. After our performance (or lack there of) last season, I think we have some proving to do before we are mentioned as a top 25 team.
Hopefully D3football.com's preseason poll gives the Eagles that "chip on the shoulder." Can you help make that happen? :)
Hey, shows what I know?
I think the ODAC could end up with a top 25 team, and if I had to bet on who that would be, the smart money is on Bridgewater ... but there are a lot of teams who could put it together (Eagles, E&H, Guilford, defending champ W&L ... hey, remember Hampden-Sydney?), I think we have to see a few weeks before we know which ODAC teams to consider.
The Coast Guard thing is a pretty solid example of what can happen when you don't know crap about D3 and last year's records are all you have to roll with.
That scares the crap out of me with the D2 preview, so I consult with D2football.com to be sure.
Then again, I ranked an HCAC team and a UAA team. :o
Quote from: K-Mack on June 25, 2007, 08:58:45 PM
Also, Pat consulted with me, but did not fully endorse my top 5. It's definitely not the same old, same old rehashed top 5 from last season, and there's room to disagree.
Thanks. I was pondering whether to mention that myself. :)
Quote from: 'gro on June 25, 2007, 10:49:50 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.vox.com%2F6a00c225207cec8fdb00cdf7f2b622094f-120pi&hash=8f3abc462385d766bbfae671b2ee01f809e5f9c2)
coast guard? Coast.... Coast Guard? Coast Guard?
I remember when coast guard was good (96-98ish) but they are not good anymore. They went from LL doormat to kicking the crap out of the NEFC in one year. Does that deserve a preseason ranking? sorry, no. not by any means. Will the SID at coast guard roll with this or what?
Coast Guard?
Ha ha ha ha ha! You gotta be kidding me!
It's a long climb up from the No. 136 that they ended last season at.
What's even more baffling is that they'd put Coast Guard in but not Curry, if they were to put someone in from that conference...
Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:47:04 AM
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
Did you mean the 25th
of June? ??? I looked! Is it in the regular USAToday? I guess it got bumped by the Gold Cup. ::)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 25, 2007, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 25, 2007, 08:58:45 PM
Also, Pat consulted with me, but did not fully endorse my top 5. It's definitely not the same old, same old rehashed top 5 from last season, and there's room to disagree.
Thanks. I was pondering whether to mention that myself. :)
Yeah, I didn't want to make it seem like "Pat hates Team X at No. X," but "Pat doesn't necessarily agree with me, but at least I checked with him" was the least I could do.
Quote from: tmerton on June 26, 2007, 12:20:49 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:47:04 AM
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
Did you mean the 25th of June? ??? I looked! Is it in the regular USAToday? I guess it got bumped by the Gold Cup. ::)
It's a special edition. Should have one of seven covers, probably Michigan or Nebraska where you're at, on white newsprint. In my neighborhood, the 7-Elevens always have them on display with the USA Today Dailies and the Sports Weekly issues.
Airports seem to always have them too, if you fly. Pat's more of a scholar on this than me though.
Keep an eye out. The distribution time on these varies in different places.
If USAT webs it for free, I'll post the link.
Quote from: KennethK on June 25, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
K-Mack...anxious to see your top 25.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 25, 2007, 03:50:50 PMI think that anwsers your question. I think we all are anxious to see your poll.
By the way, Pat would like you all to know that you're eager to see the Top 25, not anxious.
-- Another Proper English Moment brought to you by Copy Geeks of America
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on June 20, 2007, 07:02:12 PM
OK . . . not much substance to offer, but I'll pose a question . . . what impact does Danny Jones' transfer from CLU to UWW do to UWW's preseason ranking, if any?
tooth
I think the logical expectation is 3-5 games to feel really comfortable in the offense, assuming he wins the job.
I guess I will ask him if/when I ever call him back.
(Apologies to Danny, UWW and D3 community as a whole.)
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PMAnd you can see the Lindy's poll about halfway down this page...
http://65.36.138.212/publicus/blog/read.asp?BlogID=4&ID=6755
I could just paste them but why not drive some traffic their way as a sign of my appreciation? :)
You're a good Man(n), Gordon.
Frank (the MIAC blogger) has some good points here:
QuoteDivision III polls always have to be taken with a grain of salt. Unlike in Division I, where those who vote and compile polls can see teams from all over the country on television, Division III pollsters aren't able to see much of teams who don't play in their area of the country. Of course, it's usually a safe bet to put Mount Union No. 1. The Purple Raiders are just that dominant. After that, though, it tends to be guess work with a lot of emphasis on certain programs reputations and records from the past year.
But again I say
rankings, not polls or pollsters.
And *ahem* true D3 pollsters see teams from all over the country. Some even coach them!
Those who make D3 rankings, not always as much.
Anyway, I mince. Point taken.
Quote from: 'gro on June 25, 2007, 10:49:50 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.vox.com%2F6a00c225207cec8fdb00cdf7f2b622094f-120pi&hash=8f3abc462385d766bbfae671b2ee01f809e5f9c2)
coast guard? Coast.... Coast Guard? Coast Guard?
I remember when coast guard was good (96-98ish) but they are not good anymore. They went from LL doormat to kicking the crap out of the NEFC in one year. Does that deserve a preseason ranking? sorry, no. not by any means. Will the SID at coast guard roll with this or what?
Coast Guard?
They should just replace "incredulous" in the dictionary with "Jim Mora voice"
Works for everything.
(will be walking around all week saying "Coast Guard? Coast Guard!?!?!?"
Tmerton is on the West Coast. A John David Booty cover, perhaps?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 01:17:03 AM
Tmerton is on the West Coast. A John David Booty cover, perhaps?
Assactly!
Apologies to Tmerton for gross geographic misplacement.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 25, 2007, 03:50:50 PM
I put together my top 25 poll. I want to see how it compares to the preseason poll for this season. This is how I determined it. I went back and looked at the poll from last year went through the teams looking to see how many returners should be coming back. I came up with a range of numbers of where I thought they could be. I then and went and looked at teams big stat makers. I then put them in where I thought.
Preseason Top 25-By PrideSportBBallGuy
1. Mount Union
2. St John Fisher
3. St Johns
4. UW-Whitewater
5. Springfield
6. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Capitol
8. Central
9. Wesley
10. UW-Lacrosse
11. Rowan
12. Whitworth
13. Occidental
14. Hardin Simmons
15. Wheaton
16. Wilkes
17. Bethel
18. Washington & Jefferson
19. North Central
20. Linfield
21. Hobart
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. Baldwin-Wallace
24. Wabash
25. St. Olaf
Enjoy it.Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:47:04 AMwhat are people's thoughts on No. 2 and the rest behind Mount Union?
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
I think that anwsers your question. I think we all are anxious to see your poll.
Im gonna say Springfield is not the 5th best team in the country.
And Capital lost way too much to remain in the top 15.
Question with all of those types of pronouncements is, who goes ahead of them? I often find myself starting out the preseason Top 25 process with the same preconceived notions, but when push comes to shove, I have a hard time moving someone like Wilkes ahead of Springfield, or Occidental ahead of Capital, etc.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 09:47:11 AM
Question with all of those types of pronouncements is, who goes ahead of them?
Coast Guard. The choice is obvious.
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 08:58:59 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 25, 2007, 03:50:50 PM
I put together my top 25 poll. I want to see how it compares to the preseason poll for this season. This is how I determined it. I went back and looked at the poll from last year went through the teams looking to see how many returners should be coming back. I came up with a range of numbers of where I thought they could be. I then and went and looked at teams big stat makers. I then put them in where I thought.
Preseason Top 25-By PrideSportBBallGuy
1. Mount Union
2. St John Fisher
3. St Johns
4. UW-Whitewater
5. Springfield
6. Mary Hardin-Baylor
7. Capitol
8. Central
9. Wesley
10. UW-Lacrosse
11. Rowan
12. Whitworth
13. Occidental
14. Hardin Simmons
15. Wheaton
16. Wilkes
17. Bethel
18. Washington & Jefferson
19. North Central
20. Linfield
21. Hobart
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. Baldwin-Wallace
24. Wabash
25. St. Olaf
Enjoy it.Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:47:04 AMwhat are people's thoughts on No. 2 and the rest behind Mount Union?
I can't post the poll I did for USA Today's College Football Preview until at least the 25th, when it hits newsstands. However, I'd like to be in full discussion mode by the time it hits :)
I think that anwsers your question. I think we all are anxious to see your poll.
Im gonna say Springfield is not the 5th best team in the country.
That is like every other ranking/poll they are always up for debate.
JU-
Did you know that Springfield returns 99.09% of thier offense? This is a team that finished 10th in the d3football poll. The question mark will be the defesne only returning 56% (+/- a few %, I kept track of the core defensive players.) They do return 5 of top 10 defensive players. They return a guy that had 10INT's last year.
hscoach-
As for Captial I do agree they lost a lot. I thought they couldn't be as high as they finished last year at number 3. Before I went to see who was returning and who wasn't I had them around 4-7 range. They ended up at number 7. They may have lost alot, but they haven't had a losing season since 2000. That tells me they do a good job of replacing players.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:59:15 AM
Did you know that Springfield returns 99.09% of thier offense? This is a team that finished 10th in the d3football poll. The question mark will be the defesne only returning 56% (+/- a few %, I kept track of the core defensive players.) They do return 5 of top 10 defensive players. They return a guy that had 10INT's last year.
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:59:15 AM
Did you know that Springfield returns 99.09% of thier offense? This is a team that finished 10th in the d3football poll. The question mark will be the defesne only returning 56% (+/- a few %, I kept track of the core defensive players.) They do return 5 of top 10 defensive players. They return a guy that had 10INT's last year.
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Ok but the team finished 10-2 last year. One turf loss and one grass loss. The 10 scheduled games this year 9 are on turf, and one is at Brockport St on grass. At this point I am not sure if they will win or lose at Brockport St. I don't know what they have coming back from a 4-6 team.
So Springfield plays well on turf.
There could be a team that plays perfect on Saturday with the wind blowing 5mph from the east on a overcast day when there are 1200+ fans and they run out of hot dogs with 5:36 left in the 4QTR. I am taking that team if they are returning nearly 100% of thier offense and 56% of the defense that finished in the d3football poll top 10. No matter how they play where.
We will just have to wait and see what the pollster's say. My gut tells me they will be in the top 10.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 26, 2007, 12:52:23 AM
Quote from: KennethK on June 25, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
K-Mack...anxious to see your top 25.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 25, 2007, 03:50:50 PMI think that anwsers your question. I think we all are anxious to see your poll.
By the way, Pat would like you all to know that you're eager to see the Top 25, not anxious.
-- Another Proper English Moment brought to you by Copy Geeks of America
Isn't that a bit presumptious in assuming our view of your picks? ;)
Some of us may be eager; others may be anxious (some may even be in utter dread)! ;D
Why don't we wait until the games are played?
Quote from: frank uible on June 26, 2007, 11:47:41 AM
Why don't we wait until the games are played?
And talk about what all summer - baseball?! ;)
QuoteWhy don't we wait until the games are played?
We'll probably do both -- we'll let the games play out but talk about them before they do.
People who aren't interested aren't obligated to participate.
Quote from: frank uible on June 26, 2007, 11:47:41 AM
Why don't we wait until the games are played?
In my opinion, because of the title: "Pre-Season Poll". Prognostication!!
Quote from: K-Mack on June 26, 2007, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: 'gro on June 25, 2007, 10:49:50 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on June 25, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Here is the Street & Smith poll as posted by our friend at BridgewaterFootball.com. Check out No. 24.
http://bridgewaterfootball.blogspot.com/2007/06/bc-ranked-no-17-by-street-smith.html
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.vox.com%2F6a00c225207cec8fdb00cdf7f2b622094f-120pi&hash=8f3abc462385d766bbfae671b2ee01f809e5f9c2)
coast guard? Coast.... Coast Guard? Coast Guard?
I remember when coast guard was good (96-98ish) but they are not good anymore. They went from LL doormat to kicking the crap out of the NEFC in one year. Does that deserve a preseason ranking? sorry, no. not by any means. Will the SID at coast guard roll with this or what?
Coast Guard?
(will be walking around all week saying "Coast Guard? Coast Guard!?!?!?"
Friggin' gro. I'm doing the same thing.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 11:25:59 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:59:15 AM
Did you know that Springfield returns 99.09% of thier offense? This is a team that finished 10th in the d3football poll. The question mark will be the defesne only returning 56% (+/- a few %, I kept track of the core defensive players.) They do return 5 of top 10 defensive players. They return a guy that had 10INT's last year.
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Ok but the team finished 10-2 last year. One turf loss and one grass loss. The 10 scheduled games this year 9 are on turf, and one is at Brockport St on grass. At this point I am not sure if they will win or lose at Brockport St. I don't know what they have coming back from a 4-6 team.
So Springfield plays well on turf.
There could be a team that plays perfect on Saturday with the wind blowing 5mph from the east on a overcast day when there are 1200+ fans and they run out of hot dogs with 5:36 left in the 4QTR. I am taking that team if they are returning nearly 100% of thier offense and 56% of the defense that finished in the d3football poll top 10. No matter how they play where.
We will just have to wait and see what the pollster's say. My gut tells me they will be in the top 10.
The last time Brockport played them on grass they either got 3 or zero points. I can't remember...I know that was a while ago but the grass and bad (unplayable?) conditions will stifle them.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since
both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
But that is just not true. Look at tennis for a clear comparison - some players are unbeatable at Wimbledon but hopeless at the French Open; others just the reverse. Both players are on the same surface, but clearly not equally affected.
Whether it be what surface a team is more used to, different styles of play, or simply individual idiosyncracies, while both teams are on the same surface, it is highly
unlikely that they are equally affected.
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
Thank you 'gro. I say, they are football players and should be able to play anywhere even if it is the surface of the sun.
I want to apologize to you Pat, if your statement was sarcasm then disregard the post that followed. If it truly is your argument then you know where I stand on that issue.
Option offenses were highly successful long before there was artificial turf.
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
Dude, have you seen Springfield play?
Quote from: frank uible on June 26, 2007, 01:47:46 PM
Option offenses were highly successful long before there was artificial turf.
No doubt. But back then, everyone was playing on dirt and grass, right?
Mr. Ypsi-
Ok. I can see your point, but I think you are comaparing apples to oranges. (More like oranges to Orange Juice)
Tennis players play better on a particular surface because of the way the ball hits that surface.
They play better or worse because of their foot speed on that surface.
Does a RB carry a ball different on grass compared to turf? Probably not. Speed is equalized not matter what surface you play on. Both teams are "faster" on turf, both teams "slower" on grass.
Frank Uible-
Agreed.
Anyone else-
What about a passing team? A team that passes 50-60 times a game. I don't think it really matters what surface they play on.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 01:59:12 PM
Does a RB carry a ball different on grass compared to turf? Probably not. Speed is equalized not matter what surface you play on. Both teams are "faster" on turf, both teams "slower" on grass.
...
Anyone else-
What about a passing team? A team that passes 50-60 times a game. I don't think it really matters what surface they play on.
Then I suspect that a team that runs the ball 50-60 times a game is more affected by the surface than a team that passes the ball 50-60 times a game, by your own admission here.
tennis is about timing, and projecting where the incoming ball is going to be and where you need to be to hit it back. Playing on 3 different surfaces, switching back and forth, I can see how one would become better on grass than say clay.
Like I said in football there isn't that much difference between a good grass field and turf. You play on turf, you slip less, your first step doesn't tear up a clump of grass.... you "feel faster". Are you faster? sure, your 40 time would be quicker on turf than grass, but so are the other 21 guys on the field. It's all relative.
The field doesn't physically change anything in football. If a player puts himself at a mental disadvantage that's his fault.
Id put Rowan ahead of springfield.
And there is no grass in the world like the turf at Springfield. When the qb makes that first fake and goes full speed towards the sideline, he knows he isnt stopping. The defense has to make a decision, then go at full speed. So the turf does give the offensive team the advantage. The QB on grass has to stop in order to make that pitch or handoff and I belive it gives him a great advantage on that turf, especially Sharpe.
And they are good, but every year they lose a game or two because that offense they run will cause them fumbles that will lose them a game. Its been the same thing there for the last 25 years. (and yes Ive played them and seen them about 10 times.)
Plus they wont be suprising anyone this year either. Im sure E8 teams has every single SC offensive game last year with breakdowns, percentages etc....
Im not saying they wont be a great team, but they arent the 5th best team in the country.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 02:00:51 PM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 01:59:12 PM
Does a RB carry a ball different on grass compared to turf? Probably not. Speed is equalized not matter what surface you play on. Both teams are "faster" on turf, both teams "slower" on grass.
...
Anyone else-
What about a passing team? A team that passes 50-60 times a game. I don't think it really matters what surface they play on.
Then I suspect that a team that runs the ball 50-60 times a game is more affected by the surface than a team that passes the ball 50-60 times a game, by your own admission here.
I didn't say that. Where did I say a team that runs 50-60 times a game is affected by the playing surface? Both teams are equally affected is what I said.
If a team that beats, lets say Springfield on grass then that team should be quite capable on beating them on turf. The playing surface doesn't matter. Teams have bad games. Even Mount Union loses once in a while. I am sure it doesn't matter what playing surface it is when they lose.
If you'd seen Springfield play you'd know that comparing them is ridiculous based on their style of play.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
Dude, have you seen Springfield play?
yeah I saw the IC/SC telecast (at a sloppy Ithaca field) and Springfield looked horrible. but you can't blame the field. Every time a SC running back slips, sooner or later a ithaca defender is going to slip and miss a tackle.
my argument is only about the field (or weather for that matter) physically affecting one team more than another. Mental attitude, preparedness, sure you can have that, but that is just bad coaching.
sorry, this is a pet peeve I will take to the grave!!
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:08:23 PM
Id put Rowan ahead of springfield.
Plus they wont be suprising anyone this year either. Im sure E8 teams has every single SC offensive game last year with breakdowns, percentages etc....
Im not saying they wont be a great team, but they arent the 5th best team in the country.
Then again I am sure Springfield is doing the same thing with the rest of the E8 teams.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:08:23 PM
Id put Rowan ahead of springfield.
Plus they wont be suprising anyone this year either. Im sure E8 teams has every single SC offensive game last year with breakdowns, percentages etc....
Im not saying they wont be a great team, but they arent the 5th best team in the country.
Then again I am sure Springfield is doing the same thing with the rest of the E8 teams.
yea but Ithaca hasnt been running the same offense the last 25 years. Plus they will have some different players.
Ithaca now knows what this QB likes to do. They know who is going to get the ball more often than not. You can never predict what SC will do, but it is easier when you can see tendencies with the same people.
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 02:16:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
Dude, have you seen Springfield play?
yeah I saw the IC/SC telecast (at a sloppy Ithaca field) and Springfield looked horrible. but you can't blame the field. Every time a SC running back slips, sooner or later a ithaca defender is going to slip and miss a tackle.
my argument is only about the field (or weather for that matter) physically affecting one team more than another. Mental attitude, preparedness, sure you can have that, but that is just bad coaching.
sorry, this is a pet peeve I will take to the grave!!
gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather. They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.
while this issue has been beaten to death... I will agree with JU and Pat.
first and foremost Pat's point about seeing SC in person is a great one. JU mentioned the turf at SC and that is the thing...that turf is not like other turf (though they may be replacing it) it is like cement. That is going to be faster than grass....granted 'gro's point is that it makes everyone faster but with that triple option the offense has the advantage of the turf.
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:23:53 PM
gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather. They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.
You're absolutely right JU. Couldn't agree more.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpi.edu%2Fdept%2FNewsComm%2Fsub%2Ffootball03%2Fimage%2Fithaca-rpi-14.jpg&hash=ed39d5fa9a7781d9df0916454977eb7ca774f74e)
man this pic never gets old, how many years can I keep bringing this game up?
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 02:16:56 PM
yeah I saw the IC/SC telecast (at a sloppy Ithaca field) and Springfield looked horrible. but you can't blame the field. Every time a SC running back slips, sooner or later a ithaca defender is going to slip and miss a tackle.
You're sure that's true? It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 03:06:42 PM
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:23:53 PM
gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather. They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.
You're absolutely right JU. Couldn't agree more.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpi.edu%2Fdept%2FNewsComm%2Fsub%2Ffootball03%2Fimage%2Fithaca-rpi-14.jpg&hash=ed39d5fa9a7781d9df0916454977eb7ca774f74e)
man this pic never gets old, how many years can I keep bringing this game up?
I have never lost to RPI.
JU would not have let that happen.
I have to give credit though. In RPI's first season of football (2003), they were pretty impressive.
But seriously, you would think Ithaca would have the advantage in the snow on the road with the white uniforms. RPI must have used infrared goggles or something that day.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
I think it is possible for a team who plays on turf 8 times a year might not be accustomed to the surface.
Dallas Cowboys
New Orlean Saints
Atlanta Falcons
New England
New York Giants
All had better records on the road than at home this past season. ;D
So yeah I think it is possible.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
I think it is possible for a team who plays on turf 8 times a year might not be accustomed to the surface.
Dallas Cowboys
New Orlean Saints
Atlanta Falcons
New England
New York Giants
All had better records on the road than at home this past season. ;D
So yeah I think it is possible.
Pats had grass at home for a lot of the season.......
and you cant compare the NFL with d3football. Especially if you look at stats for turf v grass and the sample is so small in terms of grass fields. Very unscientific and empirical observations are more important with this argument.
Its science.
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 04:15:12 PM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
I think it is possible for a team who plays on turf 8 times a year might not be accustomed to the surface.
Dallas Cowboys
New Orlean Saints
Atlanta Falcons
New England
New York Giants
All had better records on the road than at home this past season. ;D
So yeah I think it is possible.
Pats had grass at home for a lot of the season.......
and you cant compare the NFL with d3football. Especially if you look at stats for turf v grass and the sample is so small in terms of grass fields. Very unscientific and empirical observations are more important with this argument.
Its science.
I agree to a point. It is football no matter how you play it or WHERE you play it. Surface to me doesn't matter.
The question Pat asked was:
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
Those NFL teams do play 8 or so times a year on that surface. You may not be able to compare d3 to NFL, but the surface is still turf. The sake of my arugement was to point out that surface really doesn't matter, even in the NFL. Coaching, mental and physical preparation all contribute into the factor of how a team plays.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:59:15 AM
hscoach-
As for Captial I do agree they lost a lot. I thought they couldn't be as high as they finished last year at number 3. Before I went to see who was returning and who wasn't I had them around 4-7 range. They ended up at number 7. They may have lost alot, but they haven't had a losing season since 2000. That tells me they do a good job of replacing players.
It's not the overall number of starters they lost that kills them in '07. It's the quality of those lost. See below for info on Capital from the OAC Preview on Ric's site:
CAPITAL CRUSADERS
Under the capable leadership of Jim Collins, the Crusaders have made the giant leap from "OAC also-ran" to North Region Finalist. Since 2001, Capital has 49 wins versus 17 losses (with eight of those L's coming against MTU) and consecutive appearances in the NCAA Elite 8.
However as they come off the most successful season in the college's football history, questions abound as Capital graduates its greatest senior class. Gone is Rocky Pentello, a four-year starter at quarterback and the 2006 OAC Offensive Back of the Year, as well as seven other offensive starters including both running backs. Only Derek Alexander (First-Team All-OAC) at wide receiver, Adam Persing (First-Team All-OAC) at left tackle and Will Smith at left guard return to the Capital offense. The huge void at quarterback appears to be filled by Marty Assman, a highly regarded sophomore from Bishop Hartley High School that saw mop-up duty in 2006.
Defensively the Crusaders loose the top tandem of safeties in the conference in Tom and Kyle Hausler, as well as three-fourths of their defensive line and one linebacker. And anyone wondering the impact of the Hauslers at safety only needs to look at offensive production of the Purple Raiders in the two Mount Union/Capital games from this year, as Kyle missed the regular season match-up and the Raider running game dominated with Kmic breaking several long runs through the position normally manned by Kyle Hausler. Returning to Capital defense are five starters lead by James Starks (First-Team All-OAC) at cornerback and Zac McKenzie (Second-Team All-OAC) at defensive tackle. Rounding out the returnees are Pete Ankrom and Eric Andriacco at linebacker as well as Matt Coleman at corner.
The most disheartening statistic for the 2007 Crusades is that of the 15 players that earned All-OAC honors in 2006, only four of them return for 2007. So not only are the Crusaders losing the majority of their starters, they lost the vast majority of their playmakers.
Going into 2007, Coach Collins has some major holes to fill to have any chance of remaining near the top of the OAC. As the roster stands today with only three starters returning on offense and no one in the backfield with any valuable experience, the Crusaders will likely rely on the five returning defensive starters to carry the team in the early going of 2007. Potentially mitigating the lack of returning depth is the quick fix of upper-classmen Division 1 transfers into the open "playmaker" positions. This is an avenue of talent acquisition that Coach Collins has excelled at the last few years. As evidence, one needs to look no further than Lewis Howes who only played at Capital for his senior year, yet was Capital's most explosive receiver in 2005. As well as Derrick Alexander who is on campus for only the 2006 and 2007 seasons. And this doesn't include the transfer of arguably the best player in the history of the school (Rocky Pentello from Toledo) and one of their best linebackers (Joel Sickmeier from Mount Union).
If Collins is looking for immediate help for the 2007 Crusaders, I expect him to focus on the running back position given Capital's poor rushing totals. If there was one glaring weakness in the 2005 and 2006 Crusader teams, it was their lack of any legitimate running game to take the pressure off of Rocky Pentello. This issue was never more evident than last year's regular season showdown with the Purple Raiders that was played in a blinding snow/sleet storm. Mother Nature took care of limiting the Crusader passing game that day and the absence of a running game completely eliminated any semblance of a productive Capital offense. By contrast, the Purple Raiders have displayed a great balance between running and passing in recent years which have been a big factor in their OAC and national titles. Coupling dismal rushing production with the limitations of starting a young quarterback, I would expect Collins to put a real premium on finding a legitimate running threat for 2007.
One thing that you can count on is that Coach Jim Collins has built a very good and talented program in Columbus and the Crusaders will not be an easy victory for anyone in 2007. The question remains however whether they can remain Mount Union's toughest competition for the OAC Crown, or whether they slip back to being just another of the OAC's very good squads.
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 03:55:49 PM
I have never lost to RPI.
You never had the chance. I never beat Ithaca (insert intense rage here).
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 02:16:56 PM
yeah I saw the IC/SC telecast (at a sloppy Ithaca field) and Springfield looked horrible. but you can't blame the field. Every time a SC running back slips, sooner or later a ithaca defender is going to slip and miss a tackle.
You're sure that's true? It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
I believe in a weeks time you can become accustomed to playing on the surface of saturday's game.
I say we agree to disagree on this one. Thanks to PrideSport for having the same view +k.
No posters were smited during the duration of this topic
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 01:17:03 AM
Tmerton is on the West Coast. A John David Booty cover, perhaps?
Gee, Pat, you really know how to hurt a guy. I'm not into ballroom dancing, though (which I presume is now a required course for SC qb's).
No Wesley WOW!!!
that's a misprrint right????
haha - Gro, +K for the italic disclaimer.
re: Springfield on grass turf....
What is the Pride's win/loss record on grass fields during their good years (8 wins or more)?
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on June 26, 2007, 05:02:00 PM
No Wesley WOW!!!
that's a misprrint right????
Lindy's has Wesley in the top 5, for what reason I dont know, but thats a different matter.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
I think it is possible for a team who plays on turf 8 times a year might not be accustomed to the surface.
Dallas Cowboys
New Orlean Saints
Atlanta Falcons
New England
New York Giants
All had better records on the road than at home this past season. ;D
So yeah I think it is possible.
Hi -- leave your oranges out of the discussion while we're talking about apples. You can't possibly compare NFL teams, who train year round and have access to multiple surfaces within their own facilities, to Division III schools.
Seriously -- stick to the topic at hand and stay out of non-Division III.
Pat,
I'll take partial blame for the apples and oranges, having made the Wimbledon-Roland Garros analogy early in the discussion. It was (no doubt correctly) pointed out that the action of the ball on differing surfaces was the main factor, something with only very slight parallels in fball; teams may gain a relative advantage due to familiarity on such things as fumbles and onside kicks, but ball-turf interaction is a pretty trivial concern.
While weather is undoubtedly a larger factor than turf style for each of the following, I can't help thinking that type of turf (and familiarity with it) has differing effects for offensive vs. defensive minded teams, passing vs. running teams, power vs. speed teams, etc.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 05:12:25 PM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?
I think it is possible for a team who plays on turf 8 times a year might not be accustomed to the surface.
Dallas Cowboys
New Orlean Saints
Atlanta Falcons
New England
New York Giants
All had better records on the road than at home this past season. ;D
So yeah I think it is possible.
Hi -- leave your oranges out of the discussion while we're talking about apples. You can't possibly compare NFL teams, who train year round and have access to multiple surfaces within their own facilities, to Division III schools.
Seriously -- stick to the topic at hand and stay out of non-Division III.
Maybe so. I am not quite sure where it says d3 players can't train year round on multiple surfaces. Nothing should stop these kids when they are at home or even at school. They don't need coaches to train. It wasn't a debate of NFL vs d3. I said that. I even said there is more than just a surface. I just anwsered your question. Look I said the pollsters put Springfield at number 10 at the end of the season, clearly because they were better than 15 in the poll and even more in the country, not because of the surface on which they played. I don't think any other team in D3 can say they are bringing back 90.9% of thier offense.
I support my claims with evidence, as you suggested and my claims are still refuted. Its all football and they all played on grass at some point in thier lives. When these d3kids are at home I am sure not all of them have a turf field to practice on. There is more to football than the surface of the field. It really comes down to how a team prepares for game. I am sure if you ask a football player, "Wanna play some ball" their next response won't be "Is it on turf or grass because I really don't like playing on grass." The anwser will be "Let's go play."
Some schools might have a better playing surface than practice surface. Those schools are probably the schools that play on grass.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 09:47:11 AM
Question with all of those types of pronouncements is, who goes ahead of them? I often find myself starting out the preseason Top 25 process with the same preconceived notions, but when push comes to shove, I have a hard time moving someone like Wilkes ahead of Springfield, or Occidental ahead of Capital, etc.
Yes,
Pat and I often discuss this phenomenon.
Say you feel like there are six really good top 10 teams and 15 teams you think should go around 18-25, and a few in between. Well, somebody's gotta be No. 7. Somebody's gotta be No. 11, even if you as a poll voter would feel more comfortable with them at 15.
I would venture to say that happens virtually every week, that there are these very distinct tiers within the poll that one ranking really can't reflect.
The hope is, with an actual poll and point system, that those will be reflected, when you see No. 6 with 454 points, No. 7 with 451 and No. 8 with 373, it gives you some added context. For those who pay close attention.
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 12:05:40 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on June 26, 2007, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 26, 2007, 11:58:10 AM
Quote from: frank uible on June 26, 2007, 11:47:41 AM
Why don't we wait until the games are played?
And talk about what all summer - baseball?! ;)
We'll probably do both -- we'll let the games play out but talk about them before they do.
People who aren't interested aren't obligated to participate.
In my opinion, because of the title: "Pre-Season Poll". Prognostication!!
Wait?
Yeah, I don't really see that happening.
As long as we all accept that polls and rankings are an inexact science, and great for conversation, which usually leads to us all being a little more knowledgeable (although in some cases, reading the board makes you far stupider) ... I don't see the problem with them.
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 08:58:59 AM
Im gonna say Springfield is not the 5th best team in the country.
St. John Fisher had a legitimate claim at top 5 last season, so I don't see why another Empire 8 team that beat Fisher last season (3 SJF defenders injured and didn't play, duly noted) would be a stretch at top 5 this season.
I wouldn't be stunned if they won the east.
That said, Springfield is one of those teams that is consistently overranked. Washington & Jefferson is the team we (meaning all who do D3 rankings) do this to most often, but I don't know who else gets that kind of respect each season without many long playoff runs to back it up. Even Trinity has a Stagg Bowl appearance (although I thought No. 4 overall in Lindy's was absurd)
As far as Capital not being top 15 ... I agree. I kept them in the top 25 but moved them behind Baldwin-Wallace.
I think for D3 teams who make signficant playoffs runs in more than one season, even when they lose a lot of talent, their young players have benefitted from the extra weeks of practice, the big-game experience and it has to help a ton on the recruiting trail.
In other words, teams like Capital and UWW could fall back this year, but how far really remains to be seen.
Linfield last year lost a lot from its '05 semifinalist ... fell to 6-3, but if they'd pulled out that 17-13 game vs. Whitworth, they'd have been back in the playoffs with a very young team.
So it can happen.
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
I can see where you're coming from, but the teams aren't equally affected if they're not wearing the same shoes.
(see: Whitewater vs. Wesley '05)
Also, experience on grass/turf or psyching self out about the differences can be factors.
In the end, it's much like home field advantage. It matters some, but generally when a player gets between the white lines, he isn't really thinking about any of that ... preparedness, toughness, speed, etc. are all much more important factors.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 06:11:59 PM
Maybe so. I am not quite sure where it says d3 players can't train year round on multiple surfaces. Nothing should stop these kids when they are at home or even at school. They don't need coaches to train. It wasn't a debate of NFL vs d3. I said that. I even said there is more than just a surface. I just anwsered your question.
You didn't really. You tried to compare a team that plays 8 of 10 games on hard, flat astroturf to teams that play 8 of 16 games on a field turf-type surface.
Percentages, those you can understand, right?
Quote from: K-Mack on June 26, 2007, 07:03:10 PM
That said, Springfield is one of those teams that is consistently overranked. Washington & Jefferson is the team we (meaning all who do D3 rankings) do this to most often, but I don't know who else gets that kind of respect each season without many long playoff runs to back it up. Even Trinity has a Stagg Bowl appearance (although I thought No. 4 overall in Lindy's was absurd)
Perhaps the Lindy's "brain trust" had a couple too many drinks on the River Walk. ;D
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
I have seen Springfield play. It absolutely DOES have an effect...no doubt about it at all.
Quote from: pg04 on June 26, 2007, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 10:56:37 AM
Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?
Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.
Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end. It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.
Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.
Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.
I have seen Springfield play. It absolutely DOES have an effect...no doubt about it at all.
Agreed, their offense is not as explosive and effective on grass as it is on an artificial surface. It may not apply to all teams, but it does with the Pride....
I just don't think anybody can base thier entire arguement on playing surface. That totally overlooks the team. That is like saying drinking a glass of water without the glass. It is absurd. That arguement has clearly been a one sided arguement. I threw out numbers and when that was argued with "playing surface" I began to point out why I playing surface doesn't matter. I haven't heard anyone argue against numbers. Why does 90.9% offense returning not matter at all, when teams like capital are losing a big number. I guess it has to be that thier turf must be better than Springfield's turf. (In my case thier turf isn't as good based on my ranking.) That is what that entire arguement showing me, players not matter but playing surface does.
Playing surface not an issue. Every team plays outside. Springfield plays on turf they went 10-2 last year (9-1 in regular season). They play on turf every year and will continue to play on turf until they don't. Why is this year any different? They return 90.9% of thier offensive yards. So what if they play on turf. Even if everyone argues they are better on turf then on grass. They aren't playing on grass this year and are still on turf. How should that reflect where they stand?
Sidenote: I have never played on turf, but what happens when it gets wet? Does it get slick? What happens when it gets cold outside? Does the surface become even harder? If yes to any of those, well grass does the same thing in a different way. I am sure Springfield has played it when it was cold and when it was wet.
Aside fom the turf/grass debate, Springfield plays a very unique, but very quirky brand of football. Running the grind it out, control the clock and keep the opponents offense off the field is a sound plan. The Pride's glaring downfall is that nearly every athlete on the team is relegated to the offensive side of the ball. As many others have previouly said, many head coaches employ this play on either side of the ball and simply attempt to outscore you or totally shut you down....ie take one side of the ball away from you.
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10?? There are too many external factors for a triple option offense with NO defense to go wrong. Rain...turnovers...field conditions....injuries to 1 of 3 guys....getting out scored early....any of these factors against a decent team will completely take the Pride out of their game....they can not throw the ball, nor can they stop you.
The above points have been brought up many times on various boards with PP. Again, with all these negative intangables....how can a team with this many obvious nagative possiblilities be ranked in anyones top 10?
Is anyone else arguing that playing surface is NOT that big a factor besides Gro? He is an engineer you know....questionable institution....but still an engineer.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:18:22 PM
I just don't think anybody can base thier entire arguement on playing surface. That totally overlooks the team. That is like saying drinking a glass of water without the glass. It is absurd. That arguement has clearly been a one sided arguement. I threw out numbers and when that was argued with "playing surface" I began to point out why I playing surface doesn't matter. I haven't heard anyone argue against numbers. Why does 90.9% offense returning not matter at all, when teams like capital are losing a big number. I guess it has to be that thier turf must be better than Springfield's turf. (In my case thier turf isn't as good based on my ranking.) That is what that entire arguement showing me, players not matter but playing surface does.
Playing surface not an issue. Every team plays outside. Springfield plays on turf they went 10-2 last year (9-1 in regular season). They play on turf every year and will continue to play on turf until they don't. Why is this year any different? They return 90.9% of thier offensive yards. So what if they play on turf. Even if everyone argues they are better on turf then on grass. They aren't playing on grass this year and are still on turf. How should that reflect where they stand?
Sidenote: I have never played on turf, but what happens when it gets wet? Does it get slick? What happens when it gets cold outside? Does the surface become even harder? If yes to any of those, well grass does the same thing in a different way. I am sure Springfield has played it when it was cold and when it was wet.
With this team, you almost CAN base your entire argument on playing surface. I don't care what 90.9 % is returned of anything. The point is that in the playoffs when they play on grass in the bad conditions they will most likely lose, and Therefore in my opinion cannot be considered a top tier team.
Look, I agree that they are a very good team and that their option is very hard to stop. However, if you do stop it...no matter how, they won't even score.
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 09:19:54 PM
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10??
I could see them in the top 10. At this point in the season it's tough to say who would replace them.
To the poster earlier (sorry, too busy to go back and look) that suggested Rowan ... I'm not sold. They have to prove themselves all over to me. Last year's offense never got it together with all the young receivers, and now they lose their quarterback. That's a big load for a second-string quarterback, who struggled with all-star receivers, to carry.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 09:19:54 PM
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10??
I could see them in the top 10. At this point in the season it's tough to say who would replace them.
To the poster earlier (sorry, too busy to go back and look) that suggested Rowan ... I'm not sold. They have to prove themselves all over to me. Last year's offense never got it together with all the young receivers, and now they lose their quarterback. That's a big load for a second-string quarterback, who struggled with all-star receivers, to carry.
Pat, even with that non-existant defense an inability to play catch-up?
In June, how do you know it won't get better?
I guess the same could be said about their ability to play on Grass too! It could happen.
Union-
I am clearly with 'gro. Whatever they play on everyone else plays on too, even with all those negative intangables. Even spread offenses want days that wind won't be a factor, but that to has potential to be a negative as well.
pg04
Tell it to the pollster's, Springfield finished in the top 10 last year, to me that makes them a top tier team. Whatever they play on everyone else plays on too. If they aren't a top tier team anybody would be able to go in there and beat them. You can't argue that what they do isn't good and what they have coming back isn't good.
It has been pointed out to me before even if they make the playoffs doesn't make them a top tier team with all those AQ's. A team from the USASouth may make it to the NCAA tournament but that doesn't mean they will be ranked.
I'm not arguing that what they do isn't good. I'm saying that they have a huge gaping (fatal?) flaw. Union89 reminded me of another, their inability to play from behind and/or play defense.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:42:09 PM
Union-
I am clearly with 'gro. Whatever they play on everyone else plays on too, even with all those negative intangables. Even spread offenses want days that wind won't be a factor, but that to has potential to be a negative as well.
pg04
Tell it to the pollster's, Springfield finished in the top 10 last year, to me that makes them a top tier team. Whatever they play on everyone else plays on too. If they aren't a top tier team anybody would be able to go in there and beat them. You can't argue that what they do isn't good and what they have coming back isn't good.
It has been pointed out to me before even if they make the playoffs doesn't make them a top tier team with all those AQ's. A team from the USASouth may make it to the NCAA tournament but that doesn't mean they will be ranked.
As I remember Springfields home field has a monster crown on it as well. Obviously, very conducive to to the option.
the bad news is only one person agrees with my "doesn't matter" stance on playing surface. The good news is that RPI has both grass and turf fields. They can study film and pick which field would give them an advantage over their opponent. I'll also look into day/night games and home/away jerseys.
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 09:19:54 PM
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10?? There are too many external factors for a triple option offense with NO defense to go wrong. Rain...turnovers...field conditions....injuries to 1 of 3 guys....getting out scored early....any of these factors against a decent team will completely take the Pride out of their game....they can not throw the ball, nor can they stop you.
The above points have been brought up many times on various boards with PP. Again, with all these negative intangables....how can a team with this many obvious nagative possiblilities be ranked in anyones top 10?
Well, people have their reasons, like for instance if you think SJF is the No. 2 team in the nation this year, and Springfield beat them last year and lost by six in the playoffs ... I'd hope you can understand why someone with limited knowledge of the above issues would slot them in the top 10.
This also sounds a lot like Augustana.
That said, Mary Hardin-Baylor can hardly throw the ball, and they rammed it down Mount Union's throat trailing by double figures in the fourth quarter. In all the years I've been doing this, I've never seen anything like it.
Part of the run it all the time strategy is to wear teams down in the fourth quarter.
Also, most of those factors you listed (weather, injuries to key players) can take teams that play different styles out of their games.
Not completely disagreeing, just throwing that stuff out there.
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 10:23:10 PM
the bad news is only one person agrees with my "doesn't matter" stance on playing surface.
Where have you been gro' I have been out here fighting the wolves. ;D
My k has been hit hard today.
As someone mentioned earlier if you stop Springfield's offense you stop them. That is true with any team though. I am not going to keep arguing my point, because it doesn't seem to matter at all. No one has in my mind has clearly refuted it either. If any other team in any other sport in any other division, returns starters there usually no questions of the ability of that team. I still don't know how this is any different. They are going to be playing at the same home stadium.
The only thing Pat and I agreed on tonight is that Springfield could be in the top 10 right now. (I have them 5th, Pat might have elsewhere).
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 09:19:54 PM
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10??
I could see them in the top 10. At this point in the season it's tough to say who would replace them.
To the poster earlier (sorry, too busy to go back and look) that suggested Rowan ... I'm not sold. They have to prove themselves all over to me. Last year's offense never got it together with all the young receivers, and now they lose their quarterback. That's a big load for a second-string quarterback, who struggled with all-star receivers, to carry.
Rowan does have a lot to prove. Insiders are supporting the second-string QB (Joe Rankin). I've gotten waivering support info on other players in the past, so I think that is a positive. On defense alone, I'd put Rowan in the top 20, but outside the top 10 somewhere.
Now Rankin looked bigger and stronger in 2006, but Orihel had completed his senior year w/o major injury, so Rankin only mopped up. The big keys are replacing AA DE Keith Heimerl, QB Orihel, and three DB's (heavy DB rotation in the past will help the transition). Wr's have real raw talent, but have lacked focus. Wr's need to play up to ablility and Rankin needs a few more MPH's on his fastball for top 10. I think Rankin is a good DIII QB.... I've just been spoiled by strong armed Rowan QB's since 1992. Rankin's arm is equal or better than Rowan's regular season competators, except for the kid from Kean.
He needs a quicker release and a better move to first, too. :)
(As in, he was slow on the trigger and doesn't look off his primary target.)
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 11:16:58 PM
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 10:23:10 PM
the bad news is only one person agrees with my "doesn't matter" stance on playing surface.
Where have you been gro' I have been out here fighting the wolves. ;D
My k has been hit hard today.
As someone mentioned earlier if you stop Springfield's offense you stop them. That is true with any team though. I am not going to keep arguing my point, because it doesn't seem to matter at all. No one has in my mind has clearly refuted it either. If any other team in any other sport in any other division, returns starters there usually no questions of the ability of that team. I still don't know how this is any different. They are going to be playing at the same home stadium.
The only thing Pat and I agreed on tonight is that Springfield could be in the top 10 right now. (I have them 5th, Pat might have elsewhere).
What I said was if you are marginally successful stopping their run you win....not entire offense.....their pass offense is nonexitant.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 26, 2007, 10:40:45 PM
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 09:19:54 PM
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10?? There are too many external factors for a triple option offense with NO defense to go wrong. Rain...turnovers...field conditions....injuries to 1 of 3 guys....getting out scored early....any of these factors against a decent team will completely take the Pride out of their game....they can not throw the ball, nor can they stop you.
The above points have been brought up many times on various boards with PP. Again, with all these negative intangables....how can a team with this many obvious nagative possiblilities be ranked in anyones top 10?
Well, people have their reasons, like for instance if you think SJF is the No. 2 team in the nation this year, and Springfield beat them last year and lost by six in the playoffs ... I'd hope you can understand why someone with limited knowledge of the above issues would slot them in the top 10.
This also sounds a lot like Augustana.
That said, Mary Hardin-Baylor can hardly throw the ball, and they rammed it down Mount Union's throat trailing by double figures in the fourth quarter. In all the years I've been doing this, I've never seen anything like it.
Part of the run it all the time strategy is to wear teams down in the fourth quarter.
Also, most of those factors you listed (weather, injuries to key players) can take teams that play different styles out of their games.
Not completely disagreeing, just throwing that stuff out there.
Never said you had limited knowledge of anything....you said that....maybe you're smarter than you think.... :o
Quote from: frank uible on June 26, 2007, 01:47:46 PM
Option offenses were highly successful long before there was artificial turf.
You gotta like Frank, short and to the point.
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 11:50:45 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 26, 2007, 10:40:45 PM
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 09:19:54 PM
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10?? There are too many external factors for a triple option offense with NO defense to go wrong. Rain...turnovers...field conditions....injuries to 1 of 3 guys....getting out scored early....any of these factors against a decent team will completely take the Pride out of their game....they can not throw the ball, nor can they stop you.
The above points have been brought up many times on various boards with PP. Again, with all these negative intangables....how can a team with this many obvious nagative possiblilities be ranked in anyones top 10?
Well, people have their reasons, like for instance if you think SJF is the No. 2 team in the nation this year, and Springfield beat them last year and lost by six in the playoffs ... I'd hope you can understand why someone with limited knowledge of the above issues would slot them in the top 10.
This also sounds a lot like Augustana.
That said, Mary Hardin-Baylor can hardly throw the ball, and they rammed it down Mount Union's throat trailing by double figures in the fourth quarter. In all the years I've been doing this, I've never seen anything like it.
Part of the run it all the time strategy is to wear teams down in the fourth quarter.
Also, most of those factors you listed (weather, injuries to key players) can take teams that play different styles out of their games.
Not completely disagreeing, just throwing that stuff out there.
Never said you had limited knowledge of anything....you said that....maybe you're smarter than you think.... :o
Not to be a plick, but I wasn't referring to myself with that one. ;)
Then again, I did go to Randolph-Macon, so how smart could I be?
Wait, this isn't the ODAC board anymore, my bad.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 01:59:12 PMAnyone else-
What about a passing team? A team that passes 50-60 times a game. I don't think it really matters what surface they play on.
You ever hear anyone say the St. Louis Rams were built to play on turf?
And weather seems to affect passing teams more ...
BL: There are external factors like home field, playing surface and weather that have an effect on games, but I don't think any self-respecting player would use those things as an excuse.
But they honestly do make a difference, maybe more to some than others.
In the case of Springfield, this is not just something people have made up. They traditionally have done better on turf, over a number of years. Whether it's a real effect of turf, a psychological thing or just coincidence that they've lost those games and they happened to be on turf ... well, no one really knows.
Makes for good message board fodder though.
So yeah, uh ... top 25s ... I have some thoughts on Lindy's and S&S, both of which I finally looked at last night. Definitely some major curveballs up in there.
Let me catch up on the board first.
I agree, all of our arguments are null and void because we didn't go to "good" colleges.
I also agree that all these boards seem to mix together in my mind sometimes. ;D
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:08:23 PM
Id put Rowan ahead of springfield.
I think the relative playoff scores vs. SJF last season make that really hard to do.
Also, Mike Orihel was damn good ... it's a shame they didn't have more experience around him last year.
Also, Rowan got lucky at Wilkes and probably shouldn't have gone as far as they did. (Was there, knows)
pg04 ... +1 karma, you're funny.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 27, 2007, 12:19:31 AM
pg04 ... +1 karma, you're funny.
Thanks, <Bows to the Mount Union of the Message Board> Just let us have the posting title once every 10 years or so???
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 02:10:40 PM
Even Mount Union loses once in a while. I am sure it doesn't matter what playing surface it is when they lose.
Well, I would like to see them play a road playoff game. Just out of curiousity.
I may not live that long, however. (isn't kidding)
Quote from: 'gro on June 26, 2007, 02:16:56 PM
sorry, this is a pet peeve I will take to the grave!!
'SCool, as long as you leave your sig line from The Program and Jim Mora behind.
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:08:23 PM
Plus they wont be suprising anyone this year either. Im sure E8 teams has every single SC offensive game last year with breakdowns, percentages etc ...
Well, it's not like the good season was a shock. They've been good more than not, the 4-6 was the anomaly, not the other way around.
Also, if Springfield's been running the same offense for 1,000 years, you're right, they won't be surprising anyone.
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:23:53 PM
gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather. They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.
That is the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom on the matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure offenses run more misdirection and employ more fakes in poor conditions.
As they say, "the offense knows where it's going, the defense has to react."
Also, you know, the offense is running foward, even in a straight line ... that's a pretty big difference from a tackler coming in either way too fast and not being able to break down and drive through with your tackles, or trying to slow it down and keep your balance, and then being slow to the play.
I'm sure there are some offensive corollaries, like O-linemen pass blocking in the mud can't get their footing, but I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted in football circles that bad footing affects defenses more.
Now, overall, maybe the effect of rain might be equal, since wet balls are hard to throw and catch ... but with regard to the footing specifically, what I said above.
Quote from: hscoach on June 26, 2007, 04:48:27 PM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:59:15 AM
hscoach-
As for Captial I do agree they lost a lot. I thought they couldn't be as high as they finished last year at number 3. Before I went to see who was returning and who wasn't I had them around 4-7 range. They ended up at number 7. They may have lost alot, but they haven't had a losing season since 2000. That tells me they do a good job of replacing players.
It's not the overall number of starters they lost that kills them in '07. It's the quality of those lost. See below for info on Capital from the OAC Preview on Ric's site:
Read that preview before doing my rankings, which I stand by (today, anyway)
I have to believe that the extra practice and recruiting playoff games has helped them cull and cultivate enough talent to keep them top 3 in the OAC. If it doesn't happen, I won't be completely shocked, but I'm OK starting them off top 20, since they were top 5 the past 2 years.
Put it to you like this. Say Mount Union loses everyone. Literally every starter.
Do you drop them out of the top 25?
You at least wait for someone to beat them.
I know it's not exactly the same thing, but similar logic.
Would the Mount Union JV start in the top 25?
If yes, that's bad, actually ...
Also, I have a lot of problems with this paragraph. Not completely accurate.
QuotePotentially mitigating the lack of returning depth is the quick fix of upper-classmen Division 1 transfers into the open "playmaker" positions. This is an avenue of talent acquisition that Coach Collins has excelled at the last few years. As evidence, one needs to look no further than Lewis Howes who only played at Capital for his senior year, yet was Capital's most explosive receiver in 2005. As well as Derrick Alexander who is on campus for only the 2006 and 2007 seasons. And this doesn't include the transfer of arguably the best player in the history of the school (Rocky Pentello from Toledo) and one of their best linebackers (Joel Sickmeier from Mount Union).
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 26, 2007, 08:38:32 PM
Perhaps the Lindy's "brain trust" had a couple too many drinks on the River Walk. ;D
That joke never gets old.
Another of the big "ifs" though ... What if Roy Hampton played in Stagg Bowl (whatever number 2002 was) ... probably not a W, but not 48-7 either ... What if Bridgewater guy operated the clock right? Would K.C. and the Profs have their title? Would the Eagles' run still have taken place?
I ramble/digress.
Not even sure you were referring to that.
Quote from: JT on June 26, 2007, 11:29:48 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: Union89 on June 26, 2007, 09:19:54 PM
My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10??
I could see them in the top 10. At this point in the season it's tough to say who would replace them.
To the poster earlier (sorry, too busy to go back and look) that suggested Rowan ... I'm not sold. They have to prove themselves all over to me. Last year's offense never got it together with all the young receivers, and now they lose their quarterback. That's a big load for a second-string quarterback, who struggled with all-star receivers, to carry.
Rowan does have a lot to prove. Insiders are supporting the second-string QB (Joe Rankin). I've gotten waivering support info on other players in the past, so I think that is a positive. On defense alone, I'd put Rowan in the top 20, but outside the top 10 somewhere.
Now Rankin looked bigger and stronger in 2006, but Orihel had completed his senior year w/o major injury, so Rankin only mopped up. The big keys are replacing AA DE Keith Heimerl, QB Orihel, and three DB's (heavy DB rotation in the past will help the transition). Wr's have real raw talent, but have lacked focus. Wr's need to play up to ablility and Rankin needs a few more MPH's on his fastball for top 10. I think Rankin is a good DIII QB.... I've just been spoiled by strong armed Rowan QB's since 1992. Rankin's arm is equal or better than Rowan's regular season competators, except for the kid from Kean.
When doing my top 25:
Reasons not to like Rowan this year:
Lose Orihel, Heimerl, Whetstone ... eked out a lot of close ones last year
Reasons to like Rowan this year:
(still searching)
Kidding (kind of), but you could say the same thing about Cortland with their QB situation at the end of the year, then losing Haas and Sair.
So I ranked them right behind the Profs.
Chip On Shoulder plus Game At Cortland could flop them though. Plus Kean and maybe Montclair or someone else could be factors. Should be fun.
I like the Wilkes-Rowan regular season game though. Accorsi (and Keeler) were always all about scheduling anyone who would take the game. Nice that Wilkes, CNU and Widener give the Profs an all-D3 schedule for the first time since (doesn't bother to look)
One factor in Springfield's apparent preference for artificial turf might be that its grass games are away from home.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 27, 2007, 12:49:43 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 26, 2007, 08:38:32 PM
Perhaps the Lindy's "brain trust" had a couple too many drinks on the River Walk. ;D
That joke never gets old.
Another of the big "ifs" though ... What if Roy Hampton played in Stagg Bowl (whatever number 2002 was) ... probably not a W, but not 48-7 either ... What if Bridgewater guy operated the clock right? Would K.C. and the Profs have their title? Would the Eagles' run still have taken place?
I ramble/digress.
Not even sure you were referring to that.
Having seen it in person, I think Hampton makes it 41-21 at best. The wind that day was hellaceous, and so was MUC.
And I really don't have any idea what the Lindy's guys were smoking when they put those ratings together. There seems to have been fairly consistent slippage in SA since the glory days :-[ and to put the alma mater at #4 all of a sudden seems odd. Maybe they got TU confused with Millsaps who with DuBose at coach seems to be poised to be the dominant team in the SCAC for a while.
Re the clock ... guess we'll never know, but it seems likely, don't it?
Quote from: K-Mack on June 27, 2007, 12:42:39 AM
Quote from: hscoach on June 26, 2007, 04:48:27 PM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 26, 2007, 09:59:15 AM
hscoach-
As for Captial I do agree they lost a lot. I thought they couldn't be as high as they finished last year at number 3. Before I went to see who was returning and who wasn't I had them around 4-7 range. They ended up at number 7. They may have lost alot, but they haven't had a losing season since 2000. That tells me they do a good job of replacing players.
It's not the overall number of starters they lost that kills them in '07. It's the quality of those lost. See below for info on Capital from the OAC Preview on Ric's site:
Read that preview before doing my rankings, which I stand by (today, anyway)
I have to believe that the extra practice and recruiting playoff games has helped them cull and cultivate enough talent to keep them top 3 in the OAC. If it doesn't happen, I won't be completely shocked, but I'm OK starting them off top 20, since they were top 5 the past 2 years.
Put it to you like this. Say Mount Union loses everyone. Literally every starter.
Do you drop them out of the top 25?
You at least wait for someone to beat them.
I know it's not exactly the same thing, but similar logic.
Would the Mount Union JV start in the top 25?
If yes, that's bad, actually ...
K-Mack: I completely agree that Capital still remains in the Top 25. Just not Top 10 in my opinion. But it's just that. MY OPINION. I completely respect your opinion, I just disagree with it. But the beauty of D3 is that we get to settle it on the field with 32 teams fighting for #1! Thank God D3 isn't set up like D1.
If we were truely looking at strength of the teams and not their records, most years the OAC would have 3 or 4 teams in the top 25 of the nation. MUC and then a combination of Capital, Ohio Northern, John Carroll and Baldwin Wallace. In my opinon (darn - there's that word again) what separates the WIAC and OAC from 1st and 2nd rated conferences isn't the top half, it's the bottom half. I'd put the OAC's top 5 against any conferences top 5 and believe that the OAC teams would finish about 4-1. The problem with the OAC is that the bottom half is bad. REALLY BAD. Heidelberg, Muskingum and Wilmington are just plain horrible with Marietta and Otterbein barely average programs.
And yes, Mount's 2nd string would be in the top 25. ;D No doubt about it. We've had this discussion going on and on for years that MUC could leave the starters at home and still finish 8-2 in the OAC as well as beat their usual 1st round playoff opponents. Want evidence? The 2006 Stagg MVP was MUC's back-up QB. And the 2002 Gagliardi winner (Dan Pugh) played 2nd fiddle to Chuck Moore until Chuck graduated in 2001.
Mount Union has very good talent, but it isn't 2 or 3 great players that makes them the King's of D3. What makes them so dangerous is 2nd and 3rd string depth that is 95+% quality wise of the starters and every position is manned by a quality player. No glaring holes to exploit.
Here's my 2 cents on the Springfield grass vs. turf debate:
If Springfield is happy with scoring a lot of points, looking pretty while they do it and then losing in the playoffs to a balanced team, then continue what they're doing right now. Otherwise, they need some flexibility on offense and a real defense before they're a legitimate threat nationally.
Not sure who made the analogy (K-Mack?), but the comparison to Washington & Jefferson is accurate. A great one dimensional offense and no defense is not a recipe for success in December.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 27, 2007, 12:36:24 AM
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:23:53 PM
gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather. They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.
That is the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom on the matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure offenses run more misdirection and employ more fakes in poor conditions.
As they say, "the offense knows where it's going, the defense has to react."
Also, you know, the offense is running foward, even in a straight line ... that's a pretty big difference from a tackler coming in either way too fast and not being able to break down and drive through with your tackles, or trying to slow it down and keep your balance, and then being slow to the play.
I'm sure there are some offensive corollaries, like O-linemen pass blocking in the mud can't get their footing, but I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted in football circles that bad footing affects defenses more.
Now, overall, maybe the effect of rain might be equal, since wet balls are hard to throw and catch ... but with regard to the footing specifically, what I said above.
Ok, let me rephrase that and say that in "really" bad weather, the offensive is at a bad advantage. (blizzard, mud, ice) or at least the game isnt the same game that is played. I just remember my thanksgiving day game in high school where it rained for two straight days and the field was literally a swamp and it was pouring. The final score was 6-0 (on a halfback pass) with probably 4 total first downs for each team and 30 punts. Horrible and not the way football was supposed to be played.
If RPI and Ithaca would have played on a dry turf field at RPI 2003, the score would have been 55-30 RPI. (opinion obviously)
RE: Springfield.
I guess Im down on them because some years because their defense is so bad that they just dont quailify as being a "good" team. But even when they are bad, that offense can be explosive and catch better teams off guard.
Quote from: hscoach on June 27, 2007, 07:51:45 AM
Here's my 2 cents on the Springfield grass vs. turf debate:
If Springfield is happy with scoring a lot of points, looking pretty while they do it and then losing in the playoffs to a balanced team, then continue what they're doing right now. Otherwise, they need some flexibility on offense and a real defense before they're a legitimate threat nationally.
Not sure who made the analogy (K-Mack?), but the comparison to Washington & Jefferson is accurate. A great one dimensional offense and no defense is not a recipe for success in December.
I agree about Springfield. I think the difference between a team like them and a team like Nebraska is that Nebraska had those really good running backs that gave them more options than that striaght fullback behind the QB. But they just havent changed anything there in the last 25 years. (except for the speed play. maybe)
Quote from: K-Mack on June 27, 2007, 12:44:55 AM
Also, I have a lot of problems with this paragraph. Not completely accurate.
QuotePotentially mitigating the lack of returning depth is the quick fix of upper-classmen Division 1 transfers into the open "playmaker" positions. This is an avenue of talent acquisition that Coach Collins has excelled at the last few years. As evidence, one needs to look no further than Lewis Howes who only played at Capital for his senior year, yet was Capital's most explosive receiver in 2005. As well as Derrick Alexander who is on campus for only the 2006 and 2007 seasons. And this doesn't include the transfer of arguably the best player in the history of the school (Rocky Pentello from Toledo) and one of their best linebackers (Joel Sickmeier from Mount Union).
Care to elaborate? No one in the OAC has benefited more than Capital recently when it comes to transfers. What made me write that paragraph isn't that the transfers just end up there as local kids coming home to Columbus, it's that Collins is
actively pursuing that route.
Springfield uses sound theory and has excellent execution but does not have the talent to get it further in the playoffs than it has been getting irrespective of any changes it might make. In other words it is doing about as well as it can.
Ok I think this should end the Springfield debate. I went and looked at all the games from 99-06. Here are the numbers 49-22 on turf and 7-5 on grass.
7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582 career win percentage at Springfield. So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.
Here is the breakdown of the five losses on grass.
3 of them against Ithaca. Maybe Springfield is one of those teams that have a problem traveling up to Ithaca. It took CNU 3 years to beat Shenandoah at Shenandoah.
Ithaca, I might add is 37-6 at home since 99. It is a very good record. Not many teams can go up there and beat them.
One loss was a playoff game at Brockport St. A team that year only allowed 9.4 points a game(They shut out 5 teams that year). It was 2002 that 10-3 independent team made it to the NCAA Quarter Finals that year.
The final loss was Plymouth St. PS 7-3 and SC was 4-6. That game was 9-7 L a game that clearly could have gone either way.
Thanks 'gro I will take your advice ;D :D :)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn0.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3ApB10yuEilJimbM%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.big13.net%2FAchorman%252520photos%2FBurgandy.jpeg&hash=b73b0c40211fa7dc070308e96f08abd299aac5d5)
It's Science.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 11:39:14 PM
He needs a quicker release and a better move to first, too. :)
(As in, he was slow on the trigger and doesn't look off his primary target.)
Although Orihel sometimes locked on targets too, Rankin tended to look for Wr's that he threw to in JV and practice. Since he runs the show this year, I hope that improves. He'll be working with the whole bunch.
First four-year non transfer at QB since the 80's. Warker only played two years. Hmmm... Ed Hesson (???), Greg Lister (Univ of Maryland), Gus Ornstein (ND, Mich St), Jeff Orihel (CW Post), Mike Warker (Rowan), Tony Racioppi (Tenn St), Mike Orihel (New Hampshire).
Still don't know if they'll be any surprises (transfers) at Wr, DB, DL.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
Ok I think this should end the Springfield debate. I went and looked at all the games from 99-06. Here are the numbers 49-22 on turf and 7-5 on grass.
nice research, but you forgot to end it with:
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn0.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3ApB10yuEilJimbM%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.big13.net%2FAchorman%252520photos%2FBurgandy.jpeg&hash=b73b0c40211fa7dc070308e96f08abd299aac5d5)
It's Science.Somebody will comeback and say, "12 games on grass in 8 seasons, they're not used to it." To that I say, Dude... it's GRASS. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the players played on it in high school, or pop warner... or flag football. Sometime in their lives they have walked on and grown accustomed to this alien surface called grass.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn0.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AFTMdlFk9IYRzHM%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.greenvilleonline.com%2Fblogs%2Flink%2Fwill_ferrell.jpg&hash=93c646dae4f83ad1979b44ecd31e6ac9944df7a4)
That's how you debate!!
No doubt they have played on grass in their lives.
There seems to be some evidence above that they have not attempted to execute the unique Springfield offense on grass, however.
Pride -- I'm impressed that you know the history of each opponent's field they played at. You know when Union switched from grass to turf? (I'm not 100% sure myself, which is why I didn't try to calculate.) When did Kings Point go from grass to turf? What did you count the 1999 game at Cortland as, grass or turf? (Cortland played on grass in 1999.)
Try again. Not everything is that simple. More than one-third of Division III schools have a field-turf style playing surface now. I don't believe a single one did in 1999.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 10:14:17 AM
No doubt they have played on grass in their lives.
There seems to be some evidence above that they have not attempted to execute the unique Springfield offense on grass, however.
Pride -- I'm impressed that you know the history of each opponent's field they played at. You know when Union switched from grass to turf? (I'm not 100% sure myself, which is why I didn't try to calculate.) When did Kings Point go from grass to turf? What did you count the 1999 game at Cortland as, grass or turf? (Cortland played on grass in 1999.)
Try again. Not everything is that simple. More than one-third of Division III schools have a field-turf style playing surface now. I don't believe a single one did in 1999.
That should only help my numbers then. I saw what your saying and questioned it myself in the research. I expected you to say it. So I was ready for a rebuttal. Springfield is a good team. Any of those teams that were playing on grass could be on turf today. As you pointed out but since 99 they are a combined 56-27. So the worst they could have on the road is 16 losses. (I took out the 11 home losses) They have won 34 home games since 99 that leaves a possiblity of 22-16 on the road. We know 7-6 (Cortland st. 1999 added) is already on grass, so it is 15-10 on the road that is unaccounted for. (Don't know if it is grass or turf.) I doubt all the losses are on grass.
No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582 career win percentage at Springfield. So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.
When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.
The Official 2006 NCAA Divisions II and III Football Records Book lists the type of home playing surface on which each team played. At some other source, the identity of which I can't recall, there is a list of year of installation for each artificial turf field.
Here's an key point that I don't think has been brought up yet. What surface do they have to practice on? Is turf the ONLY surface they have available? I would venture to guess that most schools with turf game fields still have a grass practice field they can get onto for a couple days work before going on the road.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM
No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582 career win percentage at Springfield. So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.
When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.
Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people. We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games. It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies. I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls. To say it isn't college work is absurd. To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.
I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records. So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them. (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.) The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688) So the coach is 86-39 in d3. If the coach goes .500 on the road. That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road. Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road. Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.
You could argue that well the time frames are competely different. True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.) This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road. With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home. (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 02:08:41 PM
Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people. We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games. It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies.
Spin! Spare me the spin!
People use samples in "scientific" polls because the real pool is too big to use. This 232 game pool is not too big to use at all.
This is a sample of the Central results for the last three years Grass VS Field Turf
2004 6-4 over all 1-0 on Field Turf 5-4 on grass
2005 9-1 over all regular season 0-1 playoffs 4-0 field turf 5-1 grass 0-1 grass in playoffs lost to UWW Stagg Bowl finalist
2006 10-0 regular season 6-0 field turf 4-0 grass This was the first year of playing on Field Turf and Ron and Joyce Schipper field in Pella. 0-1 on field turf in playoffs lost to ST Johns regional finalist.
I don't think the playing surface makes much difference. 2004 barely over 500 on grass and 1.000 on field turf a surface that had to be played on a visiting filed.
2005 undefeated on field turf all away games and 5-1 on grass
2006 undefeated on both surfaces. 2 of the grass games were on mud more like than grass. So good teams adapt and adjust to the surfaces no matter what they are.
I sure don't see a difference in performance. The IIAC is supposed to have 2 more fields this year going to field turf. I think that Buena Vista, Luther, and Cornell are only going to have grass this year.
DutchFan2004, we're not saying it makes a difference for anyone else except Springfield in this conversation.
A couple of things:
1) Yes, Cortland played on grass at home through the 2001 season. As far as I remember, Union was always turf (or at least since the early 1990s). They played on the harder turf until recently.
2) I pulled up some info that may be interesting, although I'm not sure what it proves.
SPRINGFIELD vs. CORTLAND (1987 - 2000)
(The teams did play before 1987; they haven't played since 2000)
(Games at Springfield)
1987 - W 48-28
1989 - L 0-10
1991 - W 20-13
1993 - W 55-33
1995 - W 49-26 (ECAC)
1996 - L 30-33 (OT) (didn't score in OT)
1998 - W 62-34
2000 - W 48-28
TOTALS AT SPRINGFIELD: 6-2 record, 312 total points (39.0 pts/game)
(Games at Cortland)
1988 - L 3-7 (played in snow)
1990 - L 14-41
1992 - L 6-26
1994 - L 0-35
1997 - L 8-24
1999 - L 18-21
TOTALS AT CORTLAND: 0-6 record, 49 total points (8.2 pts/game)
I can't remember off the top of my head what the weather conditions were like at Cortland for the 1990-99 games, although I do remember one game played in the rain. Still, Cortland's point totals in those games reflect the difficulty Springfield had adjusting to the field and weather compared to the team used to the grass.
Again, I don't know if this proves that much, but I think it's interesting to show the totals. I think I've seen all but one of the games in the series since 1992. From a personal standpoint, it did appear that Springfield was a much different team on grass than on turf in terms of execution and comfort level.
Fran Elia
Cortland SID
Indeed -- points per game is an excellent measure that hasn't been mentioned by those trying to tell us the Springfield offense is the same on any surface.
ok, but Springfield wasn't a d3team until 1995. How long has courtland been a d3team?
Anything out of that timeframe can't be compared. Springfield in the two years, they played at Courtland thier records those 4-5 and 4-6 respectively. So they weren't even good teams to begin with. 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 the teams were good that year. All those years they had winning records (8-2, 6-4, 9-2, 11-2)
This Springfield/Turf/Grass arguement has gone on for soooo long, I forget which side of the fence I started on!!!! :-[
I don't know why a consistent series between teams isn't relevant -- regardless of how many scholarships Springfield offered it seemed they performed worse offensively at Cortland than they did against Cortland at home.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM
No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582 career win percentage at Springfield. So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.
When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.
Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people. We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games. It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies. I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls. To say it isn't college work is absurd. To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.
Not correct. The effectiveness of a (random) sample in predicting the characteristics of a population is (surprisingly to laymen)
almost unaffected by the size of the population; it depends nearly entirely on the size of the sample itself, not its
relative size. 12 of 232 is not even remotely close to as good as 300 out of 300,000,000 (most polls are of the 600-1500 sample size anyway).
The margin of error for a given sample size can be mathematically computed. In principle, this size assumes an infinite universe, rather than a finite population. The necessary sample size to achieve a desired margin of error can then be adjusted for the actual population size by a formula known as the finite population correction (fpc - I'll spare you the formula itself!). By this it can be shown, for example, that if you needed 1,000 people to represent the entire country with a 3.5% margin of error (approximately correct), you would still need 960 people from a small city of 25,000 people for the same degree of accuracy. A sample size of 12 just ain't gonna cut it for any population larger than about 14!
Summing up,
relative sample size is virtually irrelevant; actual sample size is nearly the entire picture. Pat was right that this just wasn't college-level work, since IMHO everyone should take a course in sampling and statistics - without it one just can't intelligently deal with modern life. (Well done polls are remarkably accurate; alas, many are not well done. Without such a course there is no way to know the difference, or one takes the head-in-the-sand view of "I just don't believe any of them".)
signed,
'retired stat perfessor'
Phew -- for a second I thought you were coming down on my post, which is certainly possible, because you have more statistical knowledge than the rest of us combined. :)
Ok, as a change of pace, TGP will go out on a limb and ask the Gurus, should this year's Hobart team be ranked in the pre-season Top 25?
On one hand, TGP thinks that based on last season's results they have "earned" a ranking (probably in the 22 or 23 range). In all fairness, at the same time TGP can also easily come up with several arguments against Hobart's inclusion in this year's pre-season Top 25 (graduation of Mizro and several key offensive and defensive players).
Regardless, at least we FINALLY have a 10 game regular season schedule again (and TGP likes the pick up of CMU as a non-conf game, even if TGP would prefer to see us play an E8 team like nearby IC, SJF or even SC due to the strong concentration of students at Hobart from Mass).
They'll be talked about and I will definitely consider them for my ballot but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in the 26-30 range.
Depends too much on what other teams have coming back, though.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 05:04:37 PM
They'll be talked about and I will definitely consider them for my ballot but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in the 26-30 range.
Depends too much on what other teams have coming back, though.
Fair enough Pat. Thx for the feedback.
TGP is of the opinion that this could be a big year for RPI with Robertson being in the starting QB role for the past couple of seasons.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 04:21:00 PM
ok, but Springfield wasn't a d3team until 1995. How long has courtland been a d3team?
Anything out of that timeframe can't be compared. Springfield in the two years, they played at Courtland thier records those 4-5 and 4-6 respectively. So they weren't even good teams to begin with. 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 the teams were good that year. All those years they had winning records (8-2, 6-4, 9-2, 11-2)
don't really see how D-II or D-III makes a difference for your argument. I think Fran cited a perfect example that you are trying to ignore since it crushes your argument. I have said this all along and cited the 2000 (or 99) IC Springfield game that ended 45-42 IC. SC tends to put up huge points at home onthe concrete turf and less on the road...especially on grass.
Quote from: The Great Pumpkin on June 27, 2007, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 05:04:37 PM
They'll be talked about and I will definitely consider them for my ballot but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in the 26-30 range.
Depends too much on what other teams have coming back, though.
Fair enough Pat. Thx for the feedback.
TGP is of the opinion that this could be a big year for RPI with Robertson being in the starting QB role for the past couple of seasons.
That and Hobart & Union are looking at big time rebuilding years.
Quote from: The Great Pumpkin on June 27, 2007, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 05:04:37 PM
They'll be talked about and I will definitely consider them for my ballot but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in the 26-30 range.
Depends too much on what other teams have coming back, though.
Fair enough Pat. Thx for the feedback.
TGP is of the opinion that this could be a big year for RPI with Robertson being in the starting QB role for the past couple of seasons.
it's an odd year, and we all know that RPI plays better in odd years. ;) at both Hobart and Union though.
To stay on topic. I wouldn't rank RPI in the top 25 to start the year, but I'd like them to have a few votes, so somebody needs to rank them in the top 25. does that sound weird?
Quote from: frank uible on June 27, 2007, 02:14:32 AM
One factor in Springfield's apparent preference for artificial turf might be that its grass games are away from home.
A wise man once said: You gotta like Frank, short and to the point.
Quote from: hscoach on June 27, 2007, 07:46:49 AM
K-Mack: I completely agree that Capital still remains in the Top 25. Just not Top 10 in my opinion. But it's just that. MY OPINION. I completely respect your opinion, I just disagree with it. But the beauty of D3 is that we get to settle it on the field with 32 teams fighting for #1! Thank God D3 isn't set up like D1.
Actually, I don't think you do. I had Capital No. 17, behind Baldwin-Wallace.
Agreed about the latter part of that paragraph, couldn't have said it better myself.
Quote from: JU on June 27, 2007, 07:53:58 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 27, 2007, 12:36:24 AM
Quote from: JU on June 26, 2007, 02:23:53 PM
gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather. They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.
That is the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom on the matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure offenses run more misdirection and employ more fakes in poor conditions.
As they say, "the offense knows where it's going, the defense has to react."
Also, you know, the offense is running foward, even in a straight line ... that's a pretty big difference from a tackler coming in either way too fast and not being able to break down and drive through with your tackles, or trying to slow it down and keep your balance, and then being slow to the play.
I'm sure there are some offensive corollaries, like O-linemen pass blocking in the mud can't get their footing, but I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted in football circles that bad footing affects defenses more.
Now, overall, maybe the effect of rain might be equal, since wet balls are hard to throw and catch ... but with regard to the footing specifically, what I said above.
Ok, let me rephrase that and say that in "really" bad weather, the offensive is at a bad advantage. (blizzard, mud, ice) or at least the game isnt the same game that is played. I just remember my thanksgiving day game in high school where it rained for two straight days and the field was literally a swamp and it was pouring. The final score was 6-0 (on a halfback pass) with probably 4 total first downs for each team and 30 punts. Horrible and not the way football was supposed to be played.
If RPI and Ithaca would have played on a dry turf field at RPI 2003, the score would have been 55-30 RPI. (opinion obviously)
RE: Springfield.
I guess Im down on them because some years because their defense is so bad that they just dont quailify as being a "good" team. But even when they are bad, that offense can be explosive and catch better teams off guard.
Fair enough.
Also played an all-rain Thanksgiving Day game, won 7-6. Outgained 230-45, but we caused a fumble ... I couldn't recover it, but I smacked it to the dude who caused it, and he picked it up and ran it in. On their score, the two-point conversion, dude goes over the pile and in, my boy missed the tackle grand royally, but his helmet knocked the ball out. ;D
Played the same archrival on a dry field the next year and we got drilled 50-13.
Quote from: hscoach on June 27, 2007, 08:01:44 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 27, 2007, 12:44:55 AM
Also, I have a lot of problems with this paragraph. Not completely accurate.
QuotePotentially mitigating the lack of returning depth is the quick fix of upper-classmen Division 1 transfers into the open "playmaker" positions. This is an avenue of talent acquisition that Coach Collins has excelled at the last few years. As evidence, one needs to look no further than Lewis Howes who only played at Capital for his senior year, yet was Capital's most explosive receiver in 2005. As well as Derrick Alexander who is on campus for only the 2006 and 2007 seasons. And this doesn't include the transfer of arguably the best player in the history of the school (Rocky Pentello from Toledo) and one of their best linebackers (Joel Sickmeier from Mount Union).
Care to elaborate? No one in the OAC has benefited more than Capital recently when it comes to transfers. What made me write that paragraph isn't that the transfers just end up there as local kids coming home to Columbus, it's that Collins is actively pursuing that route.
Yeah, sorry about not elaborating the first time. I don't have a problem with the main point, it's nitpicky copy editor stuff.
Lewis Howes played for Capital in '04 and '05, at least according to my memory and Google. And he came from Principia.
The way the first sentence is worded could confuse someone, with the Division I mention although Howes and Sickmeier were D3-to-D3 transfers. Although I can see where you meant this year's major transfers are D1 guys.
Also didn't know that was your article you were referring to. Thought you were just reposting of Mtunionfootball.com :-[
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM
No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582 career win percentage at Springfield. So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.
When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.
Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people. We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games. It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies. I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls. To say it isn't college work is absurd. To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.
I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records. So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them. (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.) The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688) So the coach is 86-39 in d3. If the coach goes .500 on the road. That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road. Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road. Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.
You could argue that well the time frames are competely different. True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.) This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road. With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home. (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).
OK, this is the post that made me stop following this argument. The part in bold is as far as I got.
We have reached the 'importance of argument vs. time spent on it' tipping point. This has jumped the shark.
(pretends not to be guilty of beating arguments to death on other boards)
Dance, statistics, dance!
Ad absurdum.
Quote from: K-Mack on June 28, 2007, 02:17:31 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM
No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582 career win percentage at Springfield. So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.
When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.
Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people. We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games. It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies. I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls. To say it isn't college work is absurd. To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.
I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records. So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them. (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.) The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688) So the coach is 86-39 in d3. If the coach goes .500 on the road. That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road. Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road. Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.
You could argue that well the time frames are competely different. True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.) This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road. With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home. (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).
OK, this is the post that made me stop following this argument. The part in bold is as far as I got.
We have reached the 'importance of argument vs. time spent on it' tipping point. This has jumped the shark.
(pretends not to be guilty of beating arguments to death on other boards)
Dance, statistics, dance!
Here....here...agreed
Union put in their first turf field in 1982. The new 'field turf' went in about 3 or 4 years ago.
Quote from: Union89 on June 28, 2007, 10:36:13 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 28, 2007, 02:17:31 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 02:08:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM
No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 27, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582 career win percentage at Springfield. So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.
When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.
Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people. We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games. It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies. I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls. To say it isn't college work is absurd. To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.
I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records. So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them. (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.) The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688) So the coach is 86-39 in d3. If the coach goes .500 on the road. That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road. Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road. Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.
You could argue that well the time frames are competely different. True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.) This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road. With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home. (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).
OK, this is the post that made me stop following this argument. The part in bold is as far as I got.
We have reached the 'importance of argument vs. time spent on it' tipping point. This has jumped the shark.
(pretends not to be guilty of beating arguments to death on other boards)
Dance, statistics, dance!
Here....here...agreed
And a 2006 d3 Springfield without scholarships is better than a 1993 d2 Springfield team with scholarships.
And although Im not a stat man, even Mr. Ypsi might agree that an empirical analysis of football games and stats is the only to come up with an opinion on something like teams being "better on turf" when their home field is on turf.
So yeah, about those Top 25s ...
Here are my thoughts on the craziest rankings in Lindy's and S&S:
S&S
Wabash No. 7: Can't see slotting the Little Giants as a semifinal-type team after an 8-2 season last year. I can't think of any dominant player they have returning that would have them warrant top 10 consideration. With a lot of starters back, I could see them in the low end of the top 25, which coincidentally is where I ranked Franklin, who beat Wabash in OT in last year's opener. They play at Wabash Sept. 8 this year.
W&J No. 8: The Presidents are usually top 25-35 material, and we all usually rank them way too high to start, only to put them where they should be when they inevitably lose a regular-season game. They are coming off a decent playoff performance, but anyone who looked at their 30-27 playoff score vs. UMHB and didn't know their last TD was scored with 1 second left and the game basically over and hopefully didn't use that score as a basis for putting them so high.
Whitworth No. 10: Another team I could see in the top 25, although I may not rank them there myself. The loss of Joel Clark and Michael Allan should hurt the offense, the defense has starters to replace, and they won a couple (Linfield, UW-Stout) by the skin of their teeth last season. Might not be so fortunate this year, although still a shoo-in for at least 7 wins.
Occidental No. 12: For many of the same reasons as above, losing QB Andy Collins, needed to rally to pull out a couple wins last year (Cal Lu, Whittier). Big difference, however, is three years of recruiting off of playoff appearances and conference titles, so I let them hang out at the bottom of my top 25 (No. 24), where I projected Whitworth to fall just outside of that group.
Bridgewater No. 17: Now here's a team I could easily see ending up in this position, but I think the ODAC is too clouded to project a clear favorite or a top 25 team out of it at this juncture. The Eagles are probably the odds-on favorite to be the last team standing, but Emory & Henry, Guilford and Hampden-Sydney could factor in the conference race ... and none of those teams are the defending champion either. Yet, if playoff results represent relative conference strength, W&L's 42-0 loss at Wilkes doesn't cast the conference in a good light.
Hope No. 19: I just don't see how you can start the season with an MIAA team in the top 20. Even if you ranked the 26 conference champions or projected champs, the MIAA hasn't shown enough in recent seasons to be top 20. The MIAA tends to be a league that beats its champion up during the season before sending it to Mount Union or wherever to be slaughtered. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I personally wouldn't come out of the gate with an MIAA team that high.
Coast Guard No. 24: Even if they were the projected NEFC champ, you don't have to go too far back in Coast Guard's history to see how it stacks up against other East Region leagues. And I don't mean back to 1997. I think top 50 is possible, and as someone mentioned, if you're giving a NEFC team this kind of respect, why wouldn't it be Curry?
Wash. & Lee No. 25: See comments regarding Bridgewater at No. 17
I liked S&S going out on a limb with Millsaps at 15 and Wartburg at 18, two rankings that could make them look good. Even Ohio Northern at 22 isn't bad. I think they did a good job of not just trying to slap last year's top 25 up there as this year's top 25, I just thought there were some stretches.
Lindy's
(see next post)
Lindy's
(see next post)
Not nearly as many head-scratchers here. In fact, we agreed on UMHB at No. 2, St. John's at No. 7 (too many losses to have them at 2 like Street & Smith's) and W&J at 18. And their ranking of Wesley at No. 5 may go over better than me putting them No. 3. They might have given Hardin-Simmons (No. 6) more deserved respect than I (11). We were also one spot apart on Central (8/9) and
I thought their ranking didn't look as good with Rowan 8, Bethel 10, Capital 11 and North Central 12, all of which are top 25 teams, but too high, IMHO. Especially with St. John Fisher (13) behind all those teams. The Cardinals lost probably their best offensive and defensive players, but they're far from depleted and the confidence/respect gained from the MUC game last year should mean something. I thought Springfield (14), Wilkes (19) and UW-La Crosse (25) also started off too low, and I didn't think UWW (3) and La Crosse should be 22 spots apart. But maybe they were splitting the difference between last year's two scores. Having seen the first one, it didn't get 45-10 bad until late ... at 24-10, La Crosse had a chance to score and turned it over going in or something like that. I remember it as a closer-looking game that got away from them late, and certainly the 24-21 result had those two teams closer together.
The only super head-scratcher in the Lindy's ranking is Trinity (Texas) at No. 4. It was pointed out to me that the Tigers haven't won a playoff game since before their 2002 Stagg Bowl appearance. Millsaps overtook them in-conference last season, and DePauw has been right there a couple times and twice quirks have put a crimp in the game being played at all. I think you can make a case for Trinity resuming its perch, but then with Millsaps bringing a lot back and perhaps DePauw getting in there, you may have an ODAC situation, where you'll have to wait and see who starts strong before moving an SCAC team high up into the top 25. Even i you look at Trinity's schedule as one with 10 winnable games (which is debatable since they lost to TLU two years ago and go to DePauw and Millsaps), I still don't think that makes them one of the top teams in the country out of the gate. Maybe they have a ton back or something ...
Cal Lutheran at 20 ... this would make a lot more sense as a leapfrog the traditional champ pick if Danny Jones hadn't transferred to UWW and the coaching staff hadn't turned over.
Alfred at 22 ... I actually like this pick as getting a new name in the top 25 based on a team that has been on the brink in upstate NY for two years now. Ahead of Hobart (23, L 21-14 last season) should probably be earned first, but I can stomach that.
Four of Lindy's top 6 teams were out of the South Region.
Anyway, if the poll I did for USA Today ever sees the light of day on these boards, there's probably a list of beefs (No. 3, No. 12, No. 16, etc.) that people can quibble with too.
I was talking with a key source on Texas/ASC/SCAC football. He says that Trinity keeps tightening its academic standards, raising its tuition and lowering its academic aid to prospective students in the 1100 SAT range. There are plenty of ASC teams with less expensive tuition and more generous academic aid packages, for whom an 1100 SAT gets a good package.
In summary, Trinity TX is not the Trinity of 10 years ago, when they were getting dominant classes of student-athletes.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 01, 2007, 11:27:41 PM
Lindy's
(see next post)
Alfred at 22 ... I actually like this pick as getting a new name in the top 25 based on a team that has been on the brink in upstate NY for two years now. Ahead of Hobart (23, L 21-14 last season) should probably be earned first, but I can stomach that.
Alfred's QB is pretty solid. Could be the best in the E8 this season (as a pure passer anyway - can't recall if the Springfield QB with those crazy rushing stats is back this year). TGP could see the Saxons doing some damage in the east this season as well.
Hobart has a lot of questions following the graduation of Mizro. Strom is a senior (and a CA kid - who'd thought that was possible in ol' Geneva?), but has never started for the Statesmen.
Quote from: The Great Pumpkin on July 02, 2007, 12:44:37 PM
can't recall if the Springfield QB with those crazy rushing stats is back this year).
He is.
Pat, something strange is happening on the front page. As I roll over graphics, they disapear.....don't know if it's just me or something else.
Odd -- we don't have any rollover capabilities built into the site at the moment.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 02, 2007, 06:42:59 AM
I was talking with a key source on Texas/ASC/SCAC football. He says that Trinity keeps tightening its academic standards, raising its tuition and lowering its academic aid to prospective students in the 1100 SAT range. There are plenty of ASC teams with less expensive tuition and more generous academic aid packages, for whom an 1100 SAT gets a good package.
In summary, Trinity TX is not the Trinity of 10 years ago, when they were getting dominant classes of student-athletes.
That is almost exactly what we've been hearing for a few years now, usually from good sources but never really on the record.
TGPeezie,
That's why I didn't rank Hobart or Union, because of their stars lost ... and then also that conference could be another one of the ones where we have to see a few games to see who establishes themselves as the top 25 team. Could be RPI or Rochester for all we know.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 03, 2007, 01:50:16 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 02, 2007, 06:42:59 AM
I was talking with a key source on Texas/ASC/SCAC football. He says that Trinity keeps tightening its academic standards, raising its tuition and lowering its academic aid to prospective students in the 1100 SAT range. There are plenty of ASC teams with less expensive tuition and more generous academic aid packages, for whom an 1100 SAT gets a good package.
In summary, Trinity TX is not the Trinity of 10 years ago, when they were getting dominant classes of student-athletes.
That is almost exactly what we've been hearing for a few years now, usually from good sources but never really on the record.
TGPeezie,
That's why I didn't rank Hobart or Union, because of their stars lost ... and then also that conference could be another one of the ones where we have to see a few games to see who establishes themselves as the top 25 team. Could be RPI or Rochester for all we know.
Good call not ranking Union in your Pre-Season top 25.....I hope that as the season progresses that changes, but not too optimistic. I hate to say it, but you have to give RPI the pre-season nod in the LL.
Then again, what do I know....I'd bet $$$ Union would beat Coast Guard if they played this year.... ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on July 01, 2007, 11:07:26 PM
So yeah, about those Top 25s ...
Here are my thoughts on the craziest rankings in Lindy's and S&S:
Whitworth No. 10: Another team I could see in the top 25, although I may not rank them there myself. The loss of Joel Clark and Michael Allan should hurt the offense, the defense has starters to replace, and they won a couple (Linfield, UW-Stout) by the skin of their teeth last season. Might not be so fortunate this year, although still a shoo-in for at least 7 wins.
Occidental No. 12: For many of the same reasons as above, losing QB Andy Collins, needed to rally to pull out a couple wins last year (Cal Lu, Whittier). Big difference, however, is three years of recruiting off of playoff appearances and conference titles, so I let them hang out at the bottom of my top 25 (No. 24), where I projected Whitworth to fall just outside of that group.
Lindy's
(see next post)
Keith,
While I may take issue of your characterization of the Oxy Pomona rivalry (on the parallel thread on that topic) I think that you nailed this one spot on. Where Oxy ends up will be determined on who gets to step into fill those big shoes Collins left behind and whether the Tigers have another strong recruiting year . . . and from what I'm hearing, it's looking pretty darn good. Time will tell.
cheers,
tooth
Collins is arguably greater than Kemp?
Quote from: OxyBob on July 03, 2007, 08:39:32 PM
I think it's very optimistic for Street & Smith's to rank the Tigers at No. 12 to start the post-Collins era.
It might be optimistic of you to assume S&S knew there was a Collins era and that it's now over. ;)
I guess S+S doesn't realise that Wesley returns almost everyone. I know the need to replace Warrick and Harris but they don't even get a mention as an other team to watch. interesting.. Clark is back at wideout and if Komona plays his size that gives them a big back threat as well But thats for later!!!!!
Yeah. I mean, what did Warrick do in his career? Easily replaced. :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 02, 2007, 12:51:08 PM
Quote from: The Great Pumpkin on July 02, 2007, 12:44:37 PM
can't recall if the Springfield QB with those crazy rushing stats is back this year).
He is.
I think Springfield is going to be a hard team to predict this year. Part of me, your humble East Region columnist, believes that SC will be as dominant as last year, especially with Sharpe returning after his record-breaking season in 2006. The other part, however, thinks that defenses will have him figured out after seeing him rule the roost last year. IMO, he has an automatic advantage right off the bat with that option offense stuff.
Pat
That's uncalled for.... I know what Warrick did. and I know what Harris meant to the defence. Which I did mention in my last post. There are a lot players coming back and Knapp and Drass will adjust the offence and defence to use their skills
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 04, 2007, 11:45:30 AM
Yeah. I mean, what did Warrick do in his career? Easily replaced. :)
Well, these might be the final S&S rankings if those issues die.
Wesley surely deserves to be somewhere between K-Mack's No. 3 and S&S's snub. But I'd be very interested in the rationale for No. 3 -- as I would guess that just about anyone would who saw the game against UWW.
Granted, it's a single frame of reference but ...
Azusa ... Oshkosh ... UWEC ... UMHB ... UWLX (twice) ... UWSP .... Platteville ... UWRF ... SJU ... all were more competitive against UWW last season.
And, aside from two-loss UMHB, Wesley had an almost embarrassing route in the South bracket. (Compare that to SJU playing three top-10 unbeatens). So how much has Wesley -- shoes or no shoes -- really proven? It's not like that region is a hotbed of Stagg champs ...
No matter how many folks Wesley returns, they did not appear not on the same level -- physically or skills wise -- as UWW or other top West teams.
Ranked, sure. But top 3? Hard to see. I'd have them after UWW, UWLX and SJU in the West with a prediction of a rapidly rebounding Linfield closing fast.
Wesley has proven that it matches up very very poorly against UW-Whitewater itself.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 04, 2007, 05:50:05 PM
Wesley has proven that it matches up very very poorly against UW-Whitewater itself.
IMO they shouldnt be in the top 10 let alone the top 5. They've proven that they dont match up well vs out of region opponents on the national stage, untill they do they shouldnt be in the upper echelon of ranked teams.
Upstate.....
I think that's a harsh statement considering that UW-Whitewater went to the finals both years... And as Pat mentioned they didn't match up well .. And Wesley did the same thing to UMHB two years in a row!!!! So does that lessen UMHB's close loss to Whitewater?
Quote from: Upstate on July 04, 2007, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 04, 2007, 05:50:05 PM
Wesley has proven that it matches up very very poorly against UW-Whitewater itself.
IMO they shouldnt be in the top 10 let alone the top 5. They've proven that they dont match up well vs out of region opponents on the national stage, untill they do they shouldnt be in the upper echelon of ranked teams.
Yeah -- I know it's hard for people outside of the East Coast and Texas to understand, but Wesley is better than its national semifinal showings. The wins in consecutive years against UMHB should be an indication, no?
Hmm. I think Upstate just might be on the East Coast and I'm fairly sure I'm closer to the coast than you are .... :)
One showing I can write off as an aberration but Wesley could have been two TDs better in both games and still have been -- to use an East Coast phrase -- monkey stomped. I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.
Not to pound on Wesley, but it's hard to see them as at No. 3.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 04, 2007, 10:49:15 PM
Yeah -- I know it's hard for people outside of the East Coast and Texas to understand, but Wesley is better than its national semifinal showings. The wins in consecutive years against UMHB should be an indication, no?
Yeah, I mean as soon as you start using one result to define a team's place in the national rankings, you need to look no farther than this:
UWW 44, Wesley 7
Wesley 34, UMHB 20
UWW 7, UMHB 3
That pretty much goes to show that maybe matchups or home field advantage or something else factors into how all three of these teams compare. Wesley did a number on UMHB, although the Cru started to make it competitive in the 2nd half. UMHB and UWW basically shut each other out for four quarters. And UWW smokes Wesley.
Maybe without that UWW-UMHB game we'd put more distance between UWW and Wesley ... but anyway, that's last year and we're talking about the 2007 top 25.
My rationale for going Wesley ahead of UWW is based on what each brings back.
Wesley loses Warrick and Harris, but replaces Warrick with Jason Schutz, who was a top WR last year, meaning he got (big) game experience and is familiar with the offense. I don't think that's the same as replacing him with a guy that never played. Plus, to fill Schutz's shoes at WR, Wesley (last I heard) was expecting to have its best WR from 2 years ago, Larry Beavers, back.
I weigh continuity and experience quite a bit when trying to project without any game data (i.e. preseason) to go on.
Along those lines, UWW's list of major losses:
DT Kleppe (D3football.com Defensive player of the year)
WR Stanley (NFL draft pick)
QB Jacobs (3-year starter, I believe)
OL Sakellaris (All-American
FB Reuland
TE Schmitt
DT Thompson
LB Widuch
Head coach Berezowitz
Offensive coordinator Zwiefel
If Danny Jones wins the starting job, and gets up to speed by the UW-La Crosse game, UWW could be very successful again. Beaver is back. A lot of the OL and secondary is back, and a couple of really good LBs are back. And the defensive coordinator is back. And their K is good too. But the offense is new, the QB is new ... they did have the benefit of 10 extra games/weeks of practice the past two years and have been able to recruit off of consecutive Stagg Bowl appearances. But I don't know what effect the coaching turnover had on their recruits this year, and they will be inexperienced in some spots.
I think ranking them No. 5 to start was very optimistic, but sensible for two reasons: One, I couldn't come up with a real solid reason to put UW-La Crosse ahead based on what I knew at the time, although I could see the Eagles winning the conference this year, and even if UWW loses to Lax and/or UMHB, if they get into the playoffs, by Week 12 they could be very tough to beat. And the other West contenders (St. John's and Central) might not be far off, but the Johnnies lost a lot also, and Central has its big stud back, but will have a couple tough challenges in its conference before it can get to the postseason again.
Bottom line is this: I'm not ranking 2005-6 UWW vs. 2005-6 Wesley. And to assume the 2007 UWW team is going to be just as good as the previous two teams does a very big disservice to the number of key people the Warhawks lost. Certainly the sky is still the limit, but they have a lot more to replace than either Wesley, UMHB or Mount Union does to start 2007.
Plus, I think that UMHB-Wesley-UWW triangle eliminates the sense in reading into the past two West-South semifinals as more than 05-06 UWW manhandling 05-06 Wesley. The '06 triangle results clearly disprove the notion that a top South Region team can't hang with a top West Region team.
Given the North Region-East Region semifinal result as well, I think it becomes fair to throw out region strength in 2006 as a factor for ranking 2007 teams, and instead focus on what each brings back in terms of continuity and talent.
Quote from: repete on July 04, 2007, 11:17:14 PM
Hmm. I think Upstate just might be on the East Coast and I'm fairly sure I'm closer to the coast than you are .... :)
One showing I can write off as an aberration but Wesley could have been two TDs better in both games and still have been -- to use an East Coast phrase -- monkey stomped. I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.
Not to pound on Wesley, but it's hard to see them as at No. 3.
I have little doubt that had SJU gotten by UWW they would have handled Wesley, but since they didn't get by UWW all I can do is speculate. As for 2007, the great thing is we soon shall see. 8)
Quote from: repete on July 04, 2007, 11:17:14 PM
I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.
See, all we're saying is that you're taking that one game and extrapolating it, which is fair for you since that's the only game you saw that you have to go on.
Since I saw UWW three times last year, including vs. UMHB, and I saw Wesley, including vs. UMHB, and I saw UMHB three times ... I can tell you first hand that taking any one game as a representation of how that team would play each and every week vs. each and every opponent doesn't give you the full picture. UWW with Justin Beaver and Travis Reuland ran the ball a lot better than the team without them both, for instance.
The same way folks who saw only UWW vs. Wesley might be wondering how the heck Wesley was good enough to be a semifinal team ... folks from Texas who only saw UWW vs. UMHB might be wondering how the heck UWW managed to generate enough offense to get to the Stagg Bowl. On that day in Texas, their only points came by returning the opening kickoff for a TD.
The same defense that shut out UWW gave up four of the five TDs vs. Wesley.
Matchups, injuries, bad plays and off days ... so much more factors in than just the final score. Sometimes though that's all we have to go on.
Personally, having seen all three teams last year, I can say they were a lot closer to each other than 44-7 would have you believe.
If I could pinpoint why Wesley can't get it done at Perkins ... I'd have already made a little sales call to Dover. ;)
Quote from: repete on July 04, 2007, 11:17:14 PM
Hmm. I think Upstate just might be on the East Coast and I'm fairly sure I'm closer to the coast than you are .... :)
One showing I can write off as an aberration but Wesley could have been two TDs better in both games and still have been -- to use an East Coast phrase -- monkey stomped. I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.
Not to pound on Wesley, but it's hard to see them as at No. 3.
I agree about No. 3, no doubt. However, two games PROVES the point, it doesn't disprove it.
Regardless of your current geographic location, I think we all know you follow a non-East Coast team.
Quote from: tmerton on July 04, 2007, 11:54:30 PM
Quote from: repete on July 04, 2007, 11:17:14 PM
Hmm. I think Upstate just might be on the East Coast and I'm fairly sure I'm closer to the coast than you are .... :)
One showing I can write off as an aberration but Wesley could have been two TDs better in both games and still have been -- to use an East Coast phrase -- monkey stomped. I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.
Not to pound on Wesley, but it's hard to see them as at No. 3.
I have little doubt that had SJU gotten by UWW they would have handled Wesley, but since they didn't get by UWW all I can do is speculate. As for 2007, the great thing is we soon shall see. 8)
That game would have been in Dover though, on turf. The Wolverines fans were salivating for that matchup, mostly for the home game, but probably also to dodge UWW.
Then again, getting another shot at a team that embarassed you the year before, and getting embarassed again ... I'm not sure how I'd digest that.
Another example of the 'if you only saw one game' phenomenon: UWW 24, UWL 21 in the playoffs, and they needed a big TD pass play in the fourth to get it done.
In October, UWW won on the same field against the same team 45-10.
(as I've said before, that game wasn't really 45-10 bad until the 4th quarter. I remember UWL driving when it was 24-10 and turning it over. Maybe I'm an optimist and tend to believe two good teams are closer than blowouts generally indicate ... but taking either UWW-UWL result from last season alone doesn't give you the full picture. Judging solely by the first game, who would have predicted a three-point second game?)
I realize you can only go by what you know. But by the same token, we all have to be wary of putting too much stock into one game. After all, isn't the motto "On Any Given Saturday ... ?"
Well, here is the USA Today Sports Weekly 2007 College Football Preview's Division III top 25. I'd advise you to pick up the issue still, if you run across it. They gave us a full page this year and there's a lot more in there than just the rankings.
At least it should tide you over until Kickoff.
Dedicated to my man Janesville Flash, who went to great lengths to get his own copy, here goes:
1. Mount Union
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor
3. Wesley
4. St. John Fisher
5. UW-Whitewater
6. UW-La Crosse
7. St. John's
8. Central
9. Springfield
10. Wilkes
11. Hardin-Simmons
12. Baldwin-Wallace
13. Bethel
14. Wheaton
15. Rowan
16. Cortland State
17. Capital
18. Wash. & Jeff.
19. Christopher Newport
20. Linfield
21. North Central
22. Millsaps
23. Carnegie Mellon
24. Occidental
25. Franklin
Thought about: Wartburg, Hobart, Union, Ithaca, Whitworth and a few others who escape me at the moment.
And I can definitely verify that Pat did not endorse Wesley at 3. That's all me.
Fire away!
Thanks for the explanation. Still don't buy Wesley as No. 3 but appreciate the info.
What hangs me up in this discussion is the huge gap. Wesley had a year to address the 56-8 "matchup" or shoe problem. While they closed the gap a bit on the scoreboard, UWW eased up fairly early and it could have been 56-8 all over again.
If either UWW game had been close to competitive, a No. 3 would be easier to buy..
As for the UWLX-UWW season scores -- that argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Just about anybody who follows the West -- or has been in a situation where quality rivals place twice in a season -- knows the second game is often much closer.
And while the UWW-W-UMHB triangulation works in your favor this time, we all know that those kinds of arguments can also work to confound rather than clarify.
That said, you guys have proven over the years that you know your stuff, so while I'm unconvinced on the rating, I might be hoping for a North-South semi pairing.
And if you guys think I like to stir the pot ... I see that Star-Tribune columnist Pat Reusse has already endorsed St. Olaf as the MIAC favorite ....
Generally, tho, great to see the top 25 after all the know-nothing pretenders. Thanks for posting it. I'd put a bullet next to Linfield.
Cool.
First off, it doesn't work in my favor, I don't care who's good. I care about providing the D3 die-hards with the best info possible. I don't have anything personal to prove, just explaining my rationale because I know people want to hear, and I know I myself would want to hear it if it were another person's rankings we were looking at.
People seem to have their minds made up that Wesley can't be that good in 2007. I think you're stuck in the past and stuck on that one result. 2006 Whitewater doesn't have any games scheduled this year. I can understand beefing with Wesley at 3, but who has more coming back?
I'll tell you who. Mount Union and UMHB. Not St. John Fisher, St. John's or Whitewater or anyone else I considered for the 2 spot. I know because I have a page full of scribbled notes and teams with key losses listed on one side and returns on the other side.
I'm definitely not above being wrong. I even encourage discussion on this top 25 because I think the more I learn as we get closer to August, it might not even be the top 25 I submit for D3football.com's first poll. But I'm confident no one else that did rankings this early did more with the information at hand, so if I do turn out to be wrong, or if I change my mind, I'll rest easy knowing that.
I'm really not trying to sound defensive. I think we all benefit from fleshed-out, reason-based arguments, and on the matter of why Wesley should not be No. 3 this year, or why any team should be ranked higher, I'd like to hear some. I definitely think it's worth discussing.
Quote from: repete on July 05, 2007, 12:38:22 AM
Thanks for the explanation. Still don't buy Wesley as No. 3 but appreciate the info.
What hangs me up in this discussion is the huge gap. Wesley had a year to address the 56-8 "matchup" or shoe problem. While they closed the gap a bit on the scoreboard, UWW eased up fairly early and it could have been 56-8 all over again.
If either UWW game had been close to competitive, a No. 3 would be easier to buy..
As for the UWLX-UWW season scores -- that argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Just about anybody who follows the West -- or has been in a situation where quality rivals place twice in a season -- knows the second game is often much closer.
And while the UWW-W-UMHB triangulation works in your favor this time, we all know that those kinds of arguments can also work to confound rather than clarify.
That said, you guys have proven over the years that you know your stuff, so while I'm unconvinced on the rating, I might be hoping for a North-South semi pairing.
West-East matchups have traditionally been good to the West.
And I think the triangulation does work to confound in this instance. It would be a lot more clear if it were UMHB-UWW neck-and-neck and they'd both crushed Wesley or something like that.
As for the "second game is a lot closer" argument, that may work in the West, but try telling it to Mount Union, oh ye of the 34-31 regular-season game and the 57-19 semfinal, etc. Capital played them well in the playoffs, but the second game can just as soon be a blowout when the first game wasn't as it can be vice versa. I think of instances in the past few years when playoff rematches have gone all kinds of directions:
RS: Concordia (Wis.) 30, North Central 24, OT
P: North Central 35, Concordia 6
RS: Mount Union 38, Capital 12
P: Mount Union 17, Capital 14 (MUC goes on to win Stagg Bowl)
RS: UW-W 45, UW-L 10
P: UW-W 24, UW-L 21 (UWW goes on to play in Stagg Bowl)
2005:
RS: Mount Union 42, Capital 24 (Capital led in the 4th though)
P: Mount Union 34, Capital 31 (MUC goes on to win Stagg Bowl)
2003:
RS: CNU 16, Bridgewater 12
P: Bridgewater 26, CNU 3
1999:
RS: Willamette 26, Pacific Lutheran 20
P: Pacific Lutheran 28, Willamette 24 (PLU goes on to win championship)
And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Surely UMHB and HSU have played a rematch once. Oh what the heck, I'll look it up.
Oh yeah, that was a good one.
2004:
RS: HSU 49, UMHB 22 at UMHB
P: UMHB 42, HSU 28 at HSU
So I don't know if you can draw any real conclusions about what will happen in a playoff rematch based on the results of the first game, at least with this limited pool of research from recent years. I know it's an adage and all, especially with the third game in the NFL, but I think the above says otherwise. And that doesn't even factor in home vs. away sites.
Wabash and Witt played a rematch one year, '02 maybe, and the Mount Union one I was referring to above (not sure on the reg. season score, maybe 33-30) was John Carroll and Mount Union.
Hardin-Simmons and Sul Ross scheduled two games against each other in one year a few years back. Those Texas road trips are no fun, apparently.
Well, perhaps that falls into the "statistics, damn statistics and lies" category.
But from the examples you listed, the numbers could be spun to to indicate that two straight blowouts are unlikely. It's late but each example has either a closer game in the rematch or the first-game loser wins.
In no case was the first blowout repeated -- which was what I was basically trying to get at with the UWLX-UWW reference.
BTW, I didn't find your post(s) defensive. I was trying to draw out the rationale of Wesley at 3 and yours was certainly solid.
Quote from: repete on July 05, 2007, 01:32:45 AM
Well, perhaps that falls into the "statistics, damn statistics and lies" category.
But from the examples you listed, the numbers could be spun to to indicate that two straight blowouts are unlikely. It's late but each example has either a closer game in the rematch or the first-game loser wins.
In no case was the first blowout repeated -- which was what I was basically trying to get at with the UWLX-UWW reference.
BTW, I didn't find your post(s) defensive. I was trying to draw out the rationale of Wesley at 3 and yours was certainly solid.
1999:
RS: Mount Union 56, Ohio Northern 24
P: Mount Union 56, Ohio Northern 31
2000:
RS: Mount Union 48, Ohio Northern 34
P: Mount Union 59, Ohio Northern 28
It
can happen.
Actually, I just remembered I wrote about this as it pertains to Mount Union in ATN this year (http://www.d3football.com/atn.php?id=109).
QuoteMount Union rematches in playoffs vs. OAC opponent
A prevailing thought in Ohio regarding the Purple Raiders is you have to beat them on the first try. Larry Kehres and staff don't often fumble their second chance. In 1997, Mount Union beat John Carroll 42-14 in the regular season and 57-9 in the quarterfinals. Here's how other teams who played the Purple Raiders twice fared:
1999: vs. Ohio Northern: Won 56-24 in regular season, 56-31 in quarterfinals
2000: vs. Ohio Northern: Won 48-24 in regular season, 59-28 in second round
2002: vs. John Carroll: Won 35-16 in regular season, 57-19 in semifinals
2005: vs. Capital: Won 42-24 in regular season, 34-31 in quarterfinals
2006: vs. Capital: Won 38-12 in regular season
I didn't even have the John Carroll score right, and I was AT that game. The good game must've been in '01.
(gets old & scenile)
Also, FTR in case
we I ever drudge this up and call it research, Wabash-Wittenberg in '02:
RS: Wabash 46, Wittenberg 43 (at Witt)
P: Wabash 25, Wittenberg 14 (at Wab)
K-Mack,
Your top 25 makes sense to me from what all you have written here. Someone has to be #3. To make a preseson top 25 you have to have a very large crystal ball. It is nice to see some thought go into it. It will be fun to see how your top 25 now compares with the other ones and see how it finishes at the end of the season. There are 10 regular season games to play and plenty of teams that would love to prove you wrong. Thanks for all you do!
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:22:54 AMWell, here is the USA Today Sports Weekly 2007 College Football Preview's Division III top 25.
Thank you for not "endorsing" Bridgewater. :)
Our players need a good kick in the rear after last season, and I hope not being ranked by respectable sources (D3football.com, Sports Weekly) will light a fire in them.
Us being ranked No. 17 by Lindy's isn't worth much after seeing Coast Guard (and W&L, for that matter) in the top 25.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:22:54 AMI'd advise you to pick up the issue still, if you run across it.
You better believe I will! I just hope the 7-11 here in Bridgewater has it. Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million in Harrisonburg didn't carry it last year.
Keith--
A couple of things:
1. HSU and SRSU scheduled the second game only because HSU was left without a 10th game that season after UW-Stout backed out of the travel end of a home and home very late in the summer.
2. On the Wesley pick at three....I guess my biggest problem with having the Wolves there is the fact that they're breaking in a new QB. It's the same as the Texas Tech arguement down here--is it the QB or the system? In Wesley's case, I think Warrick made the system.
Just my humble .02 worth--I can buy them in the top 10-15 without Warrick, but not top 5.
My thoughts on Wesley -
Not sure if I remember talking with K-Mack in person or on these forums about this last year, but my feeling is that when Wesley gets down by a couple scores, they lose their focus.
They seem to go into every game thinking they're one of the best in the nation (which they are), and yet when they start losing, they start to doubt themselves.
When they start beating up an opponent, they really beat them up. Over the last three seasons, they have beaten 24 opponents by more than three touchdowns. That's Mount Union-esk. But when they get down by a couple scores, they seem to throw in the towel. Their last five losses:
2006: 44-7 to UW-Whitewater
2005: 58-6 to UW-Whitewater
2005: 47-0 to Brockport State
2004: 35-18 to Salisbury (Wesley got down 16-0)
2004: 24-10 to Carnegie Mellon (Wesley got down 21-3)
Good job K-Mack on the rankings. I only have one comment.
I didnt think that Cortland St. was that good last year, and I dont think they deserve to be in the top 25. Ill always give credit to Cortland teams when credit is due but Ithaca was a little better team than they were last year and I wasnt impressed with anyone on their team except for the kicker and Sair who I did notice was a pretty good d-back.
Just the fact that RPI beat them would make me put another LL team above them in the top 25.
Matt makes a good point. If you take into account the start of the second Wesley/ UWW game and even the second Wesley/UMHB game, the fact that both teams had been beaten the year before has to be a let down when things start to snow ball on the first series of plays. In the UMHB/Wesley game the difference was that UMHB got one big play back that fired them up and gave them some hope whereas that never happened for Wesley at UWW. My only other case in point is that Wesley was down to Dickenson by 21 and smoked them after a big play turned the tide.
Do I think Wesley is number #3, The first month of the season will tell us that.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on July 05, 2007, 09:54:21 AM
2. On the Wesley pick at three....I guess my biggest problem with having the Wolves there is the fact that they're breaking in a new QB. It's the same as the Texas Tech arguement down here--is it the QB or the system? In Wesley's case, I think Warrick made the system.
Perhaps, but to play devil's advocate on this point, perhaps Jason Visconti made the system and Warrick followed.
Don't usually pay much attention to preseason polls but to rank Wesley ahead of Whitewater is simply ludicrous in my opinion. I have watched UWW manhandle Wesley two years in a row.....the Warhawks simply have too much talent left over from last year to ever lose to Wesley this year. If it wasn't for Wesley's fine safety making numerous touchdown saving tackles Whitewater would have been close to 100 points last year....now this year ranked behind them is more than puzzling. If they play again this year, no matter where, Wesley will be outcoached and outplayed again......even if they whine and have the cannon removed........
Yeah, we know, the cannon grudge.
Yes, I have to admit my grudges die a slow death......
Quote from: repete on July 05, 2007, 12:45:49 AM
And if you guys think I like to stir the pot ... I see that Star-Tribune columnist Pat Reusse has already endorsed St. Olaf as the MIAC favorite ....
When was that? :o
Back about the time of the baseball draft. It was keyed to a two-sport Ole.
http://www.startribune.com/508/story/1151006.html
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 05, 2007, 10:44:54 AM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on July 05, 2007, 09:54:21 AM
2. On the Wesley pick at three....I guess my biggest problem with having the Wolves there is the fact that they're breaking in a new QB. It's the same as the Texas Tech arguement down here--is it the QB or the system? In Wesley's case, I think Warrick made the system.
Perhaps, but to play devil's advocate on this point, perhaps Jason Visconti made the system and Warrick followed.
Honest question: Did Visconti's arrival coincide with Warrick's, or did was Warrick a recruit after Visconti's hiring?
Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on July 05, 2007, 09:44:41 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:22:54 AMWell, here is the USA Today Sports Weekly 2007 College Football Preview's Division III top 25.
Thank you for not "endorsing" Bridgewater. :)
Our players need a good kick in the rear after last season, and I hope not being ranked by respectable sources (D3football.com, Sports Weekly) will light a fire in them.
Us being ranked No. 17 by Lindy's isn't worth much after seeing Coast Guard (and W&L, for that matter) in the top 25.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:22:54 AMI'd advise you to pick up the issue still, if you run across it.
You better believe I will! I just hope the 7-11 here in Bridgewater has it. Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million in Harrisonburg didn't carry it last year.
Yeah, I'm starting to wonder who does carry it.
The good news is August for the daily paper I will get to take another crack at it, in an issue people will be able to find!
The one place where I could have listed Bridgewater was under the Movers (self-explanatory) and Shakers (non-playoff teams that could get in this year). They're probably the odds-on favorite in the ODAC, but as I said earlier elsewhere, the problem with ranking an ODAC team is that there's five of them that could possibly be THE team this year, or at least factor into the discussion. Kind of makes it hard to pick a top 25 team. By midseason though, perhaps we'll have some clarity.
Quote from: repete on July 05, 2007, 12:05:05 PM
Back about the time of the baseball draft. It was keyed to a two-sport Ole.
http://www.startribune.com/508/story/1151006.html
I suppose the Florida pipeline has to pay off one of these years. ::) Should be a good game this year.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on July 05, 2007, 09:54:21 AM
Keith--
A couple of things:
1. HSU and SRSU scheduled the second game only because HSU was left without a 10th game that season after UW-Stout backed out of the travel end of a home and home very late in the summer.
2. On the Wesley pick at three....I guess my biggest problem with having the Wolves there is the fact that they're breaking in a new QB. It's the same as the Texas Tech arguement down here--is it the QB or the system? In Wesley's case, I think Warrick made the system.
Just my humble .02 worth--I can buy them in the top 10-15 without Warrick, but not top 5.
Yes, I remember Stout's role in that, sorry for not mentioning it. If you recall, we were at the front end of that home-and-home.
As far as Wesley, that's definitely where I give them credit that a lot of other people won't. I think breaking in a new QB can usually be a huge factor, but given that Schutz --- Dern, it's Schatz, but pretty sure I called him Schutz in the issue ... anyway, given that he's a junior who practiced as a QB freshman year and then played in all the big games last year as a wide receiver, I think that will speed the transition, as opposed to someone learning a new offense (Danny Jones at UWW) or someone playing in college games for the first time.
Certainly room to disagree with me there.
My last comment on preseason polls and Wesley ranked over UWW is that Whitewater will beat Wesley with whatever QB that is playing . For the last two years Wesley along with Lakeland has been one of their easiest games each year and that is from the players not me. To rank them above the Warhawks seems like you have gone a little wild over analyzing and ignored one very important factor-----Whitewater was and still is way better than Wesley.....
Actually, sakman, I think if you'd read the past couple of pages of discussion you'd find that Keith just doesn't agree with the assessment. And I'm sure Mary Hardin-Baylor doesn't, either.
If that is the case I stand correcetd.....
Sorry for forgetting about that game, Keith. That was a great road trip...
Quote from: Paul Revere (JU) on July 05, 2007, 10:05:30 AM
Good job K-Mack on the rankings. I only have one comment.
I didnt think that Cortland St. was that good last year, and I dont think they deserve to be in the top 25. Ill always give credit to Cortland teams when credit is due but Ithaca was a little better team than they were last year and I wasnt impressed with anyone on their team except for the kicker and Sair who I did notice was a pretty good d-back.
Just the fact that RPI beat them would make me put another LL team above them in the top 25.
You might well be right. I didn't feel comfortable putting distance between them and Rowan since they played into OT last year, and they both have significant losses off last year's team. As for the ECAC game, I probably read less into that than if it was a regular-season game. Might not be fair, but the disappointment factor, after going 9-1 with an overtime loss to a conference champ and not making the playoffs, had to play a role. But you make a good point. Perhaps I will take a closer look at RPI or an LL team in place of Cortland for the first D3football.com ballot. The Red Dragons did lose a ton in terms of seniors, although they have the QBs back and get some of the best NJAC opponents at home.
The top LL teams (Hobart and Union) had big losses too. And I put way too much stock into RPI last year (17 starters back, 11 on offense) and they let me down. ;D
And I under-ranked Cortland. Maybe that's a personal bias rearing its ugly head, but I think there's a case for Cortland being 16 if Rowan is really 15, since the Profs
One thing to keep in mind about Cortland is that Alex Smith was only a junior last year. He didn't play in any of the last five games after injuring his knee. If he's anywhere near full strength in 2007 then Cortland is miles better at quarterback than it was against Rowan and RPI.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 01:34:55 PM
I put way too much stock into RPI last year (17 starters back, 11 on offense) and they let me down. ;D
even worse for the fans. 7-3 wasn't that bad, and 2 wins against playoff bound Union and playoff snub cortland gave some momentum for the offseason. They should start the year off "also receiving votes".
Quote from: Sakman 1111 on July 05, 2007, 11:31:42 AM
Don't usually pay much attention to preseason polls but to rank Wesley ahead of Whitewater is simply ludicrous in my opinion. I have watched UWW manhandle Wesley two years in a row.....the Warhawks simply have too much talent left over from last year to ever lose to Wesley this year. If it wasn't for Wesley's fine safety making numerous touchdown saving tackles Whitewater would have been close to 100 points last year....now this year ranked behind them is more than puzzling. If they play again this year, no matter where, Wesley will be outcoached and outplayed again......even if they whine and have the cannon removed........
Quote from: Sakman 1111 on July 05, 2007, 01:03:15 PM
My last comment on preseason polls and Wesley ranked over UWW is that Whitewater will beat Wesley with whatever QB that is playing . For the last two years Wesley along with Lakeland has been one of their easiest games each year and that is from the players not me. To rank them above the Warhawks seems like you have gone a little wild over analyzing and ignored one very important factor-----Whitewater was and still is way better than Wesley.....
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 05, 2007, 01:08:26 PM
Actually, sakman, I think if you'd read the past couple of pages of discussion you'd find that Keith just doesn't agree with the assessment. And I'm sure Mary Hardin-Baylor doesn't, either.
Yeah, I'd go back to at least the top of page 43. This has been addressed here and on the Around the Nation thread.
I think anyone who thinks this year's Whitewater team is going to instantly be as good as the last two is doing a disservice to how good the last two were and how good everyone that's gone was. I couldn't very well start them off at number 2 given that at least half of their top difference-makers are gone. Maybe by the end of the year, after passing some of the tests they have scheduled for themselves, Whitewater will be back at No. 2 or 3. But I don't think we can assume that coming out of the gate.
If you think half of Whitewater's team last year would've beaten Wesley, then we just disagree. And that's fine.
See also: UWW-UMHB-Wesley triangle
Pat, Miles better ... pun intended?
QB injuries (I think they went down to fourth string) decimated the Cortland offense in the Rowan game. Definitely one of those beyond-the-final score details to take into account.
If nothing else, we're all getting a good discussion out of all of this.
Should be required reading for our voters ;)
Well, the kids are commandeering the computer for visits to Elmo's website, so I'll check y'all later this evening.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on July 05, 2007, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 05, 2007, 10:44:54 AM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on July 05, 2007, 09:54:21 AM
2. On the Wesley pick at three....I guess my biggest problem with having the Wolves there is the fact that they're breaking in a new QB. It's the same as the Texas Tech arguement down here--is it the QB or the system? In Wesley's case, I think Warrick made the system.
Perhaps, but to play devil's advocate on this point, perhaps Jason Visconti made the system and Warrick followed.
Honest question: Did Visconti's arrival coincide with Warrick's, or did was Warrick a recruit after Visconti's hiring?
Visconti played from 1998 until 2001. Warrick arrived in 2002, redshirted, and started all games from '03 until '06. Visconti didn't start in '98, but did see some action.
Incidentally, Wesley QB Jimmy Connelley '91-'94 finished among the career top 25 in passing rating at the time.
All three were tremendous quarterbacks in a good system (which, as in any good system has evolved.)
Quote from: tmerton on July 05, 2007, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: repete on July 05, 2007, 12:05:05 PM
Back about the time of the baseball draft. It was keyed to a two-sport Ole.
http://www.startribune.com/508/story/1151006.html
I suppose the Florida pipeline has to pay off one of these years. ::) Should be a good game this year.
Reusse's one of those "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" kind of guys. He'll take a jab at JG and the Johnnies just about any chance he gets. Goes back to the days when he and the late, great Mike Augustin were on the same staff at the Pioneer Press. Mike did a great job with the MIAC.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:41:20 PM[...] the problem with ranking an ODAC team is that there's five of them that could possibly be THE team this year, or at least factor into the discussion. Kind of makes it hard to pick a top 25 team.
I totally agree. I think the competitiveness in the ODAC will pick up where it left off in 2006.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed our Mount Union-esque run through the ODAC from 2000 to 2005, but with four or five teams with a chance to win in 2007, it makes it a lot more interesting on Saturdays.
Quote from: repete on July 05, 2007, 02:45:00 PM
Quote from: tmerton on July 05, 2007, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: repete on July 05, 2007, 12:05:05 PM
Back about the time of the baseball draft. It was keyed to a two-sport Ole.
http://www.startribune.com/508/story/1151006.html
I suppose the Florida pipeline has to pay off one of these years. ::) Should be a good game this year.
Reusse's one of those "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" kind of guys. He'll take a jab at JG and the Johnnies just about any chance he gets. Goes back to the days when he and the late, great Mike Augustin were on the same staff at the Pioneer Press. Mike did a great job with the MIAC.
Repete-
+K for the Auggie reference. Goes back a little farther to when Auggie and Reusse were cutting their journalistic teeth at the Daily Planet, a/k/a the St. Cloud Times. Auggie was a great one, covered the MIAC and the college sports scene better than anyone and, though you wouldn't be able to tell from reading his coverage, was also an SJU grad. (but then, aren't all the great ones?) ;)
I don't pretend to know where UWW should be ranked and I believe more than most understand how much the graduated Warhawks did mean to the team for the last two years.............my point is simply that given all that Wesley should not be ranked ahead of Whitewater because simply Whitewater was and still is a much better team.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 01:34:55 PM
I put way too much stock into RPI last year (17 starters back, 11 on offense) and they let me down. ;D
yea, and we were just talking about how Sprinfield has all those offensive players back.
Quote from: Paul Revere (JU) on July 05, 2007, 06:58:38 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 01:34:55 PM
I put way too much stock into RPI last year (17 starters back, 11 on offense) and they let me down. ;D
yea, and we were just talking about how Sprinfield has all those offensive players back.
Springfield is, and only will be, a regular season team. They run a gimmick offense that puts up points in the regular season under ideal conditions and then flops when the weather turns. They'll do nothing once they get to the playoffs, as usual, with no passing game.
Quote from: Upstate on July 05, 2007, 07:37:57 PM
Quote from: Paul Revere (JU) on July 05, 2007, 06:58:38 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 01:34:55 PM
I put way too much stock into RPI last year (17 starters back, 11 on offense) and they let me down. ;D
yea, and we were just talking about how Sprinfield has all those offensive players back.
Springfield is, and only will be, a regular season team. They run a gimmick offense that puts up points in the regular season under ideal conditions and then flops when the weather turns. They'll do nothing once they get to the playoffs, as usual, with no passing game.
I would say yes but Ive seen teams from other divisions run a similar offensive and do very well (GA Southern in 1-AA, and do I remember N. Alabama or Delta st. running it in d2?
I will vouch for Wesley and say they are deserving of a top 5 ranking. However I think I would have put them at 5 behind UWW and fisher. Just because they play bad against one team consistently doesn't mean they deserve to be dropped, As Pat said, they have beaten Mary Hardin Baylor.
Springfield "flops" at the end of the season because it is then that it is playing better teams with personnel better than it has - Springfield tends to lack team speed compared to those better teams - as a rule when it plays teams with comparable or lesser speed than it has, it wins on execution.
Quote from: pg04 on July 05, 2007, 08:57:44 PM
I will vouch for Wesley and say they are deserving of a top 5 ranking. However I think I would have put them at 5 behind UWW and fisher. Just because they play bad against one team consistently doesn't mean they deserve to be dropped, As Pat said, they have beaten Mary Hardin Baylor.
I can see Wesley behind UWW, but I don't see Fisher having much more claim to step ahead of Wesley, other than the Mount game. Their only common opponent was Brockport. SJF beat Brockport 27-20 two weeks before Wesley beat the 48-17.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:41:20 PMYeah, I'm starting to wonder who does carry it.
I spoke too soon! It was at the B&N in Harrisonburg. Excellent read!
My only gripe is to the layout editor - why the heck did they let the (Pa.) drop below W&J?! Sorry, I used to do layout for my school's paper. I'm a stickler. :)
Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on July 06, 2007, 08:30:24 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:41:20 PMYeah, I'm starting to wonder who does carry it.
I spoke too soon! It was at the B&N in Harrisonburg. Excellent read!
My only gripe is to the layout editor - why the heck did they let the (Pa.) drop below W&J?! Sorry, I used to do layout for my school's paper. I'm a stickler. :)
The layout editor must have been a D-1 grad... :-\ :D
Keith: Kansas or Howard?
Matt: I'm not feeling your sticklerness. :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 06, 2007, 10:25:07 AMMatt: I'm not feeling your sticklerness. :)
It was printed like this:
...
16. Cortland State
17. Capital
18. Washington & Jefferson
(Pa.)
19. Christopher Newport
20. Linfield
...
Frank:
Well said. I think that succinctly explains Springfield's ceiling.
We aim to please.
Quote from: JT on June 27, 2007, 09:43:57 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 11:39:14 PM
He needs a quicker release and a better move to first, too. :)
(As in, he was slow on the trigger and doesn't look off his primary target.)
Although Orihel sometimes locked on targets too, Rankin tended to look for Wr's that he threw to in JV and practice. Since he runs the show this year, I hope that improves. He'll be working with the whole bunch.
First four-year non transfer at QB since the 80's. Warker only played two years. Hmmm... Ed Hesson (???), Greg Lister (Univ of Maryland), Gus Ornstein (ND, Mich St), Jeff Orihel (CW Post), Mike Warker (Rowan), Tony Racioppi (Tenn St), Mike Orihel (New Hampshire).
Still don't know if they'll be any surprises (transfers) at Wr, DB, DL.
I heard from another alum that Rowan has some nice recruits this year. The list may contain a stud QB. But we will see.
Quote from: rowanlb92 on July 06, 2007, 05:04:50 PM
Quote from: JT on June 27, 2007, 09:43:57 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 11:39:14 PM
He needs a quicker release and a better move to first, too. :)
(As in, he was slow on the trigger and doesn't look off his primary target.)
Although Orihel sometimes locked on targets too, Rankin tended to look for Wr's that he threw to in JV and practice. Since he runs the show this year, I hope that improves. He'll be working with the whole bunch.
First four-year non transfer at QB since the 80's. Warker only played two years. Hmmm... Ed Hesson (???), Greg Lister (Univ of Maryland), Gus Ornstein (ND, Mich St), Jeff Orihel (CW Post), Mike Warker (Rowan), Tony Racioppi (Tenn St), Mike Orihel (New Hampshire).
Still don't know if they'll be any surprises (transfers) at Wr, DB, DL.
I heard from another alum that Rowan has some nice recruits this year. The list may contain a stud QB. But we will see.
Good to hear from you. Looking forward to the NJAC media day. We'll know more then. See you in Sept.
K-MacK..Wesley and LaCrosse are the head-scratchers for me. Wesley has been discussed but how do you figure LX worthy of such a high ranking. Didn't they graduate a bunch, including starting QB. An opener in the heat of Texas at Hardin Simmons with many first timers..then AZ Pacific..followed by Whitewater..sounds like a 1 and 2 start to me.
Quote from: Sakman 1111 on July 05, 2007, 04:16:45 PM
I don't pretend to know where UWW should be ranked and I believe more than most understand how much the graduated Warhawks did mean to the team for the last two years.............my point is simply that given all that Wesley should not be ranked ahead of Whitewater because simply Whitewater was and still is a much better team.
As long as you have your reasons and understand I have mine, I don't see why we can't agree to disagree.
Quote from: KennethK on July 06, 2007, 07:06:21 PM
K-MacK..Wesley and LaCrosse are the head-scratchers for me. Wesley has been discussed but how do you figure LX worthy of such a high ranking. Didn't they graduate a bunch, including starting QB. An opener in the heat of Texas at Hardin Simmons with many first timers..then AZ Pacific..followed by Whitewater..sounds like a 1 and 2 start to me.
I don't think any of those games are a gimme for any of those teams; ASC-WIAC matchups have traditionally gone the WIAC's way, except for Hardin-Simmons/Stevens Point last year. The ASC has also been competitive in some of the matchups. La Crosse won at Asuza 27-10 last year (assuming that was the one you were counting as the W) and they host Whitewater, which lost a lot as and will still be getting its bearings as well. LaCrosse wisely scheduled two weeks to prepare for its second and third game as well.
That said, you can definitely disagree with the rankings.
Considering last year's playoffs, returning talent and this year's schedules, seven teams emerged for me in sort of a top tier. In that tier, Mount Union, UMHB and Wesley each returned more of their key players than they lost; St. John Fisher had some big losses but also some key returners, and Whitewater, La Crosse and St. John's all lost a lot, but seemed to establish a level of play higher than their peers through last season. Capital belonged in that group too, but fell in the preseason top 25 because they have a conference team poised to leapfrog them, based on what was returning.
In any case, I didn't think La Crosse had enough back to be ranked higher than Whitewater, but I didn't know if Central or Hardin-Simmons deserved to be as high as 6 or 7.
The real trouble with doing the rankings in June is the lack of preseason rosters and previews available, so you can get a feel for who is back and who isn't. That left me to do a couple things to get those results, neither of which are foolproof: Go back and look at who started the team's last playoff game, and see how many of those players were listed as seniors (you could miss a key injury returnee this way; also been known to find "seniors" last season who play the next season) and look at all-conference teams and see what's gone and back; Lucky for me the WIAC goes first, second and HM with their team and Lax had a big presence on that team.
Among the key guys gone and back, via those methods, for UW-L, I got 10 gone, six back. St. John's was 7 gone, 4 back and UWW ... Lord have mercy, if I have to run that list back again.
Anyway, thanks to Pat and Gordon (I think), D3football.com top 25 voters get a more full report, broken down by position and including about 60 teams, on a spreadsheet in August. But even that is usually compiled after season previews shed some light on what each team has back, and possibly, knowing who's reporting/reported to camp in August.
With the official D3football.com spreadsheet making its rounds this weekend, I'll be free to renounce my top 25 picks from USA Today!
Well, only some of them, Whitewater fans. ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on July 10, 2007, 12:39:52 AM
....Among the key guys gone and back, via those methods, for UW-L, I got 10 gone, six back. St. John's was 7 gone, 4 back and UWW ... Lord have mercy, if I have to run that list back again....
For comparison purposes, here's what MUC has for '07:
Offense:
(5) All-OAC returning versus (2) All-OAC lost
(3) other starters returning
Defense:
(6) All-OAC returning versus (2) All-OAC lost
(1) other starter returning
Also keep in mind this doesn't include Greg Micheli at QB since he didn't start in '06. But as the reigning Stagg Bowl MVP, I think MUC is going to be OK there too. ;D
Yup, Mount is loaded for '07!
Quote from: hscoach on July 20, 2007, 09:56:21 AM
Yup, Mount is loaded for '07!
Wait -- you don't say. I had no idea.
The only reason the MHB WW game was so close last year was because the Beav didn't play, not that WW would have won by alot but it would have been a wider margin. He changes everything for the passing game, drop it with Wesley they are not good and would be a 2+ loss team in the WIAC.
Wow, a 2+ loss team in the WIAC not good? I think the word 'good' does not mean what you think it means for 99% of D-3.
Wesley would probably have won most conferences the last couple of years.
Your proly correct about wesley winning most conferences, but most of the conferences aren't all that great. I didn't mean to say wesley didn't have a good season but you don't lose like that two years in a row if your even close to the competition, in neither of the two games there was no doubt from the outset who would win.
You have to respect Wesley's wins over Mary Hardin-Baylor the last two years in the playoffs. That is, if you want us to respect your win over UMHB. :)
Sometimes good teams get into bad matchups. It happens.
Quote from: hscoach on July 20, 2007, 09:56:21 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 10, 2007, 12:39:52 AM
....Among the key guys gone and back, via those methods, for UW-L, I got 10 gone, six back. St. John's was 7 gone, 4 back and UWW ... Lord have mercy, if I have to run that list back again....
For comparison purposes, here's what MUC has for '07:
Offense:
(5) All-OAC returning versus (2) All-OAC lost
(3) other starters returning
Defense:
(6) All-OAC returning versus (2) All-OAC lost
(1) other starter returning
Also keep in mind this doesn't include Greg Micheli at QB since he didn't start in '06. But as the reigning Stagg Bowl MVP, I think MUC is going to be OK there too. ;D
Yup, Mount is loaded for '07!
I think we're all well aware.
Quote from: warhawkclownshow on July 20, 2007, 02:52:33 PM
The only reason the MHB WW game was so close last year was because the Beav didn't play, not that WW would have won by alot but it would have been a wider margin. He changes everything for the passing game, drop it with Wesley they are not good and would be a 2+ loss team in the WIAC.
I think that's too convenient an excuse, Whitewater had plenty of offense on the field that day and scored zero points. Both defenses were outstanding.
But if your point is that Whitewater would've won 10-3 or 14-3 instead of 7-3 with Beaver, that doesn't change much when you compare the three teams.
Quote from: warhawkclownshow on July 20, 2007, 06:09:02 PM
Your proly correct about wesley winning most conferences, but most of the conferences aren't all that great. I didn't mean to say wesley didn't have a good season but you don't lose like that two years in a row if your even close to the competition, in neither of the two games there was no doubt from the outset who would win.
Agreed, but that Whitewater team is in the past.
A lot of people are basically saying the Whitewater program is so much better than Wesley's that it can lose a significant portion of its top players, it's head coach and offensive coordinator and still be better by a wide margin. That's fine if you believe that and that's your point.
There's another school of thought that sees Wesley bringing back coaching continuity and 90% of its key players from the semifinal team, and we (I) have seen them beat other quality D3 teams, and judge by more than just the UWW losses.
It's certainly not cut and dried. It definitely remains to be seen how good Whitewater can be this year, and I think it's healthy for all of us to discuss it.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 20, 2007, 01:13:08 AM
With the official D3football.com spreadsheet making its rounds this weekend, I'll be free to renounce my top 25 picks from USA Today!
Well, only some of them, Whitewater fans. ;)
Hey, I am willing to give you a second chance to correct your mistake!!! ;) :D ;D
Quote from: K-Mack on July 21, 2007, 01:22:14 AM
Quote from: warhawkclownshow on July 20, 2007, 06:09:02 PM
Your proly correct about wesley winning most conferences, but most of the conferences aren't all that great. I didn't mean to say wesley didn't have a good season but you don't lose like that two years in a row if your even close to the competition, in neither of the two games there was no doubt from the outset who would win.
Agreed, but that Whitewater team is in the past.
A lot of people are basically saying the Whitewater program is so much better than Wesley's that it can lose a significant portion of its top players, it's head coach and offensive coordinator and still be better by a wide margin. That's fine if you believe that and that's your point.
There's another school of thought that sees Wesley bringing back coaching continuity and 90% of its key players from the semifinal team, and we (I) have seen them beat other quality D3 teams, and judge by more than just the UWW losses.
It's certainly not cut and dried. It definitely remains to be seen how good Whitewater can be this year, and I think it's healthy for all of us to discuss it.
This explanation is understandable to me. Tangibles and measurable differences are the only things one has to use in the pre-season when comparing apples and oranges. I think the disconnect here with the UWW fans is two-fold. The extreme nature of the butt whopping that the Hawks put on Welsey,
not once but twice, and those close to the program are more aware of the talent level that exists in the program especially as a result of the two runs to the Stagg Bowl. Head-to-Head competition is hard to argue with and points were still scored on Welsey well after many starters sat down. Can't blame the Hawk fans for not respecting a team that had two chances to earn it and didn't. As you pointed out, Welsey returns 90% of their key players and that 90% didn't impress the Hawks and their fans very much. ;)
But as you also pointed out, not cut and dried, when UMHB is added into the mix. I believe that the brutal road trip, noisy venue as well as no Beaver and losing Travis had the biggest effect on that game for the Hawks. Looking forward to welcoming the Texas boys to Wisconsin this year.
To me the unknown factor is how well and how quickly this years team and coaching staff come together on and off the field. Coach Brez said in an interview last season, ( I am paraphasing right now,) that the 05/06 team was the closest team he had ever coached. No egos, didn't matter who got it done as long as they won. Team chemisty is the most important intangible for me this season. Think this will just have to be a case of agreeing to disagree. The 07 Hawks know they will have to earn respect for what they accomplish this year. From what I hear, the lower in the polls, the more determined this team gets!!! ;D
The good news is that impressing UWW fans is not something that gets counted in the rankings.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 21, 2007, 11:15:29 AM
The good news is that impressing UWW fans is not something that gets counted in the rankings.
Really good news for Welsey! ;) :D ;D
Well, since you edited your post after I made mine, I don't know what has changed. However, the incessant disrespect of Wesley by UWW fans is getting old.
Quote from: smedindy on July 20, 2007, 11:04:45 PM
Sometimes good teams get into bad matchups. It happens.
Exactly. Mount Union was not 66 points better than Bridgewater in 2003, Linfield was not 52 points better than Rowan in 2004, etc. But if Team A's strengths play exactly to Team B's weaknesses, blowouts can happen. Unless Linfield was really 101 points better than Delaware Valley. :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 21, 2007, 12:12:06 PM
Well, since you edited your post after I made mine, I don't know what has changed.
And now you RE-edited.
Let me know when you are done changing your posts so we can respond.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 21, 2007, 12:12:06 PM
Well, since you edited your post after I made mine, I don't know what has changed. However, the incessant disrespect of Wesley by UWW fans is getting old.
Ya, I realized that I misunderstood your meaning at first so when I realized it, I decided to have a lighter response. Sorry!
For the record, that was my first post regarding the subject of K-Macks USA rankings putting Wesley above UWW. Guess it is my last as well. ;) Excuse me while I look for the nearest exit now! Have a great day, Pat :)
Quote from: footballfan413 on July 21, 2007, 11:08:02 AM
... when UMHB is added into the mix. I believe that the brutal road trip, noisy venue as well as no Beaver and losing Travis had the biggest effect on that game for the Hawks. ...
413,
Is it uncommon for WIAC teams to spend the night before a regular season game on the road?
In most seasons, McMurry will spend Friday night on the road for games at Mississippi College, Louisiana College, East Texas Baptist, Texas Lutheran and Sul Ross State in conference and probably if we play a road game at Trinity or Austin College. :)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2007, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: footballfan413 on July 21, 2007, 11:08:02 AM
... when UMHB is added into the mix. I believe that the brutal road trip, noisy venue as well as no Beaver and losing Travis had the biggest effect on that game for the Hawks. ...
413,
Is it uncommon for WIAC teams to spend the night before a regular season game on the road?
In most seasons, McMurry will spend Friday night on the road for games at Mississippi College, Louisiana College, East Texas Baptist, Texas Lutheran and Sul Ross State in conference and probably if we play a road game at Trinity or Austin College. :)
Point taken, Ralph. I'm sure many teams endure long road trips the day before games. But this one was an extra long day thanks to an airline delay. The team had to be up and on a bus at 5:00AM and did not get into their hotel rooms until 11:30PM that night. Then the game the next day in the Texas heat. Just making the point that UMHB did have the home field advantage in that game.
Thanks for the response, 413.
Speaking in general terms, UMHB will have the reverse trip, flying out of Austin (70 miles) or DFW (140 miles). As for the weather, the average temperature range in late October in Belton is a high of 73 F and a low of 54 F. It was 75 that afternoon (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KTPL/2006/10/28/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA). (Temple, TX is nearest airport and is just 10 miles up the road.)
UMHB will be dealing with weather as well. It is not inconceivable that the UWW game will be the coldest game they play all season.
Only 75 that day? Sure felt alot hotter than that on the field and in the stands but I remember that it wasn't nearly as hot as it could have been. Really enjoyed our trip to Texas. UMHB had great fans, players and coaches and enjoyed great Bar-B-Q. Looking forward to returning the hospitality at the Perk.
Quote from: footballfan413 on July 21, 2007, 11:08:02 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 20, 2007, 01:13:08 AM
With the official D3football.com spreadsheet making its rounds this weekend, I'll be free to renounce my top 25 picks from USA Today!
Well, only some of them, Whitewater fans. ;)
Hey, I am willing to give you a second chance to correct your mistake!!! ;) :D ;D
Quote from: K-Mack on July 21, 2007, 01:22:14 AM
Quote from: warhawkclownshow on July 20, 2007, 06:09:02 PM
Your proly correct about wesley winning most conferences, but most of the conferences aren't all that great. I didn't mean to say wesley didn't have a good season but you don't lose like that two years in a row if your even close to the competition, in neither of the two games there was no doubt from the outset who would win.
Agreed, but that Whitewater team is in the past.
A lot of people are basically saying the Whitewater program is so much better than Wesley's that it can lose a significant portion of its top players, it's head coach and offensive coordinator and still be better by a wide margin. That's fine if you believe that and that's your point.
There's another school of thought that sees Wesley bringing back coaching continuity and 90% of its key players from the semifinal team, and we (I) have seen them beat other quality D3 teams, and judge by more than just the UWW losses.
It's certainly not cut and dried. It definitely remains to be seen how good Whitewater can be this year, and I think it's healthy for all of us to discuss it.
This explanation is understandable to me. Tangibles and measurable differences are the only things one has to use in the pre-season when comparing apples and oranges. I think the disconnect here with the UWW fans is two-fold. The extreme nature of the butt whopping that the Hawks put on Welsey, not once but twice, and those close to the program are more aware of the talent level that exists in the program especially as a result of the two runs to the Stagg Bowl. Head-to-Head competition is hard to argue with and points were still scored on Welsey well after many starters sat down. Can't blame the Hawk fans for not respecting a team that had two chances to earn it and didn't. As you pointed out, Welsey returns 90% of their key players and that 90% didn't impress the Hawks and their fans very much. ;)
But as you also pointed out, not cut and dried, when UMHB is added into the mix. I believe that the brutal road trip, noisy venue as well as no Beaver and losing Travis had the biggest effect on that game for the Hawks. Looking forward to welcoming the Texas boys to Wisconsin this year.
To me the unknown factor is how well and how quickly this years team and coaching staff come together on and off the field. Coach Brez said in an interview last season, ( I am paraphasing right now,) that the 05/06 team was the closest team he had ever coached. No egos, didn't matter who got it done as long as they won. Team chemisty is the most important intangible for me this season. Think this will just have to be a case of agreeing to disagree. The 07 Hawks know they will have to earn respect for what they accomplish this year. From what I hear, the lower in the polls, the more determined this team gets!!! ;D
Any team that knows what it wants I hope would use something besides polls to get motivated; but even so, 5 is still pretty high, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start out higher when the D3football.com poll comes out. I don't think our voters will rank Wesley higher either; Those scores are easy to be swayed by and hard to go against.
I definitely think there are some valid points that support both sides. Whitewater has more back than most, and yet will be breaking in a lot of new starters, a new coaching style (which could be a benefit), etc., etc.
It's probably one of those "just get into the playoffs and let's see what happens" teams, in that they'll be very good at the end of the year once a new chemistry develops.
Also, poll-wise, it's a very good year to be losing a lot as really only Mount Union, UMHB and Wesley are the most prominent top teams returning a lot of team (at least until further examination of the spreadsheet).
Thanks for the response, K-Mack. I especially appreciate it in light of the fact that I know the subject is probably getting a little old for you.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 21, 2007, 12:12:06 PMQuote from: smedindy on July 20, 2007, 11:04:45 PM
Sometimes good teams get into bad matchups. It happens.
Exactly. Mount Union was not 66 points better than Bridgewater in 2003, Linfield was not 52 points better than Rowan in 2004, etc. But if Team A's strengths play exactly to Team B's weaknesses, blowouts can happen. Unless Linfield was really 101 points better than Delaware Valley. :)
I agree with this theory to a large extent. After a certain point, a blowout can cease to become representative of the strength of the two teams playing.
I know as a poll voter I look for games in three approximate categories: 8 points or fewer and/or a game that could've gone either way in the 4th quarter, 9-20 points (close but not in doubt at the end) and 21 or more (blowout).
Not that all games with the same score are created the same, but you want to see if a team went toe-to-toe with another team, if it was a pretty solid, well-earned win or if it was hardly ever in doubt.
Blowouts can be two teams that aren't matched, but they can also happen when one team falls behind early and does some things uncharacteristic of itself to try to get back in the game, whether it be blitzing or passing or trick plays or shooting a lot of threes. ;) Sometimes it works, sometimes it just digs a deeper hole. (That's what was so impressive about UMHB's win at Mount Union in '04, that they never broke stride even trailing in the 4th, but I digress)
If it's the only game you have to go on, maybe really early in the season, than you have to conclude that a blowout probably matched two teams of disproportionate strength. But later in the year or in the playoffs, if you have enough other data, you might be able to determine that a 66-0 blowout was really worse than it looked and not completely representative of how the team that scored 0 would fare against other teams.
But that's just a theory, and the cool thing about sports (as opposed to many other facets of life) is that there are some absolutes, in wins and losses and final scores.
Quote from: footballfan413 on July 22, 2007, 11:15:44 AM
Thanks for the response, K-Mack. I especially appreciate it in light of the fact that I know the subject is probably getting a little old for you.
I guess it is, but I think it's also part of my role here. And although I play the part of expert, or what have you, I learn from discussions same as I assume people learn from me.
So it's really not a problem, especially since we're keeping it on a respectful level, from poster to poster, for the most part.
Now that my baseball coaching duties are done it's back to talking football....
I don't know if I should be jumping for joy or cringing with all this Wesley talk..
The Wolverines are bringing back alot of talent but they do have to replace Warrick at QB. Shatz will fill that role if need be. If Beavers comes back that will more than take up the hole left by Shatz moving to QB. I also understand that there is a WO tranfering from Delaware who was an all state receiver in Del. Wesley has also brought in a few new QBs one of which played for perenial Pa. state power North Penn. That and the numerous running backs should help the team jell. But all that being said Wesley has a tough Sept. schedule.
It is possible for the Wolverines to lose a game or even two and still have a big QOW rating and make the playoffs
Pool B is a good place to be these days. I think a solid, non-spectacular year, would get Wesley in, but you never, ever know.
I like the first (pre-ACFC) half of that schedule ... challenging games all, but the Wolverines could still start 5-0.
Let's talk about some top 25 teams out of the top 25.
Anyone you guys like to surprise this year? Let's say non-playoff teams who could get in.
Here are few to get you talking:
Kean
Bridgewater / Emory & Henry / Guilford
Averett / N.C. Wesleyan
Huntingdon
Wartburg
Wish I could think of more at the moment.
Oh, Linfield? ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on July 22, 2007, 08:59:35 PM
Here are few to get you talking:
Kean
Bridgewater / Emory & Henry / Guilford
Averett / N.C. Wesleyan
Huntingdon
Wartburg
Wish I could think of more at the moment.
Oh, Linfield? ;)
Can I piggyback off one you've already mentioned? ;)
I'm high on NC Wesleyan this year. Barring anything unforseen, they're returning all of their players from a team that was very solid in '06. They led the USA South in offense last year and were No. 2 in defense. But my favorite stat from them last year was that although they were 6-4, they lost those four games by a
total of 10 points.
Though NCW beat CNU last year, this time the game is at Pomoco.......and Keith, you were at Pomoco on Sept. 9. It's not an easy place for the enemy to win at. :) NCW's opening games against Wesley and Widener should be a good indicator as to where they stand.
Always feel free to piggyback off me WC.
And that could be a rather interesting triangle, since those three teams each play each other (Wesley and Widener meet on Friday, Sept. 14, the first of back-to-back Friday games for Widener. I think the second one is vs. Rowan)
And one more I'll throw out, which could be interesting considering the games we've just been mentioning: Widener.
The team looks good on paper: in skill positions, they're is returning their RB (No. 1 in conference) and QB and a solid receiver (they're losing their best wideout, though). On defense, they're getting back three of their top four tacklers. I'd like to see how many starters they've got back. Last year, they only returned 14, and still went 7-4, with most of their losses being within only a couple of points.
It'll be interesting to see how they shape up against Wilkes, which appears to be losing a lot of players for '07. But, as mentioned in previous posts, Widener will have some good benchmarks in the opening weeks against NCW and Wesley.
To add a little more perspective on the Pioneers Pride, they have an excellent rush defense with particularly fast linemen. Kahlee Prothro is explosive when they can get him the ball. But they need to improve up front so the quarterback can do that -- get him the ball. And they need to develop a second option or else defenses will assign their quickest man to shadow Prothro as soon as he leaves the locker room.
I expect the MAC will be a close race between Wilkes, Widener and another dark horse -- Lebanon Valley.
The Flying Dutch made big strides forward on defense last year, particularly against the run. Charlie Parker (no, not the sax player) is a good young running back and Adam Brossman is probably the best offensive weapon in the conference. other than perhaps Prothro. Leb Val's big question is whether they can find a new QB to get Brossman the ball. But with the quick patterns he runs, it doesn't make much for him to turn an 8-yard pattern into a 20-yard gain.
Another dark horse candidate is Rochester. The Yellowjackets bring back their top wide receiver and running back. I voted for them in the Top 25 in my annual "let's take a chance on someone off the radar" pick.
Last year's pick in that category was Widener. Hello, full circle. :)
The preseason Top 25 is posted.
http://www.d3football.com/top25.php
No shockers here IMHO. Until MUC and UWW can be beat as well as the Johnnies they deserve where they are. Any other placings is up for debate.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on July 25, 2007, 04:33:38 PM
No shockers here IMHO. Until MUC and UWW can be beat as well as the Johnnies they deserve where they are. Any other placings is up for debate.
That's weird, I found it rather bizarre that some teams (Capital) were penalized for losing a lot and others weren't. It's the preseason, there's going to be a wide range of opinions on who's got what, who's got enough back and such ... and I'm sure we all don't agree on what it all means, do you rank a team based on what they've done up until now or what they're expected to do.
That said, I think there's a lot to argue about in there.
K-Mack the statement about no surprises was meant for the top three teams. 4-21 are the ones that are up for grabs in my opinion. 4-8 are really up for grabs. I know Central is 8 and I follow them. They finished 11 last year with a first round loss. Having said that the first round loss was to #3 St Johns who lost to Bethel in the last game of the regular season. I think every one will have their two cents to share. #8 for Central may be high maybe right or may be low but this is preseason and its all a guess where they will land. I do think the top two deserve their places. Till someone beats them they deserve it IMHO. The lucky thing is that I don't vote. For me that is. I don't know enough about the rest of the D3 to make that call. But from what you post and the other posters I do get an education.
I don't see anything that I could classify as a BIG surprise, but there are a couple smaller ones that I see.
1. Central in the Top 10. Not sure why I think that is too high. Maybe because it's been too long since they were a player outside of the West Region.
2. Rowan at #10 and Linfield at #14. Can you say "name recognition"?
3. Augustana at #20, but Baldwin-Wallace at #26. Hmmm, BW beat Augie last year and looks to be better in '07. Think those 2 should be flipped.
4. Wittenberg receiving votes. Huh? They were average in '06 and lost the offense with the graduation of Tristan Murray. If not for playing in a very weak conference, they'd be lucky to be a .500 team.
My way too early Stagg prediction? Mount Union vs. St. John's (MN) ;D
Not sure about Baldwin-Wallace -- they lost three starting linemen, running back, receiver and half their secondary. I did not vote for B-W or Augustana personally.
I agree about Rowan. Based on what Linfield has coming back, though, why not?
At No. 8 Central doesn't have to get out of the West Region. Only the top team in each region, hscoach, counts as getting out of the region. Central is the fourth West Region team in our ranking -- the Dutch only have to win one playoff game to live up to that.
Hey Pat -
TGP knows the LLPP busts your and everyone else's chops, but TGP thinks the fact we have our own pre-season poll (which actually looks pretty good/accurate IMO) is a direct reflection on your and the rest of the D3FB.com staff's efforts since 99.
So, thanks!
TGP
PS - TGP will now go back to being one of those pesky rogue posters in the LLPP (and occasionally in my new backyard of SCIAC).
Polls, schmolls. D-3 has the stones to name a true national champ, and that's all that matters, really! :D
+k smed.
Quote from: smedindy on July 25, 2007, 11:31:58 PM
Polls, schmolls. D-3 has the stones to name a true national champ, and that's all that matters, really! :D
amen to that.
Quote from: The Great Pumpkin on July 25, 2007, 11:52:19 PM
Quote from: smedindy on July 25, 2007, 11:31:58 PM
Polls, schmolls. D-3 has the stones to name a true national champ, and that's all that matters, really! :D
amen to that.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on July 25, 2007, 05:23:54 PM
K-Mack the statement about no surprises was meant for the top three teams. 4-21 are the ones that are up for grabs in my opinion. 4-8 are really up for grabs. I know Central is 8 and I follow them. They finished 11 last year with a first round loss. Having said that the first round loss was to #3 St Johns who lost to Bethel in the last game of the regular season. I think every one will have their two cents to share. #8 for Central may be high maybe right or may be low but this is preseason and its all a guess where they will land. I do think the top two deserve their places. Till someone beats them they deserve it IMHO. The lucky thing is that I don't vote. For me that is. I don't know enough about the rest of the D3 to make that call. But from what you post and the other posters I do get an education.
Well thanks.
And I accept what you meant. However, I don't even think the top 3 is set. The top 1 is set. They're the only team who earned doubt-free respect through their play last year couple with the percentage of that team who returns.
There are tons of doubts about Whitewater and St. John's, and I personally don't endorse either of those teams as 2 or 3. I could see either one ending up there, but given the amount of turnover both are experiencing, I don't think their performance in last year's playoffs necessarily adds up to what they'll do this year.
That said, the overall poll and the individuals I talked to have a consensus top 9: Mount Union, Whitewater, St. John's, St. John Fisher, UMHB, Wesley, Springfield, Central, UW-La Crosse in some kind of order. And most everyone seemed to have Hardin-Simmons not far after that.
10 and beyond is where it gets silly. For instance, I put Baldwin-Wallace 12th, Pat didn't vote for them at all. I didn't vote for Wartburg (felt a little guilty about that actually) and Gordon told me he had them 16th or something. I had Wheaton in the teens and North Central 21 and Augie unranked, Gordon had Augie in the teens, North Central 21 and Wheaton unranked. Or something like that. I had Wilkes 10, someone else had Wilkes 22 or whatever.
Don't quote me directly, not even sure Gordon was telling me his ballot so I could share it ... it just seemed like that even among three "experts" we couldn't agree on much. Which just goes to show you that there are logical, well thought-out reasons to believe in a lot of teams at this point.
I don't know how much of this I should discuss in the open, not because it's secret, but because I don't want to undermine the process or result.
It's definitely better to get 25 minds (and sets of game-watching eyes) on this rather than just one person alone. Because people put a lot of stock in rankings, and often they can be based on a small sample size or a single opinion. At least a poll has checks and balances in place for one individual's over- or under-rating.
So I still endorse it as the best method.
I just can't figure out why St. John's has 5 starters back on offense, including their star QB, and 6 on D (or something close to that), and then Bethel, who also lost a lot of key guys but returns their QB and an all-American safety (Brandon Carr) would be ranked 21 spots behind.
Bethel beat St. John's 28-13 last year. If the logic is that the past is the past, that's acceptable, but that takes "St. John's went farther in the playoffs" off the table too.
I also don't understand why Capital would be penalized (some say not enough) for losing many of its key performers but other name schools that were gutted or half-gutted weren't.
I'm sure we could nitpick anyone's rankings though. Mine from June in USAT SW weren't perfect (although I am proud to say those rankings largely held up for my first D3 vote, save a few significant moves)
It's just like I struggle constantly with the science of the whole thing.
As mentioned, I'm glad it gets settled on the field.
Sorry about the rambling. As you can see, I give these matters lots of thought.
For the non board die-hards, that post above looks like a real skimmer, eh?
Well, Bethel couldn't be bothered to respond to our multiple requests for information, which doesn't help. But Bethel also continues to not win a playoff game. It's nice they can occasionally beat St. John's but winning in the playoffs means you have to beat a team you may not be 100% familiar with.
If Bethel ever gets to that point it may earn the multi-year respect that St. John's and others do.
I had Wilkes 20. They bring back one key guy from that defense -- Follweiler -- and lose Serafin and Henninger. Their offense changed schemes from September to November and they don't have their starting running back or their only starting wide receiver.
They gave up seven points or less in eight of the 12 games last season. But that defense isn't going to take the field next year. And then they lost to Rowan -- granted, a tight game, but then Rowan got blown off the field at Fisher.
Capital -- does that program have a track record, or does Rocky Pentello have a track record?
K-Mack:
Didn't we take an oath not to share ballots? Doesn't the super pinky swear mean anything? :)
To clarify, I had Wartburg slotted #16, Augustana at #10, Wheaton (Ill.) at #13 and North Central at #20. And I had Wilkes #22.
Quote from: hscoach on July 25, 2007, 06:08:47 PM
2. Rowan at #10 and Linfield at #14. Can you say "name recognition"?
For as long as I've been doing this, Rowan, St. John's and Washington & Jefferson are consistently the most overranked teams every preseason.
St. John's and Rowan are usually ranked about 3-5 spots higher than they should be off name recognition alone (I assume; 03-04 SJU aside) but it's usually such a safe pick because even when you don't know why you're putting those teams as high as you are, they reload so consistently that by the end of the year they make you look smart.
W&J on the other hand, I think we finally got that one right. For a while they'd been one of the first teams after the break, where you kind of start running out of really legit top teams and start looking for ... well, whatever. They just always seemed to end up in the top 10 somehow and never quite live up to it.
Sort of happy that our voters weren't duped by the 30-27 UMHB playoff score last year since that last TD came in the final seconds, it was basically 30-20 which is a different-looking score. But they did win a playoff game at CNU, if I recall, so maybe this year they are ranked a little low even.
See, there I go again. :)
As far as Linfield, I just think if you look at the data on Whitworth, it's a hard sell to see them winning the conference again. And if you look at the NWC's track record, they're going to have a team in the mix.
I had Linfield at 20, or maybe 19, but they have their opportunity to move up right away with the Hardin-Simmons game.
Definite benefit to strong scheduling.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 26, 2007, 12:43:11 AM
Well, Bethel couldn't be bothered to respond to our multiple requests for information, which doesn't help. But Bethel also continues to not win a playoff game. It's nice they can occasionally beat St. John's but winning in the playoffs means you have to beat a team you may not be 100% familiar with.
If Bethel ever gets to that point it may earn the multi-year respect that St. John's and others do.
I had Wilkes 20. They bring back one key guy from that defense -- Follweiler -- and lose Serafin and Henninger. Their offense changed schemes from September to November and they don't have their starting running back or their only starting wide receiver.
They gave up seven points or less in eight of the 12 games last season. But that defense isn't going to take the field next year. And then they lost to Rowan -- granted, a tight game, but then Rowan got blown off the field at Fisher.
Capital -- does that program have a track record, or does Rocky Pentello have a track record?
Yeah,
I didn't know if you wanted to reveal that or not about Bethel. I think that must've been a factor as well, that if people didn't have the information in that spreadsheet you worked so hard to put together, that they really couldn't find any reason to get behind Bethel.
That said, I wasn't beefing with their ranking so much as I was beefing with the disparity ... St. John's at 3 and Bethel at 24 seems like a big difference when Bethel beat them last year and both teams lost a good chunk of seniors. Bethel lost some big stars in Phil Porta and Kirby Carr though, so I could see people thinking that'll hurt them.
Hopefully they went by that and not "Bethel didn't respond." For as serious as our poll is taken, I'd hate for that to be a factor. I went and read about Bethel, but then again, I'm insane and I had already done some looking at them for the USAT SW thing.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 26, 2007, 12:43:11 AM
I had Wilkes 20. They bring back one key guy from that defense -- Follweiler -- and lose Serafin and Henninger. Their offense changed schemes from September to November and they don't have their starting running back or their only starting wide receiver.
They gave up seven points or less in eight of the 12 games last season. But that defense isn't going to take the field next year. And then they lost to Rowan -- granted, a tight game, but then Rowan got blown off the field at Fisher.
See, but that's my same point. If Wilkes and Rowan were basically even (and Wilkes had Rowan beat and gave them a gift fumble, but I think the 14-13 margin at the time was a gift missed PAT) and SJF was clearly better, how is it SJF 5, Rowan 10 and Wilkes 15?
I didn't realize the actual poll had them even that close, with all the talk about Wilkes in the 20s. I know you can't vote with distance between fairly even teams as your main criteria, but I like to step back before I settle on my final ballot and see if anything jumps out at me. And if I had put Rowan at 10 and Wilkes at 20, that'd be weird, because what does Rowan have coming back that's so great, besides 5 OL and a QB that got some game experience two years ago? Those Profs won a bunch of times by the skin of their teeth last year.
In any case, they'll get to settle it on the field Week 3, so my hats off to both those teams, and to Widener and Wesley and NC Wesleyan (and UW-Lax, HSU, Linfield, UMHB, UWW, etc.) ... everyone who is playing significant out-of-conference games, not only is it a good test for your team, it's great for the fans and pollsters.
I realize I focus a lot on what teams are losing, when places like Rowan and others are so loaded there are at times players waiting in the wings who will turn out to be upgrades over the graduated seniors.
But given the choice between known (teams returning a significant batch of proven starters, like UMHB or Wesley) and unknown, I'll choose the known everytime. That way, even if I'm wrong, I know I based my vote on something tangible.
Truth be told, there's probably a good bit of gut feeling that goes into the votes and rankings.
Anyway, that's enough insight into the minds of voters ... we all enjoy the chatter too because it educates us all on the different matters at hand and helps us form stronger, more informed opinions.
Just want you readers and lurkers to know it's not just us chirping back and forth at each other. At D3football.com, we call this healthy discussion :D
K-Mack,
Point taken about St Johns. I will fight for my opinion about #2 however. I think my point was sort of reinforced with UWW for the same reason that your point is valid (and everyone else's) about MUC being #1. UWW has two losses in the last two years to MUC so maybe they deserve the #2 spot as the only team to beat them was MUC. Till some one else beats them don't they deserve the #2 for the same reason MUC deserves the #1 spot?
Quote from: smedindy on July 25, 2007, 11:31:58 PM
Polls, schmolls. D-3 has the stones to name a true national champ, and that's all that matters, really! :D
This statement does say it all. D3 at the end of the year will have a champion. There are squabbles about who gets a bid and who doesn't but they at least try to get the 32 best to fight for #1. The best thing about polls IMHO is it gives us fans a chance to plead our cases and poke jabs at others. I think your statement about MUC is a valid one. The are the solid #1 and everyone else fights for the rest.
Except, Mount Union is a No. 1 team based on the personnel they return as well. Even if they had lost to UW-Whitewater I would have voted them No. 1 and I think most would have.
I was shocked that Rowan ended up higher than I had them in my ballot. I approached my ballot by reviewing my final ballot from 2006. Using the spreadsheet info, I start pulling in teams. In each spot, I try to see if I feel if some other team belongs there. Then I put it away for a day or two, and review and revise.
My feeling is that Rowan has equal parts potential upside as potential downside, so I thought somewhere in the middle 13-16 was appropriate. The defense is going to be really good again, but I don't think they'll hold up over the season if the offense doesn't move the ball and score.
I thought that the one NJAC team that had we're not worthy of top 25 was done on purpose so the coaches can pump up the lack of respect issue to the players.
I also like to try and identify a quality East team that might not be getting the right National recognition. I was right about Cortland last year, until they missed getting a playoff bid. I think Kean is a good Top 25 sleeper candidate this year, so I put them in my pre-season top 25.
Quote from: JT on July 26, 2007, 09:51:38 AM
I was shocked that Rowan ended up higher than I had them in my ballot.
I wasn't shocked but I was definitely disappointed. Rowan is too high based on what's coming back.
Cortland returns only four defensive starters from last year (two cornerbacks, strong safety and one defensive lineman). Offensively, they lose their top running back, top two receivers and four starting offensive linemen from last year. I don't think Cortland was playing games with us.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 26, 2007, 09:54:11 AM
Quote from: JT on July 26, 2007, 09:51:38 AM
I was shocked that Rowan ended up higher than I had them in my ballot.
I wasn't shocked but I was definitely disappointed. Rowan is too high based on what's coming back.
Well with CNU, Wilkes, Widener and West Conn in September, they'll either be contenders or prentenders by the end of week #5.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 26, 2007, 09:54:11 AM
Quote from: JT on July 26, 2007, 09:51:38 AM
I was shocked that Rowan ended up higher than I had them in my ballot.
I wasn't shocked but I was definitely disappointed. Rowan is too high based on what's coming back.
Cortland returns only four defensive starters from last year (two cornerbacks, strong safety and one defensive lineman). Offensively, they lose their top running back, top two receivers and four starting offensive linemen from last year. I don't think Cortland was playing games with us.
So they are in a similiar situation to Rowan.... great nucleus, good players that didn't see the field last year, lots of questions.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on July 26, 2007, 09:37:14 AM
K-Mack,
Point taken about St Johns. I will fight for my opinion about #2 however. I think my point was sort of reinforced with UWW for the same reason that your point is valid (and everyone else's) about MUC being #1. UWW has two losses in the last two years to MUC so maybe they deserve the #2 spot as the only team to beat them was MUC. Till some one else beats them don't they deserve the #2 for the same reason MUC deserves the #1 spot?
+Karma for this post. With this attitude, we'll be able to get you out of negative numbers in about..............oh,say.........5 days or so! ;D
Seriously, based on what the Hawks are losing, I didn't expect the #2 spot. K-Mack had made a good case, I thought. But glad to see it anyway.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 26, 2007, 12:30:11 AM
There are tons of doubts about Whitewater and St. John's, and I personally don't endorse either of those teams as 2 or 3. I could see either one ending up there, but given the amount of turnover both are experiencing, I don't think their performance in last year's playoffs necessarily adds up to what they'll do this year.
...
I just can't figure out why St. John's has 5 starters back on offense, including their star QB, and 6 on D (or something close to that), and then Bethel, who also lost a lot of key guys but returns their QB and an all-American safety (Brandon Carr) would be ranked 21 spots behind.
Bethel beat St. John's 28-13 last year. If the logic is that the past is the past, that's acceptable, but that takes "St. John's went farther in the playoffs" off the table too.
Someone please call me on it if they think I'm being a homer, but what did St. John's really lose?
I'll preface my rant by saying that it's based off of memory and the institution-provided roster (neither of which is infallible) and some of my personal biases obviously show through. That said, losing starters certainly doesn't always equal losing difference-makers. Sure, SJU is going to graduate a couple of legitimate stars every year--it would be impossible for them not to. But having a bunch of spots open isn't a problem when you have a surplus of capable players to fill those holes.
First, the "stars" that are leaving... Jamie Steffensmeier is an absolute stud. He stepped in as a first-year in '03 and led the National Championship team in tackles and hasn't let up since. At the same time, he missed the '05 season and that 11-1 team didn't give up more than 16 points in any of the 10 games between when he got knocked out and when they ran into UW-Whitewater. Sad to see him go, but life will go on.
Kevin McNamara had a lot of sacks. Like, A LOT. You know, kinda like Damien Dumonceaux and Jason Good and Jeremy Hood and... well, a lot of people have had a lot of sacks. Nick Gunderson will have a lot this year, too, I bet. And when he's gone, I'm sure someone else will get a bunch.
It sucks to lose the player who had the most receptions and the most rushing yards from the year before, but I never thought of Mike Lofboom as anything more than a solid player who fit well with the system he was in.
Kyle Gearman was a standard-issue #1 receiver, but I don't think he ever made THE LEAP that everyone was hoping for (expecting?). I think Casey Haugen was listed as the other starter at WR last year and somehow I feel pretty confident SJU can replace his production.
The other starters (well, players who say significant time) lost, and I'll admit they're numerous, were pretty much role players--Phil Geisen, Chris Tift, Steve Levoir, Brandon Royce-Diop, etc.--were players who spent a couple of years learning the system, proved that they were worthy of getting on the field on Saturdays, and stepped in a performed. Among the 150+ players on the team, I'd assume there are other similarly talented guys ready to seemlessly step in.
While Bethel has shown the ability to hang with St. John's over the last handful of years, they certainly haven't reached the point where they "reload" each year--losing players of Carr's or Porta's calibre just has a larger negative impact on that type of program than on SJU.
---
In a kinda unrelated question, is the purpose of polls like this to project which teams are going to finish with the best record/go the furthest in the playoffs or rank which teams are better than which? I feel like every year there are teams that are better than a lot of ranked squads but lose 3 or 4 games to teams that are legitimately better than they are and, because of a middling record, don't get the respect they deserve.
Maybe it's because those are the teams I pay the most attention to, but I end every season feeling that 15 of the top 20 teams in the country are OAC/West Region Teams. Of course the polls don't reflect this--how do justify putting a 7-3 WIAC team that didn't make the playoffs over a team that played in East Regional Final, for example--but I think that kind of poll would be more instructive.
---
I agree with the sentiment that SJU '07 doesn't FEEL like the third best team in the country. It feels like a solid team without the standout talent to seriously challenge MUC for a championship, likely running into a better team in the West Region Final. Then again, that kinda sounds like the 3rd best team in the country the last few years...
---
Sorry for the rambling, Johnnie-centric post. Thanks for all the hard work that pollsters do in putting this together--and thank god we get to figure it on the field. Is it Sep. 1 yet?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 26, 2007, 12:43:11 AMCapital -- does that program have a track record, or does Rocky Pentello have a track record?
That's exactly the question on Capital. Have they turned the corner from simply competitive to elite as a program, or where they just a good team lead by a stud QB that's now graduated? I think the latter. Which is why I had them slotted in the 4th place in the OAC behind MUC, Baldwin-Wallace and Ohio Northern.
If they finish this season at 8-2 or better, than the program has made the jump. Otherwise one has to think they were the benefit of Pentello. Similar to the John Carroll teams lead by Tom Arth. Good teams before and after the great QB's, but only a serious threat to Mount and the rest of D3 with the stud under center.
I guess my hope for the poll would be that it ranks who is best. And that would correspond to who will advance furthest in the playoffs -- if the playoffs were seeded nationally and accurately. :)
That would be the biggest if of the day ....
Pat you bring up a good point about being ranked nationally for the playoff positions. With the 32 spots now, have any of the D3 top 25 teams failed to make the playoffs? Just curious.
Yes. Remember -- 21 automatic bids last year and 22 this year take up the majority of the field.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on July 26, 2007, 03:33:28 PM
Pat you bring up a good point about being ranked nationally for the playoff positions. With the 32 spots now, have any of the D3 top 25 teams failed to make the playoffs? Just curious.
Good question...
Here is the Top 25 after
week 11 (http://www.d3football.com/top25.php?year=2006&week=11).
Only #14 Cortland St (9-1) and #21 Linfield (6-3) failed to make the playoffs.
The Pool C clamoring over the non-selection of Cortland as a Pool C bid was discussed in the
Immediate Reaction to 2006 Bracket (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2006/11/12/immediate-reaction-to-2006-bracket/) blog. (The blog had 276 responses.)
Ralph,
I remember the discussion about Cortland and the outrage now. Thanks. In your opinion was Linfield with 3 losses missing the playoffs a huge error.
I don't think it was a huge error, if you don't handle your business when you need to, you're going to get passed over. The fact is they had every opportunity to win the conference championship outright against Whitworth despite turning it over 6 or 7 times (including 4 shots from inside the 10 at the end of the game) and they didn't get it done. Now would they have beaten some of the teams that did make the playoffs...I believe they would have. Would they have won their first round game, yes, beyond that I'm not too sure.
kmack,
Not sure it's quite accurate to lump SJU with two schools with much lesser influences on the national title picture. The situation is a bit different.
It neglects SJU's run of four straight West titles so far this decade in what is clearly the most top-heavy region. SJU also has given MUC stronger Stagg Bowl challenges than anybody recently. I'd venture it wasn't just"2003-2004 aside" but the 2000 team also might have at least lived up to its ranking.
Is SJU overrated? Sure, at times, quite possibly this year ... but for different reasons than Rowan or W&J.
No other region has produced the diversity of Stagg champs. Five schools have won Staggs over the past 12 years and four of them have come from the West. So it's safe to assume that whenever you're assembling a list of contenders, your top West selection will get a pretty high ranking to start. SJU, it's been proven, is often a pretty safe pick.
And when the depth in that region (i.e., two West No. 7s winning Staggs) plays out, the early pick has to end drop those "three to five" spots. It's a bit deeper than just "name recognition."
Another part of the equation, which TC's post mentions, is that not all teams reload equally.
That said, I offer this up not so much as criticism, but in the spirit of debate -- which to me is the main reason for preseason rankings (and I think we all see it's working ...).
Quote from: downtown48 on July 26, 2007, 04:57:35 PM
I don't think it was a huge error, if you don't handle your business when you need to, you're going to get passed over. The fact is they had every opportunity to win the conference championship outright against Whitworth despite turning it over 6 or 7 times (including 4 shots from inside the 10 at the end of the game) and they didn't get it done. Now would they have beaten some of the teams that did make the playoffs...I believe they would have. Would they have won their first round game, yes, beyond that I'm not too sure.
I agree with Downtown. Had Linfield beaten HSU in Abilene, then I think that Linfield would have earned the at-large bid that HSU got. :)
Quote from: repete on July 26, 2007, 05:48:27 PM
And when the depth in that region (i.e., two West No. 7s winning Staggs) plays out, the early pick has to end drop those "three to five" spots.
Only one West No. 7 won the Stagg.
Yup, my mistake.
It was No. 7 PLU with the win (a monkey stomp of Rowan BTW ... which in two Staggs and a recent semi vs. West teams seems to have "bad matchups") and No. 7 SJU with that last-second loss to MUC in Salem.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 26, 2007, 09:54:11 AM
Quote from: JT on July 26, 2007, 09:51:38 AM
I was shocked that Rowan ended up higher than I had them in my ballot.
I wasn't shocked but I was definitely disappointed. Rowan is too high based on what's coming back.
Cortland returns only four defensive starters from last year (two cornerbacks, strong safety and one defensive lineman). Offensively, they lose their top running back, top two receivers and four starting offensive linemen from last year. I don't think Cortland was playing games with us.
I had to revise my Cortland ranking from USAT SW. I didn't change much, but that was one of them.
Quote from: footballfan413 on July 26, 2007, 10:11:57 AM
Seriously, based on what the Hawks are losing, I didn't expect the #2 spot. K-Mack had made a good case, I thought. But glad to see it anyway.
Yeah, right? :D But Leipold can't play the "no respect" card this way.
I guess if there were more teams with a lot coming back, I could've seen them falling to the low end of the top 10. Not as far as Capital though, because at least you have The Beav, and the O-Line. Shoot, if Berez were still the coach, I might foresee you all going back to the old 70-30 run-pass split.
With Leipold though, and with Danny Jones to work with ... we just don't know how everything's going to pan out. I could see No. 2 by the end of the year though. You've got the always-tough WIAC and a visit from UMHB. And the St. Cloud game can only help you probably in the eyes of Pollsters, a la last year's La Crosse-S. Dakota State game.
Quote from: TC on July 26, 2007, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 26, 2007, 12:30:11 AM
There are tons of doubts about Whitewater and St. John's, and I personally don't endorse either of those teams as 2 or 3. I could see either one ending up there, but given the amount of turnover both are experiencing, I don't think their performance in last year's playoffs necessarily adds up to what they'll do this year.
...
I just can't figure out why St. John's has 5 starters back on offense, including their star QB, and 6 on D (or something close to that), and then Bethel, who also lost a lot of key guys but returns their QB and an all-American safety (Brandon Carr) would be ranked 21 spots behind.
Bethel beat St. John's 28-13 last year. If the logic is that the past is the past, that's acceptable, but that takes "St. John's went farther in the playoffs" off the table too.
Someone please call me on it if they think I'm being a homer, but what did St. John's really lose?
I'll preface my rant by saying that it's based off of memory and the institution-provided roster (neither of which is infallible) and some of my personal biases obviously show through. That said, losing starters certainly doesn't always equal losing difference-makers. Sure, SJU is going to graduate a couple of legitimate stars every year--it would be impossible for them not to. But having a bunch of spots open isn't a problem when you have a surplus of capable players to fill those holes.
First, the "stars" that are leaving... Jamie Steffensmeier is an absolute stud. He stepped in as a first-year in '03 and led the National Championship team in tackles and hasn't let up since. At the same time, he missed the '05 season and that 11-1 team didn't give up more than 16 points in any of the 10 games between when he got knocked out and when they ran into UW-Whitewater. Sad to see him go, but life will go on.
Kevin McNamara had a lot of sacks. Like, A LOT. You know, kinda like Damien Dumonceaux and Jason Good and Jeremy Hood and... well, a lot of people have had a lot of sacks. Nick Gunderson will have a lot this year, too, I bet. And when he's gone, I'm sure someone else will get a bunch.
It sucks to lose the player who had the most receptions and the most rushing yards from the year before, but I never thought of Mike Lofboom as anything more than a solid player who fit well with the system he was in.
Kyle Gearman was a standard-issue #1 receiver, but I don't think he ever made THE LEAP that everyone was hoping for (expecting?). I think Casey Haugen was listed as the other starter at WR last year and somehow I feel pretty confident SJU can replace his production.
The other starters (well, players who say significant time) lost, and I'll admit they're numerous, were pretty much role players--Phil Geisen, Chris Tift, Steve Levoir, Brandon Royce-Diop, etc.--were players who spent a couple of years learning the system, proved that they were worthy of getting on the field on Saturdays, and stepped in a performed. Among the 150+ players on the team, I'd assume there are other similarly talented guys ready to seemlessly step in.
While Bethel has shown the ability to hang with St. John's over the last handful of years, they certainly haven't reached the point where they "reload" each year--losing players of Carr's or Porta's calibre just has a larger negative impact on that type of program than on SJU.
I agree with a lot of your points, but since this is already giant, I'll try to be brief.
The list I made when considering St. John's and other teams for the No. 2 spot (in June) had key losses and key returnees. The Johnnies had some significant losses, as mentioned above, but worse really was that they didn't bring many guys back that one could really get excited about. If they had, I think I would have ranked them higher than 7 (6th in D3football.com).
The losses were:
Steffensmeier, Gearman, McNamara (all of whom I viewed as rather significant) and then Tift, Lofboom, Levoir (DL) and Schoenberg (DB).
The key returnees were:
Kofoed (always nice to have a QB back that's 28-4 as a starter), Gunderson, Salvato (OL) and Cloeter (DB)
I think I made that list off the all-MIAC teams and D3 all-region teams. I know that's not a catch-all, but it does paint a picture you can use to compare. St. John Fisher for example, had four or five really key losses on their list, but they had 5 key returnees, including a couple at the positions where losses took place (RB and QB) that mitigated the effect of those losses (in my mind of course). When I did similar lists for UMHB and Wesley, the returnees side was much longer than the losses side.
We get expanded information, as mentioned on this thread, for the D3.com vote, but the original info held up rather well. I think I had 11 back for St. John's, not counting special teams, and it was a 5/6 split.
I'd say that means they have some work to do. Doesn't mean they can't end up in the Stagg Bowl, just supports the thing I was saying about voting for the known over the unknown.
I probably agree that St. John's reloads and Bethel not so much.
I defer to your knowlege on the value of a player like Gearman, since you've seen more SJU games than I have.
I agree with "losing starters certainly doesn't always equal losing difference-makers."
That's why I tried to make a difference-maker chart for the top teams, rather than just saying 16 back for these guys, 13 for these guys and assuming the 3 guys are a major difference. That isn't always the case.
That's also why Pat does a spreadsheet for the voters so we can see more than just the number of returning starters. Getting it broken down by position and with notes and postseason honors included helps you see something like Whitewater might only have 5 starters back on offense, but it's four O-Linemen and an All-American RB.
Also, this "Among the 150+ players on the team, I'd assume there are other similarly talented guys ready to seemlessly step in." is probably true of a lot of places like St. John's and Rowan (I do think they belong in the same sentence, but I said I'd be brief, so we can talk about that later) where there are guys (I feel like I said this yesterday) stepping in who might end up being better than the seniors.
But not knowing much about them, it's hard to go by that. Some of us do, and that probably gives some credence to the name-recognition factor. It's not necessarily a worthless thought.
Anyway ... don't worry about all the preseason talk. It helps us stay interested now, but it is in fact, just that, preseason talk.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 27, 2007, 12:41:55 AM
Quote from: footballfan413 on July 26, 2007, 10:11:57 AM
Seriously, based on what the Hawks are losing, I didn't expect the #2 spot. K-Mack had made a good case, I thought. But glad to see it anyway.
Yeah, right? :D But Leipold can't play the "no respect" card this way.
And don't think that didn't occur to me! Well, I guess there is still the USA Today preview if he get desperate! LOL! ;) :D ;D
K-Mack-
A lot of respect for the amount of effort you put into quantifying the nature of the losses--the way it was presented, I just assumed most voters felt (outside of the obvious superstars) that a loss is a loss is a loss is a loss.
I think you and I see things similarly in that St. John's is in the fortunate position of being able to replace key players so easily. If nearly any other Top 25 team graduated as much talent as SJU, they fall a lot further. But I honestly don't think any non-OAC/West team has more talent than SJU, and I can't see an argument to put any West team (besides UW-W, obviously) ahead of them. (As I open myself up to provencialism shots...)
Of course, losing Lofboom hurts a little more now that it appears SJU may also be without Craig Luberts.
Well, yeah. I didn't want to be the one to say that.
413 ... that's funny.
I'm perplexed by the ranking of Trinty (TX) six spots above Carnegie Mellon. Last season Trinity was beaten by Millsaps, who were beaten 21-0 by CMU. CMU returns 5 all region players, and Trinity none. CMU finished last year at #22. ???
Primarily because that was last year.
It's nice to note what CMU returned but don't forget to mention what CMU lost.
I'm aware that CMU has losses that are not insignificant. They lose White (G) and Lewis (S), who were 1st team All-South. They lose an All-UAA QB, but he was injured and missed most of the last half of the season. The returning QB finished the year and led the win over Millsaps. They still return 48% of their All-UAA selections (Yes, I realize all conf in a 4 team conf isn't the same as in a conf with more teams. That's why I used % not #s).
In contrast, Trinity loses its only All-South selection and returns 41% of its All-SCAC players. Seems to me Trinity loses at least as much as CMU. And it seems to me what returns is more important that what is lost. There may be injured players at Trinity that I'm not aware of who are returning or players listed as SR who still have eligibility.
Now, CMU's sched is tougher this year (3 teams with votes in the d3 poll), so 10-0 will be harder to accomplish. So I don't quarrel with them just out of the top 25, but I'm not convinced Trinity should be ranked ahead of them.
cwru70, in the last season that Trinity failed to win at least a share of the SCAC prior to 2006, Bill Cliinton had just defeated George HW Bush for the Presidency.
If that was a one-year thing, then the voters have given a traditional D3 power the chance to regain its swagger. Let's see how they regroup.
It should be good for CMU not to have as big a target on its back as a Top 25 would give. The first two teams above them (in the 20th-25th range) to lose will propel them into the Top 25 just on the "float up".
At the end of the season nobody will remember or care where a team was ranked before a single player set foot on the field.
I don't know about that. The "nobody respected us in the preseason" line gets trotted out pretty frequently by teams who go deep in the playoffs if their ranking didn't project that. I've had more than one coach or player remind me of their preseason ranking late in the year.
Of course, teams who don't get ranked highly and fall flat don't usually say, "gee, you were right - guess we weren't that good after all." :)
If Craig Luberts is unable to play this season for St. John's, what does that loss do to the Johnnies' ranking status? Was he someone that they were counting on for serious production, or more of a role player on an already good team?
Luberts was being counted on for serious production, from what I can tell.
Pat,
Do you think that this makes a huge difference in St Johns. If they have the other running back does he just get more carries? Would this change your vote or spot in the top 25 for the Johnnies.
Here's to CMU and Trinity each having a Top 25 calibre season, no Texas sub-regional interferes, and they meet in the playoff!!!
Quote from: cwru70 on July 30, 2007, 08:54:03 PM
Here's to CMU and Trinity each having a Top 25 calibre season, no Texas sub-regional interferes, and they meet in the playoff!!!
I agree with you about CMU in relation to Trinity. I thought it might be good to keep the Tigers on the radar. Only thing I can really think of is they got a pretty well-hyped transfer at QB(?) that might give some optimism for Trinity.
For some odd reason they play at Millsaps again.
Quote from: K-Mack on July 30, 2007, 11:02:53 PM
I agree with you about CMU in relation to Trinity. I thought it might be good to keep the Tigers on the radar. Only thing I can really think of is they got a pretty well-hyped transfer at QB(?) that might give some optimism for Trinity.
For some odd reason they play at Millsaps again.
SCAC had to rejigger the schedule because they went from six to eight league games thanks to the addition of Birmingham-Southern and Colorado College. So everyone has to end up with four home and away games instead of three and it just worked out that Trinity got the short end of that stick.
Thanks for the explanation.
I didn't mean to make it sound like it was actually that odd of a reason. That's quite logical, actually.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 30, 2007, 11:18:50 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 30, 2007, 11:02:53 PM
I agree with you about CMU in relation to Trinity. I thought it might be good to keep the Tigers on the radar. Only thing I can really think of is they got a pretty well-hyped transfer at QB(?) that might give some optimism for Trinity.
For some odd reason they play at Millsaps again.
SCAC had to rejigger the schedule because they went from six to eight league games thanks to the addition of Birmingham-Southern and Colorado College. So everyone has to end up with four home and away games instead of three and it just worked out that Trinity got the short end of that stick.
Please remember that Trinity got the long end of the stick with four SCAC home games, including DePauw, in 2006 to make up for the
Hurricane Rita (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003200/a003262/index.html) cancellation in 2005.
That same weekend, UMHB could not get a bus to go to Pineville, LA to play Louisiana College.
Also mentioned that too Ralph, about Trinity-DePauw
This thread had gotten buried to page two; thought it was time to resurrect it.
I really enjoy David Collinge's column analyzing (historically) the top 25 for basketball - any chance someone will do that for football (or have I somehow overlooked it)?
The OAC has four teams in the top 14 this week - if that isn't a record, it must be mighty close! With JCU receiving votes, the OAC joins the WIAC (2 of the top 6, plus 3 receiving votes) and the CCIW (2 of the top 13, plus 3 receiving votes) as the most widely respected conferences (hope I didn't miss anyone - apologies if I did); has any conference ever had six (or more?) teams simultaneously receiving votes? And, as conference teams begin knocking each other off, has a conference ever had five (or more) teams receiving votes by the end of the season (regular or playoff)?
If no one already has (or wants to collect) the answers, I'll attempt them later this week, but I don't have the database-management skills to pull a DC! :(
Yeah, you really have to enter the top 25s into a database as they're posted or go back and do research by hand.
I don't know of any specific plans to do top 25 historical analysis, but I know it gets touched on in ATN from time to time, if not ATR.
That's about the best I can do for you.
I often wonder the same thing about one conference having multiple ranked teams. Especially when there's 26-27 conferences and 25 spots in a top 25.
Best example I can think of of several teams being voted on (if not ranked) simultaneously would be Ithaca, Springfield, Alfred and SJF of the Empire 8, as well as the confences you already mentioned, the OAC and WIAC. I think I've voted for four teams from the same conference before.
The NJAC could press for those honors this year if things progress the right way.
But later in the year, plenty of teams from plenty of conferences will be receiving votes, at least a handful. Not terribly sure how significant that is.
We do have all of the football Top 25s in the database, for what it's worth, unlike basketball where many polls predate the database.
I know the WIAC has had 4 Top 25 teams at the same time before. I went back and found this poll (2004, Week 10 (http://www.d3football.com/top25.php?year=2004&week=10)) as an example. I believe the WIAC has done this multiple times.
Actually, here is a poll (http://www.d3football.com/top25.php?year=2004&week=3) with four WIAC teams in the Top 25 and SEVEN of the eight WIAC teams receiving votes.
And further superlatives, this poll (http://www.d3football.com/top25.php?year=2004&week=5) has FIVE WIAC teams in the Top 25.
The more amazing fact, to me, is that the WIAC has had every conference member receive votes at some point in the poll's history. I know 7 of the 8 for sure, but I'm going to double check River Falls. I don't think there's another conference who can claim that.
UW-River Falls has never received a vote in our poll, no.
Thanks, Pat. That was a lot easier than me checking every poll. So, 7 of 8 for the WIAC have received votes. Can any other league top that?
The OAC has had 6 teams receive votes in the d3football.com poll for sure and I think OTT and WILMA were at least in the "receiving votes" category at some point during the poll's existence but the archive doesn't go back to the seasons I am thinking of for Wilma (2000).
Question - did Wabash not rise in the rankings (and actually lost votes) because of Huff's injury? Was that on the voters mind?
Not that I'm complaining, I think Wabash is ranked right where they should be. But with Augie's loss I was thinking a 21 or 22 instead of 23.
Quote from: reality check on September 10, 2007, 12:00:36 PM
The OAC has had 6 teams receive votes in the d3football.com poll for sure and I think OTT and WILMA were at least in the "receiving votes" category at some point during the poll's existence but the archive doesn't go back to the seasons I am thinking of for Wilma (2000).
Please do not confuse Pat's Top 25 with the AFCA poll.
Quote from: smedindy on September 10, 2007, 12:32:03 PM
Question - did Wabash not rise in the rankings (and actually lost votes) because of Huff's injury? Was that on the voters mind?
Not that I'm complaining, I think Wabash is ranked right where they should be. But with Augie's loss I was thinking a 21 or 22 instead of 23.
I considered it on my ballot. Our voters knew about it, but I can't say for sure what they made of the information.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 10, 2007, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: smedindy on September 10, 2007, 12:32:03 PM
Question - did Wabash not rise in the rankings (and actually lost votes) because of Huff's injury? Was that on the voters mind?
Not that I'm complaining, I think Wabash is ranked right where they should be. But with Augie's loss I was thinking a 21 or 22 instead of 23.
I considered it on my ballot. Our voters knew about it, but I can't say for sure what they made of the information.
smed,
And don't forget that Augie's loss was countered by BW's win, since they jumped over Wabash (and 9 others).
Gotcha...
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 10, 2007, 07:19:18 PM
smed,
And don't forget that Augie's loss was countered by BW's win, since they jumped over Wabash (and 9 others).
I noticed BW jumped
ten spots. Even after a nice win, that seems like pretty extreme movement in the polls, at least to me. Especially given that only three teams in the top 25 lost and only two fell out of the poll all together.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on September 11, 2007, 10:13:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 10, 2007, 07:19:18 PM
smed,
And don't forget that Augie's loss was countered by BW's win, since they jumped over Wabash (and 9 others).
I noticed BW jumped ten spots. Even after a nice win, that seems like pretty extreme movement in the polls, at least to me. Especially given that only three teams in the top 25 lost and only two fell out of the poll all together.
The OAC is highly respected as a conference.
Perhaps it was considered a straight flip. BWC just moved to the top of Pool C IMHO, or #1 in the North Region. ;)
They did gain six points per ballot in a week in which three teams within striking distance ahead of them lost, Wabash lost its starting quarterback in a squeaker home win and Rowan suffered by comparison on CNU's loss.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 10, 2007, 09:38:18 AM
We do have all of the football Top 25s in the database, for what it's worth, unlike basketball where many polls predate the database.
News to me. I am discussing this with you now on IM, but if it's accessible and sortable, I will probably use it in ATN starting next week.
There are several plateaus in the Week #3 Top 25. In the ideal Top 25, one sees 25 points separating each ranking. However, there are several clusters of teams in this Top 25.
#3-#6 -- An ideal 3rd place team should garner 575 votes. UWW and SJF are only 25 votes apart, when one would expect 75 votes to separate #3 and #6. (549, 546, 533 and 524 respectively.)
There is a big drop to #7-#9. The 72-vote difference between SJF and Wesley is second only to the drop-off between #17 and #18 (237 votes down to 166 votes). Wesley, Central and Wheaton are very well clustered with only 38 votes (equivalent to 1 1/2 places) between #7 and #9.
#10 Capital is 66 votes behind #9 Wheaton, which may be considered the #2-#3 in the North Region.
#11-#13 (BWC, ONU and Linfield are separated by only 5 votes. (305, 304, 300.)
#14-#17 places find North Central, Trinty TX, W&J, and Wartburg only 35 votes apart, 272, 253, 238 and 237 votes respectively.
#18 Springfield gets 166 votes.
#19 Wabash is still holding with 125 votes.
#20 HSU (0-2) has a strong 110 vote total. In the "Ideal Top 25", #21 would earn 125 votes, so the Cowboys have to "love the love" they are getting by the aggressive non-conference scheduling.
#21-#25 is a logjam. Rowan with 95 votes is solid, but #25 Salisbury is very strong with 75 votes. In week #3 of 2006, #25 SJF only had 56 votes. In week #3 of 2005, CNU had only 56 votes, as well. In week #4 of 2004, #25 JHU got 128 votes. The voters in week #3 2004 cast votes for 63 teams.
IMHO, the screening and evaluation process in year #5 of the balloting has done a better job of winnowing the "real 26-35", as K-Mack likes to describe those teams. Only 46 teams are receiving votes this week. The votes going to #26 to #46 total 399 votes and comprise only 4.9108% of the possible votes. This is close to late season form. I don't see anyone "not receiving" votes who should be.
Thanks for the hard work that all voters do!
Thanks, Ralph - that reminded me of DC's column! ;D
Or [shameless plug alert ;D] my presentation of the final Posters' Poll for 2007 bball (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=4188.855), where I literally grouped the clustered teams.
If the OAC having 4 of the top 14 last week was a record (I haven't found a poll to top it), it only lasted one week - the OAC has 4 of the top 12 this week! For anyone noticing that the CCIW is only 11-11 in the 'modern' playoff era (front page), and wondering if we can therefore be a 'top' conference - no, we are not a TOP conference (yet?), but please remember that we are in the OAC's region! We are 10-0 against all other playoff teams, 1-11 against the OAC (mostly, though not entirely, you-know-who).
EDIT: In light of the post below, 'you-know-who' is also called 'the K-Mack of d3 football'! ;D
Gladly linked above! ;)
Thanks to Mr Ypsi for the great job that he did last winter.
+1, friend. /Ralph Turner
So far, there's been little to quibble with in the top 25s. Even today's, I think 22 of the 25 teams were ones I voted for (18-20 is more typical this early in the season) and you can make a good case for the ones I'm not enamored with.
Another interesting thing is that the schedules have made it much easier to get a read on teams because there's more crossover than I can ever remember. Part of that is due to the MAC opening up and the games those teams have scheduled with NJAC schools, the normal NY crossover and the fact that Wesley is an Eastern (South Region) power but has to fill 5 non-conference games. Add that to CNU/UMHB, HSU/Linfield, HSU/LaCrosse, B-W/Augustana, etc. and there's more clarity as to where teams belong, comparatively.
I think four teams who did not start in the top 25 had the chance to play themselves in based on early schedules alone: Salisbury and Montclair have, N.C. Wesleyan and Widener not quite.
In other words, there aren't a lot of isolated schools, like, say, Occidental, which will will all of its games (most likely) and get 1 or 2 challenges from conference foes later in the season. Say no one beats them, but they also register no really significant wins ... it'll be hard to honestly move them higher than a team like Hardin-Simmons, which might lose 3 games to teams better than Oxy.
That can be the difference between a poll that takes into account strength of schedule and one that just looks at records. I think the former is more accurate, but there are many ways to do a top 25.
Some of the tiers you describe, Ralph, are ... if not typical, not surprising. I often feel like I have about eight top 10 teams and a bunch of teams who should be 15th or so, and sometimes one of those teams has to go as high as 11 or 12 or whatever.
Speaking of having the comparative results, and the 11 or 12 spots ... the OAC will eventually sort itself out. Others will too.
Very interesting stuff so far though.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 17, 2007, 12:09:29 AMplease remember that we are in the OAC's region! We are 10-0 against all other playoff teams, 1-11 against the OAC (mostly, though not entirely, you-know-who).
EDIT: In light of the post below, 'you-know-who' is also called 'the K-Mack of d3 football'! ;D
+1 K :D
Unless I am mistaken, the new top 25 did not update the team records this week--the results for week 4 are there, but not the win( or loss).
What are the voters seeing differently in the OAC this year? 4 teams in the top 11? I know the OAC has always been viewed as one of the top conferences, but what is being perceived differently this year than in the past? It isn't uncommon for a number of teams in this conference to start off 3-0 or 4-0 after playing non-conference games and/or against the bottom teams in their conference, and having 2-3 teams in the top 20. But I don't ever recall so many teams from this conference (or any conference, for that matter) ranked so high. Just curious.
The Top 25 is consolidating even more.
Forty-six teams still received votes, but #26-#46 only received 356 votes. This is 43 fewer votes than last week.
Once again, I think that this is due to the effort that the voters have put into this. There seem to be less "random/throwaway/ feel-good" votes at the bottom, where someone has given a vote to next week's opponent.
I can understand the votes given to the last 11 teams, but I really like this vote.
Thanks to all of the voters!
Quote from: Rick Akins on September 23, 2007, 11:01:06 PM
Unless I am mistaken, the new top 25 did not update the team records this week--the results for week 4 are there, but not the win( or loss).
Because of the continuing problems with our scores provider, we had to do the entire poll in the database by hand, including updating the records. It has since been completed.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 24, 2007, 12:22:42 AM
Quote from: Rick Akins on September 23, 2007, 11:01:06 PM
Unless I am mistaken, the new top 25 did not update the team records this week--the results for week 4 are there, but not the win( or loss).
Because of the continuing problems with our scores provider, we had to do the entire poll in the database by hand, including updating the records. It has since been completed.
Yikes :o
Sorry. It's been a long weekend. I spent nearly two hours tonight doing something by hand that used to be done automatically and would take up about 20 seconds of my time.
I was actually Yikes-ing the fact that you had to do all that by hand.... Go to sleep now as your brain probably has disintegrated :P
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 24, 2007, 12:41:54 AM
Sorry. It's been a long weekend. I spent nearly two hours tonight doing something by hand that used to be done automatically and would take up about 20 seconds of my time.
Hmmm, wife is out of town and you had to take matters in hand yourself? ;D
Not griping about the top 25, Pat. Sorry for the tough weekend. I promise, ALL of us who read and/or post on here love d3football.com and all you do to spotlight our schools and d3 sports in general. Thanks for the incredibly hard work you, Keith and the others do to get accurate, relevant and interesting information about d3 sports out to us and the world!!
Quote from: Foss on September 23, 2007, 11:14:25 PM
What are the voters seeing differently in the OAC this year? 4 teams in the top 11? I know the OAC has always been viewed as one of the top conferences, but what is being perceived differently this year than in the past? It isn't uncommon for a number of teams in this conference to start off 3-0 or 4-0 after playing non-conference games and/or against the bottom teams in their conference, and having 2-3 teams in the top 20. But I don't ever recall so many teams from this conference (or any conference, for that matter) ranked so high. Just curious.
Foss,
I think the league needs some clarity -- we know all of those teams are fairly good but until they play each other it's going to be hard to say for sure which of that group is clearly the second best team.
You saw a small hint of that this week with John Carroll dropping most of their votes following the loss to ONU.
Quote from: Foss on September 23, 2007, 11:14:25 PM
What are the voters seeing differently in the OAC this year? 4 teams in the top 11? I know the OAC has always been viewed as one of the top conferences, but what is being perceived differently this year than in the past? It isn't uncommon for a number of teams in this conference to start off 3-0 or 4-0 after playing non-conference games and/or against the bottom teams in their conference, and having 2-3 teams in the top 20. But I don't ever recall so many teams from this conference (or any conference, for that matter) ranked so high. Just curious.
Good question. I had to think for a minute or so to really try to explain why.
Without reading anyone else's response on this yet, I think you can pinpoint two, maybe three, reasons for this:
1) The lack of a clear-cut No. 2 in the OAC. Usually Mount Union is Team A, and we can readily identify Team B, whether it be Capital, Ohio Northern, Baldwin-Wallace or John Carroll. This year, we're waiting for those teams to play to get that clarity, and in the meantime (reason 1 1/2), other leagues which traditionally feature similar depth haven't shown it so far. The CCIW usually features 3-4 teams you can consider voting for, not one or two (after North Central's loss to Wash U., although they remain in the poll, and Augustana, which lost to B-W). The WIAC also has a very clear top two, when in other seasons they have had 3-4 teams siphoning each others' votes until we see the head-to-head matchups later in the year.
2) The reduction of the MAC from 11 to 8 teams this year has actually had a wide-ranging effect beyond the three teams that moved. The 11-team MAC used to feature 9 conference games, now it features 7. Meanwhile, Rowan was consistently struggling to fill its schedule with D3s, and Wesley and Salisbury are members of a 5-team league, so they have dates galore to fill. What's happened is the strongest schools out East have taken the opportunity to schedule each other more often than before (not just Rowan-CNU, but now also Wilkes, Montclair State, Widener, N.C. Wesleyan, Wesley, Salisbury, even Kean and Albright).
So you know, normally you might find the NJAC and MAC leaders in the 6-12 range, right now you see neither, partially because of the crossover scheduling and partly because it seems to be an off year for the MAC and a competitive year for the NJAC with no clear leader in either conference.
I think the lack of clarity in the too-deep OAC and the lack of clarity in other leagues which are showing virtually no depth, plus Hardin-Simmons' early schedule and the slow recovery of traditional top 15 powers Linfield, Bridgewater and Trinity (Texas) from off years is contributing to the bunch-up of OAC schools around the 10 range.
I don't believe it'll last, but I do believe that so far, with the defense the four major OAC teams are playing, they all deserve to be there.
Capital's given up 10 points, Baldwin-Wallace 14, Mount Union 21 and ONU 22 all in three games ... pretty legit.
i don't know if this is the place to post it but you guys do a great job with this website kmack i really enjoy reading your stories good job everyone.
Thanks for the responses, guys. Keith, appreciate the comprehension breakdown.
Yeah, it will be nice when the top non-Mount OAC teams start playing each other (and Mt. Union). We'll get a much better idea how good they are after then, and will likely see some up and down movement in the poll. I think it's worth noting that the combined record of their (Capital, BW, and ON) opponents up to this point is 8-19. Take away the losses against the OAC teams and their opponents are still only 8-10. As already mentioned, we'll know a lot more about the top non-Mount OAC teams as the season progresses.
Quote from: Presto on September 25, 2007, 06:44:29 PM
i don't know if this is the place to post it but you guys do a great job with this website kmack i really enjoy reading your stories good job everyone.
You can post that on any thread you want to. ;)
lol kmack ok its true this is a great site.
Yes, Alfred fans enjoy the shout out....sort of like D3's answer to hitting the front cover of SI....whoa, hold on, there's a curse associated with that, isn't there?! ::)
K-Mack:
You ARE the Mount Union of the message board!! Great analysis of the top 25 right now and why so many OAC teams are so high. Makes sense to me!
I guess these rankings mean something to somebody. The only thing I care about is UMHB makes the playoffs and wins their last game. ;)
Quote from: texgrad69 on September 27, 2007, 03:09:43 PM
I guess these rankings mean something to somebody. The only thing I care about is UMHB makes the playoffs and wins their last game. ;)
Hey, that's a fine attitude to have and one of the things we ALL like about D3 vs. those other guys, that we sort everything out on the field.
That said, in my experience, people really do get a lot out of the rankings, even if it's nothing more than board fodder for the days between Saturdays.
K-Mack:
Thanks for the shout out for Alfred in ATN. It's evident you do your homework. Pep is still amazed at the Saxons' dominance of an outstanding Springfield football team. But a team is only as good as its next game... Go AU; keep your nose to the grindstone.
Quote from: K-Mack on September 27, 2007, 09:02:20 PM
Quote from: texgrad69 on September 27, 2007, 03:09:43 PM
I guess these rankings mean something to somebody. The only thing I care about is UMHB makes the playoffs and wins their last game. ;)
Hey, that's a fine attitude to have and one of the things we ALL like about D3 vs. those other guys, that we sort everything out on the field.
That said, in my experience, people really do get a lot out of the rankings, even if it's nothing more than board fodder for the days between Saturdays.
I think these rankings have one other importance, they start to form opinions that are a basis for the final seedings. If you believe the stats, home field advantage in the play-offs means alot and if your going to play Mt. Union a neutral spot sounds better then Alliance. Of course, one could argue that Salem is no longer neutral but a second home for Mt., LOL.
The rankings here have precisely *zip* to do with how teams are seeded in the playoffs. Consult the Playoff FAQ (http://www.d3football.com/faq.php?question&category=Playoffs) for more.
What Ron said.
Unless you're arguing that the NCAA committee members read D3football.com and use our opinions for regional rankings, there's really no link between our polls and the playoffs, which is how it should be.
There are established criteria for the playoffs, beginning with the (now 22?) automatic qualifiers. That means the committee is really only using the criteria to establish the 4? Pool B teams and the 6-7 at-large B/C bids.
The committee and its regional rankings have great influence over the seeds and matchups (hey, someone has to), but very little influence over who gets in. At least for the first 25 teams or so.
Quote from: K-Mack on September 28, 2007, 02:14:11 AM
What Ron said.
Unless you're arguing that the NCAA committee members read D3football.com and use our opinions for regional rankings, there's really no link between our polls and the playoffs, which is how it should be.
There are established criteria for the playoffs, beginning with the (now 22?) automatic qualifiers. That means the committee is really only using the criteria to establish the 4? Pool B teams and the 6-7 at-large B/C bids.
The committee and its regional rankings have great influence over the seeds and matchups (hey, someone has to), but very little influence over who gets in. At least for the first 25 teams or so.
Not discussing selection but seeding.
Not really arguing but my point is very close to this. The people that make the final decisions are influenced by what they read. I doubt most of them have the opportunity to witness each of the qualifying teams in action against top notch competition and rely on others as well as what they have read on recognized expert sites and publications. Certainly strenght of schedule deals with rankings in one fashion or another (not refering to the "Strength of Schedule" formula detailed on this sight but during seeding discussions ranked opponents must come up). D3FOOTBALL.COM is certainly one of these sources. Certainly if they see that St. John or UMHB is ranked higher then Fisher all year long on this site, it will impact their final seeding decision. How much, I can't say but I certainly will take issue with the ranking until Fisher loses (hope not) or St. John and UMHB are ranked below them. That's what fans are all about.
Unless you are telling me a computer generates the seedings based on a strict formula, LOL.
Selection or seeding. The NCAA cares not a whit about any poll at any time. Just look at the D-1 basketball seeding. They have their way.
If they cared about seeding, they'd make sure that they'd cough up enough dough so that the first round matchups in the South and West would be...realistic.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on September 28, 2007, 10:36:57 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on September 28, 2007, 02:14:11 AM
What Ron said.
Unless you're arguing that the NCAA committee members read D3football.com and use our opinions for regional rankings, there's really no link between our polls and the playoffs, which is how it should be.
There are established criteria for the playoffs, beginning with the (now 22?) automatic qualifiers. That means the committee is really only using the criteria to establish the 4? Pool B teams and the 6-7 at-large B/C bids.
The committee and its regional rankings have great influence over the seeds and matchups (hey, someone has to), but very little influence over who gets in. At least for the first 25 teams or so.
Not discussing selection but seeding.
Not really arguing but my point is very close to this. The people that make the final decisions are influenced by what they read. I doubt most of them have the opportunity to witness each of the qualifying teams in action against top notch competition and rely on others as well as what they have read on recognized expert sites and publications. Certainly strenght of schedule deals with rankings in one fashion or another (not refering to the "Strength of Schedule" formula detailed on this sight but during seeding discussions ranked opponents must come up). D3FOOTBALL.COM is certainly one of these sources. Certainly if they see that St. John or UMHB is ranked higher then Fisher all year long on this site, it will impact their final seeding decision. How much, I can't say but I certainly will take issue with the ranking until Fisher loses (hope not) or St. John and UMHB are ranked below them. That's what fans are all about.
Unless you are telling me a computer generates the seedings based on a strict formula, LOL.
sjfcclimbing,
Respectfully, I will refer you to the
2007 Football Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf). The Selection process is governed by the Handbook and the information therein. The most important clause in the Handbook is "geographic proximity" to which smedindy refers.
In dealing with the "2006 Millsaps-UMHB-HSU Mappoint SNAFU", I will concede that there are times when the NCAA bureaucracy "drops the ball". (Unfortunately, we ASC fans think that it happens almost annually with our conference.)
The selection process in the 2006 season was very good. The arguments that we had for the 32nd pick were of the quality that one would expect for the last pick.
The Regional Rankings that were published in the weeks preceding the playoffs suggested us the seedings. Although the Handbook does not explicitly declare the date that the regional rankings are done, we can look for them.
If they consulted D3FOOTBALL.COM, the NCAA wouldn't make as many dumbfounded decisions as they do come selection day.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 28, 2007, 12:41:05 PM
sjfcclimbing,
Respectfully, I will refer you to the 2007 Football Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf). The Selection process is governed by the Handbook and the information therein.
Ralph,
What ranking's does the handbook refer to?
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.
sjfc,
I do not see the dates that the committee will release the regional rankings, and I will hope that Pat and K-mack can get those.
For the example, let's go the Men's Basketball Regional Rankings for 2006-07.
You will remember how successful the Cardinals were last year.
Here is the Archive of the Regional Rankings (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/) from the Daily Dose.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on September 28, 2007, 10:28:52 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 28, 2007, 12:41:05 PM
sjfcclimbing,
Respectfully, I will refer you to the 2007 Football Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf). The Selection process is governed by the Handbook and the information therein.
Ralph,
What ranking's does the handbook refer to?
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
I am going to assume that coincidentally the East Regional Rankings match exactly the East Region Teams in the D3Football.com Top 25, and that these results will hold exactly until after the last day of the season (even tho' TCNJ beat MSU tonight.)
1) SJF -- games against Springfield and Alfred to be played.
2) Montclair -- game versus Rowan and win over Springfield
3) Rowan -- game versus Montclair
4) Alfred -- game versus SJF and win over Springfield
5) RPI -- plays no in-region ranked teams
6) Springfield -- game versus SJF plus losses to Montclair and Alfred
The results of games amongst these teams are considered by the selection committee in the seeding and for at-large bids such at Pool C.
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.
Each regional committee does this for every region. The committees usually don't announce the regional rankings until the last 3-4 weeks of the season, but today I would rank SJF as #1 in the East and having the #1 seed for the East Region playoffs.
I hope that helps. :)
Guess some people DO care about the top 25 polls. Ron I miss your column!! It was always factual and not so much editorializing.
Quote from: texgrad69 on September 29, 2007, 08:54:01 AMGuess some people DO care about the top 25 polls. Ron I miss your column!! It was always factual and not so much editorializing.
Ron, they like you, they really like you!
FTR, Columns are where editorializing belongs (as opposed to game stories, news pieces, etc.) ... although we like it when our columnists share educated opinions, not uninformed blathering (I try to limit it, thanks for putting up with me ;) )
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on September 28, 2007, 10:36:57 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on September 28, 2007, 02:14:11 AM
What Ron said.
Unless you're arguing that the NCAA committee members read D3football.com and use our opinions for regional rankings, there's really no link between our polls and the playoffs, which is how it should be.
There are established criteria for the playoffs, beginning with the (now 22?) automatic qualifiers. That means the committee is really only using the criteria to establish the 4? Pool B teams and the 6-7 at-large B/C bids.
The committee and its regional rankings have great influence over the seeds and matchups (hey, someone has to), but very little influence over who gets in. At least for the first 25 teams or so.
Not discussing selection but seeding.
Not really arguing but my point is very close to this. The people that make the final decisions are influenced by what they read. I doubt most of them have the opportunity to witness each of the qualifying teams in action against top notch competition and rely on others as well as what they have read on recognized expert sites and publications. Certainly strenght of schedule deals with rankings in one fashion or another (not refering to the "Strength of Schedule" formula detailed on this sight but during seeding discussions ranked opponents must come up). D3FOOTBALL.COM is certainly one of these sources. Certainly if they see that St. John or UMHB is ranked higher then Fisher all year long on this site, it will impact their final seeding decision. How much, I can't say but I certainly will take issue with the ranking until Fisher loses (hope not) or St. John and UMHB are ranked below them. That's what fans are all about.
Unless you are telling me a computer generates the seedings based on a strict formula, LOL.
Well now you're talking about the seeding of the brackets, not the individual teams, since SJF, SJU and UMHB will never be in the same playoff brackets.
Through 2004, I believe, home sites were determined before the playoffs began on a rotating basis (i.e. East & North would host one year, West & South next, or whatever).
When teams of the same seed made the semifinal round, then and only then would that come into play. For instance, if the No. 1 in the South and the No. 1 in the North advanced, and they were to play each other, they would play at the predetermined site. But if South No. 2 and North No. 1 advanced, they would play at the 1 seed.
Since 2005, after the brackets are assembled, the committee will rank the brackets 1 through 4 in terms of strength in order to determine home sites for semifinal games between teams of the same seed.
This is not necessary before the semis, because each team is already seeded within its bracket, and it's not necessary after because the Stagg Bowl is held at a neutral, predetermined site each year.
I honestly either forget, or that info is not available, but I'm not sure if they seed the brackets based on overall strength or strength of the 1 seed.
In any case, it doesn't often come into play. If the argument is that the D3football.com rankings affect that ranking, I would not be too concerned with it.
Home field is a nice advantage, but teams have won semifinals on the road. Also, it's very likely the committee could deduce the same thing our site/poll would deduce in regard to which bracket to rank 1, 2, 3 and 4.
One more to come ...
Actually, the last regional rotation was 1998.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 28, 2007, 10:56:29 PM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on September 28, 2007, 10:28:52 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 28, 2007, 12:41:05 PM
sjfcclimbing,
Respectfully, I will refer you to the 2007 Football Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf). The Selection process is governed by the Handbook and the information therein.
Ralph,
What ranking's does the handbook refer to?
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
I am going to assume that coincidentally the East Regional Rankings match exactly the East Region Teams in the D3Football.com Top 25, and that these results will hold exactly until after the last day of the season (even tho' TCNJ beat MSU tonight.)
1) SJF -- games against Springfield and Alfred to be played.
2) Montclair -- game versus Rowan and win over Springfield
3) Rowan -- game versus Montclair
4) Alfred -- game versus SJF and win over Springfield
5) RPI -- plays no in-region ranked teams
6) Springfield -- game versus SJF plus losses to Montclair and Alfred
The results of games amongst these teams are considered by the selection committee in the seeding and for at-large bids such at Pool C.
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.
Each regional committee does this for every region. The committees usually don't announce the regional rankings until the last 3-4 weeks of the season, but today I would rank SJF as #1 in the East and having the #1 seed for the East Region playoffs.
I hope that helps. :)
OK,
Kind of lost track who was asking what here, but a couple points to emphasize.
1) The committee does do its own rankings for each region late in the season, and they are the rankings to which the handbook refers.
2) Those rankings often do NOT reflect the D3football.com polls at the time they come out, largely because the poll voters judge the entire body of work, while the playoff committee is charged with evaluating Division III games within a team's region first, then other results. The regional rankings, I believe, are done only considering a team's regional results, which then might be a more accurate reflection of where they will fall in the playoff seeding scenario, but not their actual overall strength.
There were some other points, but I think most were touched on.
As to the overall point of people are influenced by what they read, well sure. But again, I'm not sure what kind of influence we wield over playoff seeding (or selection).
As JT noted, some people wish it was more.
As we learned a few hours ago, Fisher has more pressing worries than playoff seeding anyway. But a fine discussion it is.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 30, 2007, 12:03:37 AM
Actually, the last regional rotation was 1998.
I'm inclined to believe you, but I am fairly certain I have dealt with predetermined semifinal sites in the D3football.com era, otherwise where would I have come up with that idea?
You aren't saying that the last time predetermined sites were actually used was 98, are you?
I am saying that. It's true, even. :)
OK, I don't think I asked my question right, so not sure if you understood it.
Predetermined sites were in effect in years beyond 1998, they were just never needed.
There was a scenario in 04 maybe, when Del Val was the 1 seed in the South (I think, not the East) and would have hosted Mount Union in the semis ... if they had gone on to win their bracket.
Without digging out the book, I'm guessing that was the year Bridgewater ultimately went out to MUC.
Not saying that couldn't have been the case under seeded brackets, but pretty sure I remember the discussion over it being determined at random during Selection Sunday.
Maybe not though.
That's not the same thing. Those aren't predetermined -- there are regions who will host if the same seed advances in both. That has been the status quo since 1999.
But that's not really predetermined. Before 1999, it was decided before the season started that, for example, East would travel to West. That would be true even if the East's No. 1 seed played the West's No. 4 seed. That's how Mount Union had to occasionally play road games in the playoffs, because the North would only host every other year.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 30, 2007, 12:36:44 AM
That's not the same thing. Those aren't predetermined -- there are regions who will host if the same seed advances in both. That has been the status quo since 1999.
But that's not really predetermined. Before 1999, it was decided before the season started that, for example, East would travel to West. That would be true even if the East's No. 1 seed played the West's No. 4 seed. That's how Mount Union had to occasionally play road games in the playoffs, because the North would only host every other year.
OK, I said I would quite when Fisher loss and it came alot sooner then I thought. They are still a great team but they do have issues (glad we don't have any more night games) and big problems now with SC and AU ahead. I am not sure you folks have total agreement on this so feel free to work it out.
Del Val was the top seed in the East in 2005 when they lost to Rowan at home in the regional finals.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 30, 2007, 12:36:44 AM
That's not the same thing. Those aren't predetermined -- there are regions who will host if the same seed advances in both. That has been the status quo since 1999.
But that's not really predetermined. Before 1999, it was decided before the season started that, for example, East would travel to West. That would be true even if the East's No. 1 seed played the West's No. 4 seed. That's how Mount Union had to occasionally play road games in the playoffs, because the North would only host every other year.
Gotcha.
So, for those following at home, here's what you need to know:
There are regions who will host if the same seed advances in both. That has been the status quo since 1999.
;)
With regard to the actual top 25, I was curious about how it would shake out.
I won't give away all of my thoughts for the column, but we are now at the point where there are weird triangles or quadrangles voters have to deal with. Some score strings help (i.e. Olaf crushed Gustavus, who beat Willamette, who beat Linfield) and some don't (Wesley lost to Montclair, who lost to TCNJ, who lost to 4-0 Muhlenberg ... so is the CC stronger this year than the NJAC or ACFC, or are they just fluky results?)
OK, the second one not a great example of what I'm trying to get at. Empire 8 maybe, is Hartwick that good? One close win might be a fluke, two you have to consider them real. But how real?
At this point, you have a lot of teams (especially those who play decent competition) with blemishes, and you have to figure out how heavily to weight certain blemishes.
Also there's the issue with so many top 25 teams losing that a team could have bad week but win (St. John's) or just play a first-year opponent (W&J, Trinity) and move up much more than that particular win should.
At this point, you're almost better off stripping it down to zero and re-ranking on entire bodies of work (which some people do each week anyway)
Anyway ... that might re-appear in ATN in a more well-thought-out manner :)
Hartwick losing its only road game by four touchdowns has to be a red flag until they go on the road again.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 01, 2007, 01:34:37 AM
Hartwick losing its only road game by four touchdowns has to be a red flag until they go on the road again.
At WNEC no less.
Maybe it means the NEFC is the new Eastern power conference.
Ooh, would you look at the time, must be time for me to go. ;)
Pat and K-Mack,
When do you two sleep?
Sleep is highly overrated. ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on October 01, 2007, 01:13:13 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 30, 2007, 12:36:44 AM
That's not the same thing. Those aren't predetermined -- there are regions who will host if the same seed advances in both. That has been the status quo since 1999.
But that's not really predetermined. Before 1999, it was decided before the season started that, for example, East would travel to West. That would be true even if the East's No. 1 seed played the West's No. 4 seed. That's how Mount Union had to occasionally play road games in the playoffs, because the North would only host every other year.
Gotcha.
So, for those following at home, here's what you need to know:
There are regions who will host if the same seed advances in both. That has been the status quo since 1999.
;)
So who hosts who this year, if they are of the same seed?
It's announced with the bracket on Selection Sunday.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 01, 2007, 09:32:50 AM
Pat and K-Mack,
When do you two sleep?
I can't speak for Pat, but approx. between 5 and 9 a.m. and then whenever my kids nap.
This is part of the reason why I don't do the Hoops site. I can only keep that pace up for 4 months or so.
Pat is a freak of nature.
As for your karma, Dutch, I'm doing all I can to get you close to zero, bruh. What ARE you saying to those Wartburg guys to tick them off so?
DF2004 dropped some politics commentary on the board a couple weeks ago and went from minus-2 to ... something lower.
I manage to sleep 6 or so a night.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 03, 2007, 11:03:15 AM
DF2004 dropped some politics commentary on the board a couple weeks ago and went from minus-2 to ... something lower.
I manage to sleep 6 or so a night.
Ah, politics. Nothing like that, race or religion to draw folks' ire.
I also sleep six hours on a good night, and can get to 8 when combined with a solid, well-timed nap from the children.
I do NOT consider sleep overrated. It's like pizza, even the bad sleep (Airplane middle seat, passenger seat of the Patmobile) is still pretty good.
The political comment hurt some. I appreciate your comments and Karma. I have tried to be good to the Wartburg guys. I have no problem with them. I haven't had any problems lately. I got on a rant and choose some words that were not in the best interest of football but couldn't think of any other analogy to fit the situation. As far as the Karma thing I went from a -15 to a -19 from Sat night posting the pickems to Sunday morning when I checked it. Since then I am back up to -10. I don't mind the -k for the polictal bomb but it seemed that if I posted the sky was blue this morning someone was handing out the -k. IMHO to do that is just uncalled for. I really have enjoyed your pod cast of ATN. I have forgot to give you to props for that. It really gives a feel for what has gone on over the week end. Thanks to Pat and K-Mack for all you two do for the D3 kids.
Something to keep in mind is just because a post is not your most recent post doesn't mean someone isn't reading it for the first time.
Yes Pat that had occured to me.
Dutch, responding over on the ATN thread since my response is really unrelated to the top 25. Trying to get the thread back on track.
Hey, how 'bout them Oles!?!?! ;)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 02, 2007, 07:55:47 AM
It's announced with the bracket on Selection Sunday.
Not trying to be difficult. I don't see anything in the handbook that defines the basis for the region to region decision, how is it decided?
Not sure what you mean by region to region distinction.
If you're asking how they seed the brackets against each other, it's basically a ranking of the No. 1 seeds in each bracket. The No. 1 and No. 2 top seeds' brackets get the home-field advantage if equal seeds advance to the semifinals.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2007, 11:52:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by region to region distinction.
If you're asking how they seed the brackets against each other, it's basically a ranking of the No. 1 seeds in each bracket. The No. 1 and No. 2 top seeds' brackets get the home-field advantage if equal seeds advance to the semifinals.
Let me try an example, say by crazy coincidence all #1 seeds advance from the regional brackets. How is it decided which region will play which region and who would host the games?
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 07, 2007, 02:07:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2007, 11:52:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by region to region distinction.
If you're asking how they seed the brackets against each other, it's basically a ranking of the No. 1 seeds in each bracket. The No. 1 and No. 2 top seeds' brackets get the home-field advantage if equal seeds advance to the semifinals.
Let me try an example, say by crazy coincidence all #1 seeds advance from the regional brackets. How is it decided which region will play which region and who would host the games?
Page 12-14 (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf) from the 2007 NCAA D3 Football Championships Handbook answers these questions. :)
The selection committee will use the primary (and secondary if necessary) selection criteria to determine those seeds.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 07, 2007, 02:07:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2007, 11:52:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by region to region distinction.
If you're asking how they seed the brackets against each other, it's basically a ranking of the No. 1 seeds in each bracket. The No. 1 and No. 2 top seeds' brackets get the home-field advantage if equal seeds advance to the semifinals.
Let me try an example, say by crazy coincidence all #1 seeds advance from the regional brackets. How is it decided which region will play which region and who would host the games?
Page 12-14 (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf) from the 2007 NCAA D3 Football Championships Handbook answers these questions. :)
The selection committee will use the primary (and secondary if necessary) selection criteria to determine those seeds.
I have read this handbook and, obviously, I am missing something. The sections you refence do show criteria for seeding within the regional brackets but do not indicate any criteria for the selection of which region faces which region if the same seeds emerge from the regional bracket and which would be the home team.
Thanks for the question. I understand the "bracket seeding" to occur once the brackets have been filled and the #1 seeds of each bracket are then "bracketed" at that time, e.g., South #1 hosting West #1 and North #1 hosting East #1, using the criteria stated in the handbook.
I will appreciate any corrections.
Thanks.
Thanks PA_Wesleyan! +1 :)
Ralph
Let me give it a shot
sjfc
The top seeds in each region are seeded as well ,,,So Mt Union is #1(#1 north) UMHB #2(#1 south)Rowan #3(#1 east) and Redlands #4(#1 west) and so on ...But a #2 or #3 from one region can't host a higher rated team from another region.
Is it my imagination or is the poll coming out later and later these past two weeks?
It's out now.
I really can't fathom how ONU loses 44-0 and drops only two spots from 9 to 11. Unbelievable.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 09:34:57 PM
It's out now.
I really can't fathom how ONU loses 44-0 and drops only two spots from 9 to 11. Unbelievable.
Why?
1. They lost to Mt. Union.
2. Wartburg, La Crosse and Trinity all lost.
If those three teams all won, they'd be 14 or so.
That's the kind of thing that causes people to question the credibility of the poll, smed.
No it doesn't! Everyone who knows about this poll knows about Mt. Union, so basically, I think ONU gets a pass on that game. It's perfectly reasonable to me!
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 07, 2007, 09:01:39 PM
Is it my imagination or is the poll coming out later and later these past two weeks?
IIAC voter among the last to file. :)
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 09:42:09 PM
That's the kind of thing that causes people to question the credibility of the poll, smed.
Only the AFCA voters would find that incredible. We'll see how far ONU drops in that poll.
Just like UWW dropped for losing on the road to a D-II team, so the AFCA had UWW 8 doing into the game at No. 4 UWL. We had UWW ranked higher, which turned out to be correct.
All this before UWL lost its quarterback, of course.
I do like the work/analyzation that must have went into moving St. Olaf up in the poll from #18 to #13 after almost upsetting St. Johns in Collegeville, and that being its only loss. In most other polls, they would have moved down, or at the best stayed where they were, simply because they lost.
I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears shouldn't be ranked--even in the top 20. But only dropping them two spots after getting blown out is giving way too much of a Mt. Union cushion. They should be somewhere between 15-20 after a--wait on it--44 point blowout loss.
Nobody should get a pass for losing by 44, smed. Keeping it close or even respectable is a different story--but not the case, here. You've been around these boards long enough that you should know that by now.
Quote from: Foss on October 07, 2007, 09:53:39 PM
I do like the work/analyzation that must have went into moving St. Olaf up in the poll from #18 to #13 after almost upsetting St. Johns in Collegeville, and that being its only loss. In most other polls, they would have moved down, or at the best stayed where they were, simply because they lost.
Foss, you beat me to posting about this very thing.
I think it's great that Olaf moved up five spots despite losing. That's a testiment to them being a good team -- which is what I think is the case -- rather than to thinking that the Johnnies weren't playing up to snuff. The poll accepts the very real likelihood that that MIAC has two very good teams in it this year.
But, I have to ask, is this the biggest jump in the Top 25 poll that a team has made after losing? Obviously, I'm not questioning it, just asking the Web site of record. :)
Well better late than never I guess. We out here have never been extremely fast. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ryan, that's a good question. I don't ever recall seeing a team who lost jump 5 spots in the D3 poll, although I'm sure you'll get a definative answer.
One thing I have seen from the D3 pollsters is that they really vote where they believe a team should be based on how good the team is, not if the lost a game or not. St Olaf is a good example of this as mentioned. St Olaf with their performance was rewarded for playing a good game and almost beating the #4 team in the nation. Last week UWL did not move for the loss to #3. I agreed with all those. I think the ONU going down farther may happen as in the case of UWL if ONU suffers another loss. Just cause you suffer a loss to #1 does not mean you should move down. If #1 is as good as advertised (and I think they are) then they may roll over any and all teams. That does not make the losing team any worse rankings wise IMHO.
One thing I have seen from the D3 pollsters is that they really vote where they believe a team should be based on how good the team is, not if the lost a game or not. St Olaf is a good example of this as mentioned. St Olaf with their performance was rewarded for playing a good game and almost beating the #4 team in the nation. Last week UWL did not move for the loss to #3. I agreed with all those. I think the ONU going down farther may happen as in the case of UWL if ONU suffers another loss. Just cause you suffer a loss to #1 does not mean you should move down. If #1 is as good as advertised (and I think they are) then they may roll over any and all teams. That does not make the losing team any worse rankings wise IMHO.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 10:07:57 PM
I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears shouldn't be ranked--even in the top 20. But only dropping them two spots after getting blown out is giving way too much of a Mt. Union cushion. They should be somewhere between 15-20 after a--wait on it--44 point blowout loss.
Nobody should get a pass for losing by 44, smed. Keeping it close or even respectable is a different story--but not the case, here. You've been around these boards long enough that you should know that by now.
Josh - it's a function of what else happened in the poll as well. They had 309 points this week - last week they had 401. That's 91 points. Last week 309 would have put them at 14th, but with all of the upsets I think the poll was quite unsettled.
Statistically speaking, roughly 300 points from 25 voters equates out to a poll position of 14--straight average. Since they're in at 11, it can only mean that there's a polar bi-modal distribution of votes for the Polar Bears--several voters having them really high and several voters having them significantly lower.
Last week, with roughly 400 points, their statistical average position based on that number of points was 10--and that's close enough to their previous poll position of 9 to make the assumption that almost every voter had them between 7-11 on their ballot last week.
I'd love to see the actual poll position distribution, because my guess is that the final number is skewed this week for that very reason.
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 10:27:03 PM
Statistically speaking, roughly 300 points from 25 voters equates out to a poll position of 14--straight average. Since they're in at 11, it can only mean that there's a polar bi-modal distribution of votes for the Polar Bears--several voters having them really high and several voters having them significantly lower.
I'd love to see the actual poll position distribution, because my guess is that the final number is skewed this week for that very reason.
I think several teams have that distribution this week. That will happen in a week o' upsets.
For Wartburg to be still ranked in the top 25 after a loss to Augsburg at home is a gift.
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on October 07, 2007, 10:08:23 PM
Quote from: Foss on October 07, 2007, 09:53:39 PM
I do like the work/analyzation that must have went into moving St. Olaf up in the poll from #18 to #13 after almost upsetting St. Johns in Collegeville, and that being its only loss. In most other polls, they would have moved down, or at the best stayed where they were, simply because they lost.
Foss, you beat me to posting about this very thing.
I think it's great that Olaf moved up five spots despite losing. That's a testiment to them being a good team -- which is what I think is the case -- rather than to thinking that the Johnnies weren't playing up to snuff. The poll accepts the very real likelihood that that MIAC has two very good teams in it this year.
But, I have to ask, is this the biggest jump in the Top 25 poll that a team has made after losing? Obviously, I'm not questioning it, just asking the Web site of record. :)
Ryan,
Sorry -- I don't have an easy way to research that, sorry.
Coming from a Linfield fan who's team has gotten the benefit of the doubt in the polls the last few months, I thought the ONU ranking was a bit of a stretch only dropping 2 spots after getting destroyed 44-0. I agree you should get a pass much like UWL got a couple of weeks ago, but they didn't lose by 44.
After reading Smed's explanation, it makes a bit more sense to me and I can see the deal now...the one I can't understand however is St. Olaf moving up five spots! To me that is rediculous...A loss is a loss. If you want to say they get a pass because SJU is really tough fine...but up five spots...that's debatable???
I guess that's why a it's called a poll. :)
Indeed, and why they are rankings and not standings.
If someone goes to the No. 4 team and plays them within one point on the road, where should they be ranked? No. 22? Seems unlikely.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 07, 2007, 09:46:49 PM
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 07, 2007, 09:01:39 PM
Is it my imagination or is the poll coming out later and later these past two weeks?
IIAC voter among the last to file. :)
The deadline is 3 p.m. and it's incumbent on the 25 voters to meet or come close (yours truly) to meeting that time so it can be out by early evening. It's one of those things where you can't scrap it and throw up a poll with 23 voters, you need to track the missing guys down. And that's not as easy as it sounds if they are coaches reviewing film (video, right Pat?) with their teams or spending time with their families or travelling.
I guess that's my understanding, I shouldn't imply I have extra insight into the process. I've always wondered about having backup voters in case of this, but what would happen is, given the variance among any two ballots, teams could show what I'll term 'false movement' in the polls if the same 25 people aren't voting each week.
For instance, if I have Wesley ranked 20th and the backup voter has them ranked 10th, and I miss a week, but then I vote in time the next week, with Wesley back at 20, they have gone up and down without it being a reaction to what they're doing on the field.
So we're kind of stuck with how it works.
Although I generally think the poll is correct, I do think ONU losing at home by 44 should merit a more than 2 position drop.
On the other hand, I do agree with the St. Olaf movement to a certain degree.
Quote from: downtown48 on October 08, 2007, 12:06:23 AM
Coming from a Linfield fan who's team has gotten the benefit of the doubt in the polls the last few months, I thought the ONU ranking was a bit of a stretch only dropping 2 spots after getting destroyed 44-0. I agree you should get a pass much like UWL got a couple of weeks ago, but they didn't lose by 44.
After reading Smed's explanation, it makes a bit more sense to me and I can see the deal now...the one I can't understand however is St. Olaf moving up five spots! To me that is rdiculous...A loss is a loss. If you want to say they get a pass because SJU is really tough fine...but up five spots...that's debatable???
I guess that's why a it's called a poll. :)
St Olaf lost by one on the road at Collegeville...
Please name me the five toughest venues in D3 in this mid decade...
Any objections to...
1) MUC
2) UWW
3) Catdome
4) UMHB
5) Collegeville? ? ?
Where else is tougher?
St Olaf even took votes out of SJU.
I see the poll as breaking out this way...
1) MUC
2) UMHB
3) UWW
4-7) SJU/Wheaton/Central/Capital
8 ) SJF
9-10) W&J/Wesley
11-12) ONU/Salisbury
13) St Olaf
14-16) Wabash/Alfred/UWEC
17-20) Wartburg/UWL/Montclair/Linfield
21-22) Oxy/UWSP
23-25) Trinity/TCNJ/Whitworth.
Also 26-30 are crammed in there, too. Whitworth gets 66 votes, but the next 5 teams go RPI 57, Muhlenberg 48, Franklin 45, HSU 40, and MSJ 39. Franklin and MSJ settle their score this weekend.
We are up to 49 teams receiving votes. The mid-season upsets are causing some rethinking of the "second tier" schools. The Receiving Votes group got 474 votes compared to 356 after
Week 4 Poll -- 2007 (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3581.795). In
week #6 of 2006 (http://www.d3football.com/top25.php?year=2006&week=6), only 41 teams received votes, and the vote total for 26-41 was only 226 votes.
Quote from: smedindy on October 07, 2007, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 09:42:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 07, 2007, 09:40:44 PM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 09:34:57 PM
It's out now.
I really can't fathom how ONU loses 44-0 and drops only two spots from 9 to 11. Unbelievable.
Why?
1. They lost to Mt. Union.
2. Wartburg, La Crosse and Trinity all lost.
If those three teams all won, they'd be 14 or so.
That's the kind of thing that causes people to question the credibility of the poll, smed.
No it doesn't! Everyone who knows about this poll knows about Mt. Union, so basically, I think ONU gets a pass on that game. It's perfectly reasonable to me!
Well,
I tend to agree with Smed here. Mount Union has made a habit of making other very good, even top 10, Division III teams look very bad. The voters have grown accustomed to this and treat bad losses to MUC with a grain of salt. A couple years ago John Caroll lost to MUC 70-0 and finished 7-3, including a 25-point win against 8-2 Ohio Northern. Then there are the playoff games against Augustana and John Carroll, etc.
I also agree about the other top 25 teams that fell making it tough to drop ONU much further. As I said to you the other day, Josh, you get to a point in the poll where maybe you don't think a team is worth a vote that high, but
someone has to go there. You can't rank 1-9 and then five 14s. :)
I have much bigger beefs about the poll this week, which I will write about with more clarity in ATN, I assume. But a sampling:
Wartburg and Trinity fell completely off my ballot. Given the top 25 events of the past two weeks, the bump-up style of voting wasn't cutting it for me. I had to re-evaluate from scratch, which meant comparing one-loss teams of similar ilk. If Millsaps and Trinity were compared, for example, Trinity lost at Rhodes by two TDs, Millsaps beat them 42-0. Millsaps also has a 1-point loss to a 4-1 team also receiving votes, Trinity lost to a 3-2 teams which has wins against LaGrange and Birm.-Southern.
I'm not calling our voters lazy as some people do, just saying that's the kind of time I put in and the way I have to look at things some weeks. Some weeks the results are predictable enough you can slide people up and down without too much effort, sometimes you have to tear down and rebuild the whole thing.
Poll voting / inexact science = same
Yes, Keith! I agree that this next week's poll may be the time when the other voters tear down the poll and start over.
I believe that we are seeing this in that 49 teams are getting votes, as I discussed above.
We should also see some more shuffling as conference play deepens.
It is almost like this season is seeing a "changing of the guard" in many conferences.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 08, 2007, 12:21:31 AM
If someone goes to the No. 4 team and plays them within one point on the road, where should they be ranked? No. 22? Seems unlikely.
I agree...they shouldn't drop from 18 to 22 but I just don't think they should jump 5 spots...the best part about this though is we'll have playoffs at the end of the year!!
Ralph, I've got no problem with the venues although Linfield has lost home playoff games...of course those were to SJU and UWW but home nonetheless...other than that it's been pretty tough!
Quote from: K-Mack on October 08, 2007, 12:48:18 AM
I also agree about the other top 25 teams that fell making it tough to drop ONU much further. As I said to you the other day, Josh, you get to a point in the poll where maybe you don't think a team is worth a vote that high, but someone has to go there. You can rank 1-9 and then five 14s. :)
For me that spot was 11. :) I wasn't happy with any possible No. 11 team.
Regarding St. Olaf, there are two things at work here:
1) When you have two teams go down to the wire like that, much like UW-W and UW-L did last week, you have an either-team-could-have-won situation. So if a game basically came down to who had the ball last or was what you might call a toss-up, how can you have 20 spots between them in the rankings? If you believe they are basically even? Now, that has a greater effect IMHO earlier in the season, when there is less other data to gauge the teams by. I actually moved UW-L up to one spot behind where I had Whitewater after last week. But that wouldn't have been so easy if there weren't ...
2) A lack of other convincing performances by teams you think "deserve to move up." In weeks like the past two, when a handful of top 10s and 25s have lost or struggled, or just played not-strong competition (how far can you really move W&J after a 64-6 win against St. Vincent? Or Trinity vs. BSU?), it becomes a situation where you might downgrade your opinion of a particular team, but no one or not many arise to take their place, so their spot remains virtually unchanged. Given the losses mentioned already on this thread this week, it should help to explain why ONU didn't fall further. ONU is not playing in a vacuum. They are being judged against their peers, and if their peers also don't perform, then we might have several teams we're not as convinced about as we were last week, but the numbers 9 and 11 don't necessarily reflect that.
Also, I don't have time to get into it now, but I don't think a loss is a loss in the minds of voters. A team can most certainly prove a lot even if it doesn't win, esp. when two top 25s are engaging in battle and someone has to lose. Doesn't mean one must come off looking bad, necessarily ...
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 10:07:57 PM
I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears shouldn't be ranked--even in the top 20. But only dropping them two spots after getting blown out is giving way too much of a Mt. Union cushion. They should be somewhere between 15-20 after a--wait on it--44 point blowout loss.
Nobody should get a pass for losing by 44, smed. Keeping it close or even respectable is a different story--but not the case, here. You've been around these boards long enough that you should know that by now.
What about a 47-14 loss? How much cushion do you allow for that?
Sorry. That was mean. Couldn't resist.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 08, 2007, 01:29:58 AM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 10:07:57 PM
I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears shouldn't be ranked--even in the top 20. But only dropping them two spots after getting blown out is giving way too much of a Mt. Union cushion. They should be somewhere between 15-20 after a--wait on it--44 point blowout loss.
Nobody should get a pass for losing by 44, smed. Keeping it close or even respectable is a different story--but not the case, here. You've been around these boards long enough that you should know that by now.
What about a 47-14 loss? How much cushion do you allow for that?
Sorry. That was mean. Couldn't resist.
Wow! I'll say this about HSU and the HSU faithful (there are a few, they were in the stands). Most of the people I talked with on campus this week were pretty sure of the outcome. One of the biggest HSU homers I know said if MHB & HSU both show up with their best games its MHB by 3 td's.
I'll agree with you there. I gave HSU more chance than anyone I talked to did. It looked OK at the half, the prospects for a decent game did, and UMHB just floored it. HSU's offense not being able to stay on the field doesn't help any when it's not a dominant D to begin with, and then they have to watch UMHB do hockey-like line changes on the OL. Killer.
Another neat thing is that people at McMurry knew about the HSU game and cared (some) ... Very rare you talk to anyone in town besides alumni (or people connected in some other way) of a D3 school, and they know now only who is playing that day, but how significant.
Then again, that might just be Texas. Where the ladies, the geeks, the children, they can all talk football right along with your stereotypical guy fan. :)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 08, 2007, 12:47:33 AM
Quote from: downtown48 on October 08, 2007, 12:06:23 AM
Coming from a Linfield fan who's team has gotten the benefit of the doubt in the polls the last few months, I thought the ONU ranking was a bit of a stretch only dropping 2 spots after getting destroyed 44-0. I agree you should get a pass much like UWL got a couple of weeks ago, but they didn't lose by 44.
After reading Smed's explanation, it makes a bit more sense to me and I can see the deal now...the one I can't understand however is St. Olaf moving up five spots! To me that is rdiculous...A loss is a loss. If you want to say they get a pass because SJU is really tough fine...but up five spots...that's debatable???
I guess that's why a it's called a poll. :)
St Olaf lost by one on the road at Collegeville...
Please name me the five toughest venues in D3 in this mid decade...
Any objections to...
1) MUC
2) UWW
3) Catdome
4) UMHB
5) Collegeville? ? ?
Where else is tougher?
Well, small sample size, RT, but comparing Catdome to Clemens using the occupants .... only one team has won at both places. :)
In its last 120 games dating back to 1987, SJU has a record of 107-12-1 in Collegeville about 90 percent.
Or starting in 2000 to present 46-5 for SJU by a very quick count. UMHB is 36-5. Linfield 38-6. UWW with some middle of the pack season in tough WIAC is 35-7. Won't even worry about MUC ...
Of course, all schedules are not alike -- a key factor. While schedule probably hurts SJU worse than others here, the Johnnies' can counter with a 9-0 home playoff mark during the period.
Can't vouch for the math . . . it's 2:30 a.m.and I'm sitting here on painkillers for a broken foot.
Thanks repete, for helping me to make the case for how impressive the St Olaf's performance was last weekend. :)
Quote from: K-Mack on October 08, 2007, 02:12:39 AM
Another neat thing is that people at McMurry knew about the HSU game and cared (some) ... Very rare you talk to anyone in town besides alumni (or people connected in some other way) of a D3 school, and they know now only who is playing that day, but how significant.
Then again, that might just be Texas. Where the ladies, the geeks, the children, they can all talk football right along with your stereotypical guy fan. :)
I know ladies that talk football so much that they could make the typical guy fan question his guyness. ;D
And yes, that is probably a Texas thing.
Quote from: mhb8904 on October 08, 2007, 07:46:35 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 08, 2007, 02:12:39 AM
Another neat thing is that people at McMurry knew about the HSU game and cared (some) ... Very rare you talk to anyone in town besides alumni (or people connected in some other way) of a D3 school, and they know now only who is playing that day, but how significant.
Then again, that might just be Texas. Where the ladies, the geeks, the children, they can all talk football right along with your stereotypical guy fan. :)
I know ladies that talk football so much that they could make the typical guy fan question his guyness. ;D
And yes, that is probably a Texas thing.
And I've seen plently of ladies that should be PLAYING football.
That must be a Midwest thing ;)
Quote from: K-Mack on October 08, 2007, 01:29:58 AM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 10:07:57 PM
I'm not suggesting the Polar Bears shouldn't be ranked--even in the top 20. But only dropping them two spots after getting blown out is giving way too much of a Mt. Union cushion. They should be somewhere between 15-20 after a--wait on it--44 point blowout loss.
Nobody should get a pass for losing by 44, smed. Keeping it close or even respectable is a different story--but not the case, here. You've been around these boards long enough that you should know that by now.
What about a 47-14 loss? How much cushion do you allow for that?
Sorry. That was mean. Couldn't resist.
You don't allow any--that's why HSU falls out of the poll, and rightly so, IMO. I'd be willing to give a first-loss ONU a three TD cushion against Mount Union without dropping them more than 3-5 slots, but not a six TD cushion.
Quote from: hscoach on October 08, 2007, 10:31:08 AM
Quote from: mhb8904 on October 08, 2007, 07:46:35 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 08, 2007, 02:12:39 AM
Another neat thing is that people at McMurry knew about the HSU game and cared (some) ... Very rare you talk to anyone in town besides alumni (or people connected in some other way) of a D3 school, and they know now only who is playing that day, but how significant.
Then again, that might just be Texas. Where the ladies, the geeks, the children, they can all talk football right along with your stereotypical guy fan. :)
I know ladies that talk football so much that they could make the typical guy fan question his guyness. ;D
And yes, that is probably a Texas thing.
And I've seen plently of ladies that should be PLAYING football.
That must be a Midwest thing ;)
It's a Texas thing when the first pick for your flag football team is also your date for Saturday night, but you chose her because she is a great receiver. ;)
Kind of like when you choose your date for a Minnesota snowmobile party. Find one who can help get you unstuck.
Sometimes I wonder what happened to "Beef" Wallace ... well, not really.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 08, 2007, 01:42:20 PM
It's a Texas thing when the first pick for your flag football team is also your date for Saturday night, but you chose her because she is a great receiver. ;)
Umm... for the date or the football game?
Quote from: TC on October 08, 2007, 04:34:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 08, 2007, 01:42:20 PM
It's a Texas thing when the first pick for your flag football team is also your date for Saturday night, but you chose her because she is a great receiver. ;)
Umm... for the date or the football game?
;D
Texas women are the finest in the world!
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 07, 2007, 10:27:03 PM
Statistically speaking, roughly 300 points from 25 voters equates out to a poll position of 14--straight average. Since they're in at 11, it can only mean that there's a polar bi-modal distribution of votes........
ONU, more than any other team by far, must benefit from this
polar bi-modal distribution of votes. Add in the fact we ARE talking about a
pole (oh, did I misspell that - my bad :)) and I can see where they would have an advantage.
Sorry, I couldn't resist anymore. Surely I was not the only person to spot this, maybe just the cheesiest to actually write it. Josh, I actually thought ONU might fall a little further myself (even with the three other teams in that area of the poll losing), but only to about 13th, so 11th wasn't a huge deal to me.
On a different note and in the same vein with the St. Olaf poll move, I heard an interview with ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit today, who I think has to be one of the best that covers the FBS division. He said after watching the Cal-Oregon game last week (where #6 at the time California defeated #11 at the time Oregon by a touchdown) he actually moved Oregon UP to #5 on his ballot. He said he wasn't going to penalize Oregon for losing to a top team when they basically played Cal (his #3 that week) even (Oregon gave Cal a couple of gift turnovers in the 4th quarter and their WR had the ball knocked out while reaching for the tying score in the final seconds). He said he was surprised to see Oregon actually fall a few spots to #14 after such an impressive performance. But, he said, after having a bye this week, they moved up 5 whole spots to #9! (Probably due to a number of teams ahead of them losing)
What if St. Johns just had an off game?
Everyone that is a fan of the "Even though they lost, they get moved up 5 spots" if St. Olaf loses to Concordia-Moorehead this weekend, would you then support St. Olaf dropping 13 spots out of the Top 25?
and no, I am not posting this because Wabash is #14, I actually think they are ranked a little too high.
One person moving a team up (Oregon) on their personal ballot, did not affect the poll as a whole.
I completely admit that this is the best poll by far covering D3, but a jump like that after a loss would never happen in the AP or even USA Today.
Even Stanford has a good game every once in awhile ;)
Wouldn't think that anyone would believe that one person's vote in the AP or USA Today poll would influence the poll as a whole. It was one voter's opinion and vote.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 07, 2007, 11:33:29 PM
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on October 07, 2007, 10:08:23 PM
Quote from: Foss on October 07, 2007, 09:53:39 PM
I do like the work/analyzation that must have went into moving St. Olaf up in the poll from #18 to #13 after almost upsetting St. Johns in Collegeville, and that being its only loss. In most other polls, they would have moved down, or at the best stayed where they were, simply because they lost.
Foss, you beat me to posting about this very thing.
I think it's great that Olaf moved up five spots despite losing. That's a testiment to them being a good team -- which is what I think is the case -- rather than to thinking that the Johnnies weren't playing up to snuff. The poll accepts the very real likelihood that that MIAC has two very good teams in it this year.
But, I have to ask, is this the biggest jump in the Top 25 poll that a team has made after losing? Obviously, I'm not questioning it, just asking the Web site of record. :)
Ryan,
Sorry -- I don't have an easy way to research that, sorry.
How about the hard way then? A slow night at work inspired me to do just that.
From what I could tell, clicking on every week going back to 2003, there has been only one other time that a team has lost and moved up in the rankings. And, the funny thing is, that loss was also to St. John's. In Week 7 of 2005, Concordia-Moorhead went from 13th up to 12th after losing 20-16 to the Johnnies.
It's good to have St. John's as a conference foe, it seems.
Feel free to point out my uber-retentiveness now. ;) :P
And that was a pretty amazing finish as well:
00:13 SJU - K. Gearman 74 yd pass from A. Kofoed (A. Schmidt kick failed), 1-74 0:12, SJU 20 - CC 16
Quote from: bashbrother on October 08, 2007, 09:06:14 PM
I completely admit that this is the best poll by far covering D3, but a jump like that after a loss would never happen in the AP or even USA Today.
Remember, the voting totals this week were all kinds of funky, and apparently lots of spread on some teams. So I'm not shocked, nor stunned.
However, just because it doesn't happen in the AP and USA Today polls doesn't mean it's right. Many times, a team loses a close game to the top ranked team on the road, shows their mettle, and gets penalized for losing when they showed they may be second or third best team.
Smed -
Agreed, with so much shuffling in the poll, it becomes somewhat crazy.
Case in point, I went and watched the 2nd half of the South Florida / FAU game. South Florida is a very good football team, but are they the 5th best team in the country? Nope, don't think so. Top 15..yes But the Top ten has been a revolving door this year and thus, S. Florida, B. College and others are most likely ranked too high.
I would not have a problem with a team losing to a highly ranked opponent and not moving in the poll (up or down) or even moving a spot or two.
I am sure St. Olaf is a talented team and may even deserve the ranking, my posts have really had nothing to do with their team. Just something I have never seen before, thats all.
Ryan, +karma for the research.
Quote from: repete on October 08, 2007, 10:17:46 PM
And that was a pretty amazing finish as well:
00:13 SJU - K. Gearman 74 yd pass from A. Kofoed (A. Schmidt kick failed), 1-74 0:12, SJU 20 - CC 16
Spot on, as usual repete.
Speaking as someone who had a front row seat at the SJU/St. Olaf game, the Oles are legit. They are every bit as talented as any non-Mount Union/UW-Whitewater playoff team that I have seen the Johnnies face. This game wasn't a matter of St. John's playing poorly and letting an inferior opponent stay in it, and with that being the case I think it is great that the Oles moved up to where they are in the poll. In fact, I'd be surprised if there are a dozen D-III teams that are better than St. Olaf.
TC, are you on the Ole bandwagon??? Cripes!!! ::)
Quote from: DuffMan on October 09, 2007, 10:49:34 AM
TC, are you on the Ole bandwagon??? Cripes!!! ::)
Since an Ole win over Bethel means the Royals (almost certainly) stay home, yes I am.
Did St. Olaf not look like a very legitimate playoff team to you on Saturday?
Quote from: TC on October 09, 2007, 11:18:06 AM
Did St. Olaf not look like a very legitimate playoff team to you on Saturday?
They did, but I
will not hype the Oles.
Where do you draw the line? If it were Concordia rather than St. Olaf would your feelings be any different? Is there any other team that you would "hype"?
Quote from: TC on October 09, 2007, 11:46:08 AM
Where do you draw the line? If it were Concordia rather than St. Olaf would your feelings be any different? Is there any other team that you would "hype"?
Maybe Concordia :o Definitely not BU or STO, though. 8)
I see! Just like I could never, ever hype that evil school from Greendingle! Way to stand your ground!
Quote from: DuffMan on October 09, 2007, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: TC on October 09, 2007, 11:46:08 AM
Where do you draw the line? If it were Concordia rather than St. Olaf would your feelings be any different? Is there any other team that you would "hype"?
Maybe Concordia :o Definitely not BU or STO, though. 8)
Bethel and St. Thomas, obviously. And I meidt agree with you on St. Olaf. Ideally Concordia will stop sucking one of these years so the MIAC will have a truly viable #2 to pull for come playoff time.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 07, 2007, 11:33:29 PM
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on October 07, 2007, 10:08:23 PM
Quote from: Foss on October 07, 2007, 09:53:39 PM
I do like the work/analyzation that must have went into moving St. Olaf up in the poll from #18 to #13 after almost upsetting St. Johns in Collegeville, and that being its only loss. In most other polls, they would have moved down, or at the best stayed where they were, simply because they lost.
Foss, you beat me to posting about this very thing.
I think it's great that Olaf moved up five spots despite losing. That's a testiment to them being a good team -- which is what I think is the case -- rather than to thinking that the Johnnies weren't playing up to snuff. The poll accepts the very real likelihood that that MIAC has two very good teams in it this year.
But, I have to ask, is this the biggest jump in the Top 25 poll that a team has made after losing? Obviously, I'm not questioning it, just asking the Web site of record. :)
Ryan,
Sorry -- I don't have an easy way to research that, sorry.
ask and you shall recieve:
I only went back as long as the D3.com poll has been published which includes the 2003 season. There are only 3 instances where a top 25 team has lost and moved higher in the rankings. (there are many instances where a team stayed static). Interestingly all three involved St. Johns. Besides Saturday's game w St. Olaf:
-In week 9 of 2003 #10 Bethel lost 29-26 @ #2 St. Johns and moved up to #9 in the next poll. The only other top 10 team that lost was #4 MHB who was beaten by unranked East Texas Baptist and subsequently dropped to #12.
-In week 6 of 2005 #13 Concordia-Moorehead lost at home to #5 St. Johns 20-16 and moved up to #12 the next week. #8 Ithaca also lost to Lycoming and plummeted to #15 to make room for the move.
usee, that's a great argument for why more teams should lose to the Johnnies!
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 04:35:48 PM
Thanks for the question. I understand the "bracket seeding" to occur once the brackets have been filled and the #1 seeds of each bracket are then "bracketed" at that time, e.g., South #1 hosting West #1 and North #1 hosting East #1, using the criteria stated in the handbook.
I will appreciate any corrections.
Thanks.
Thanks PA_Wesleyan! +1 :)
So you are saying that although there are very few inter-region games, the number 1 seeds are ranked based on their schedule? I would think this should be explicitly spelled out in the handbook.
It would seem to me that if the inter-region schedule can not be increased due to expense then a rotating bracketing would be a better way since conference/region strengths vary year to year.
However, thanks for the information.
Quote from: usee on October 09, 2007, 03:26:10 PM
-In week 9 of 2003 #10 Bethel lost 29-26 @ #2 St. Johns and moved up to #9 in the next poll. The only other top 10 team that lost was #4 MHB who was beaten by unranked East Texas Baptist and subsequently dropped to #12.
Sure, just go ahead and one-up me and find a game I missed! :) :)
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on October 09, 2007, 05:48:40 PM
Quote from: usee on October 09, 2007, 03:26:10 PM
-In week 9 of 2003 #10 Bethel lost 29-26 @ #2 St. Johns and moved up to #9 in the next poll. The only other top 10 team that lost was #4 MHB who was beaten by unranked East Texas Baptist and subsequently dropped to #12.
Sure, just go ahead and one-up me and find a game I missed! :) :)
I don't know which is worse, you missing that game or me reading your post for the first time just now. Sorry, I didn't see your reply to yourself. ;D :( ::)
Quote from: usee on October 09, 2007, 05:56:45 PM
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on October 09, 2007, 05:48:40 PM
Quote from: usee on October 09, 2007, 03:26:10 PM
-In week 9 of 2003 #10 Bethel lost 29-26 @ #2 St. Johns and moved up to #9 in the next poll. The only other top 10 team that lost was #4 MHB who was beaten by unranked East Texas Baptist and subsequently dropped to #12.
Sure, just go ahead and one-up me and find a game I missed! :) :)
I don't know which is worse, you missing that game or me reading your post for the first time just now. Sorry, I didn't see your reply to yourself. ;D :( ::)
No sweat. I appreciate the extra set of eyes!
+1k
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 09, 2007, 05:45:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 04:35:48 PM
It would seem to me that if the inter-region schedule can not be increased due to expense then a rotating bracketing would be a better way since conference/region strengths vary year to year.
However, thanks for the information.
Well to a degree ... but it's worth noting that there are some regions that have not produced a Stagg champ for a long, long time.
I agree, repete - I think that's an important point.
I'm anxiously awaiting the matchup between UWW and UMHB in three weeks, and plan to be their, but do not know who I will cheer for yet. The two intervening weeks might clarify things some, but that should really give the fans/voters something concrete upon which to base their opinions of the power in the west. Are their any other clarifying games coming up in the other regions?
Quote from: repete on October 09, 2007, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 09, 2007, 05:45:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 04:35:48 PM
It would seem to me that if the inter-region schedule can not be increased due to expense then a rotating bracketing would be a better way since conference/region strengths vary year to year.
However, thanks for the information.
Well to a degree ... but it's worth noting that there are some regions that have not produced a Stagg champ for a long, long time.
I agree but does that mean we should penalize this year's seniors? Does one win in ten years set the standard for this penalty. Does Whitewater dominate Wesley on Wesley's home field? It is easy to say yes but not convincingly. No one knows for sure. It seems like it would be better to rotate the home field advantage to help mix things up.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 10, 2007, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: repete on October 09, 2007, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 09, 2007, 05:45:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 04:35:48 PM
It would seem to me that if the inter-region schedule can not be increased due to expense then a rotating bracketing would be a better way since conference/region strengths vary year to year.
However, thanks for the information.
Well to a degree ... but it's worth noting that there are some regions that have not produced a Stagg champ for a long, long time.
I agree but does that mean we should penalize this year's seniors? Does one win in ten years set the standard for this penalty. Does Whitewater dominate Wesley on Wesley's home field? It is easy to say yes but not convincingly. No one knows for sure. It seems like it would be better to rotate the home field advantage to help mix things up.
One win in 10 years? I think you need to look a little further back to find when a East or South team has won the Stagg. In fact, four different West teams have won titles since the last East team.
As for Wesley, it would take some pretty impressive Wesley blinders to say that playing in Dover would have changed the outcome. I saw that game and the domination was complete. A few dropped TD passes and a very conservative 2nd half game plan by UWW kept it from being worse. And that's not even considering the shoes
alibi explanation the season before.
I'm in no way saying that historic data should be the sole or even primary factor, but random isn't the answer. You make the call with the best data you have. For example, there's a reason that an unbeaten 6-0 team like St. Norbert's isn't in the d3football.com top 25 . . . and the Knights were not excluded by random.
Or look what happened during that weak East regional a few years back. John Carroll was moved from loaded North and proved the committee right by winning the regional.
And if you're talking a "penalizing" then wouldn't a juggernaut such as Mount Union and its seniors be "penalized" if they were sent on the road despite a dominating double-digit win streak and back-to-back titles. Sure, folks would love to see it, but it wouldn't be fair.
Random is gutless IMHO. Human judgment is often flawed and information is rarely complete, but it's better than the alternative.
Quote from: repete on October 10, 2007, 06:22:52 PM
I'm in no way saying that historic data should be the sole or even primary factor, but random isn't the answer.
Historic data should not even be considered. The four #1 seeds are basically seeded among themselves based on the prescribed selection and seeding criteria, with the top two getting to host the semi-finals (should they advance that far).
The fact that the North and West have been chosen to host these games lately is not a statement about the relative strength of the regions. The committee has decided each year (in a separate decision making process each year) that the #1 seed in these regions are better than the #1 seed in the others.
And the fact that John Carroll won the East a few years back says absolutely nothing about the strengths of these regions in 2007. It simply means that, in that year, John Carroll was better than the teams in the East region.
Right, John Carroll shouldn't affect this year's choices, but the point is it took a bunch of humans and not a coin flip or other random event to determine this.
Quote from: repete on October 10, 2007, 06:58:04 PM
Right, John Carroll shouldn't affect this year's choices, but the point is it took a bunch of humans and not a coin flip or other random event to determine this.
The problem is that human beings are biased and while some of those decisions work out some do not. Look at the seeding for the East last year. And if you are trying to say that the East was weak then how did SJFC give Mt. Union it's toughest first game (Capital had two chances, the first chance was worst then SJFC). Trying to decide who is stronger based on no relevant data is guessing no matter who you are. I have no problem with the regional seedings at least there is a basis but seeding the regions against each other with no real data is no worst then a coin flip as it tends to keep the current status of things.
As for Mt. Union, they have proven themselves to be in a class of their own and I don't think it would matter where they played. Let them get out and see the country.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 11, 2007, 08:15:56 AM
Quote from: repete on October 10, 2007, 06:58:04 PM
Right, John Carroll shouldn't affect this year's choices, but the point is it took a bunch of humans and not a coin flip or other random event to determine this.
As for Mt. Union, they have proven themselves to be in a class of their own and I don't think it would matter where they played. Let them get out and see the country.
MUC has one non-conference date to fill each year. The MUC-SJF games should be "Games of the Week" in 2008 and 2009.
It is very uncommon for schools to go outside of bus range for games. It makes little financial sense, unless the school's Development Office is picking up a tab for an alumni meet-and-greet in southern California.
The most notable airplane games that I can recall are those between the WIAC and the west coast and ASC, the NWC and the ASC. E.g., UMHB willingness to fly to CNU and Willamette, and vice versa, HSU's willingness to schedule Linfield and WIAC's and even McMurry's willingness to get on buses for 600-mile and 800 trips to Colorado College and Huntingdon, other fellow road warriors, are good examples of traveling long distances for games.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 11, 2007, 08:15:56 AM
.....And if you are trying to say that the East was weak then how did SJFC give Mt. Union it's toughest first game (Capital had two chances, the first chance was worst then SJFC).
Wrong. I won't discredit SJF by saying they weren't a worthy opponent, because they were a very well coached team that tested MUC, but Capital played MUC tougher in both games last year (as well as in '05). You can't just look at the final score to say who was tougher. There are always other outside factors that play into the final score that might not be obvious to the casual observer.
Discrediting Capital's regular season game vs MUC can be misleading since it was played in 40+ mph winds and freezing rain/sleet. Not the most conducive weather for a team built to throw the ball 50 times a game.
Looking at simply the final scores, Baldwin Wallace played Mount to a 14-0 loss last year, but wasn't anywhere near MUC's toughest regular season opponent. And Whitewater was much, much tougher than either SJF or Capital. If you're going to beat MUC, you have to hold your own at the line of scrimmage. Capital was very close, and WWW went toe-to-toe with MUC at the point of attack. Thereby forcing Kehres to pull out all the stops offensively.
If SJF would have forced MUC to throw the ball, then you'd have a legit arguement. But Kmic's 371 yards rushing proves otherwise. One thing is consistent with Kehres is big games, if he finds a weakness he'll exploit until you make him quit. LK tries to be very balanced in the regular season to present defensive scheme and tendancy problems, but come playoff time he'll ride his horse until you prove you can stop it. Unfortunately for SJF, they couldn't. Sorry that it's hard to accept, but 371 yards rushing against your defense says to me (and most other people) that SJF was not Mount's toughest test.
And completely dismissing history is ludicrous at the Division 3 level where there is so little cross-regional play to accurately evaluate the strength of the different conferences. The West vs South debate this season will be helped out by the upcoming MHB vs WWW game. If this was 2008 and the MUC/SJF opener result was known, then you could start to evaluate the 2008 strength of the East vs North based on actual and timely data. However without a legitimate sampling of games cross-regionally each year, the only data you have is past playoff history. Which says the West Region is the deepest and most balanced. The North has the 800 lb Gorilla no one wants to play. The East and South are 2nd tier regions.
Without recent regular season cross regional games to provide current data, where's the logic in throwing out the history that says the East is behind the North and West? Want to change that perception? Then East needs beat the North/West teams in the playoffs.
hscoach sums it up nicely, especially the long-discussed MUC gameplan vs. SJF. Still, that was an encouraging performance for the East. Given the competitiveness of the 2005 Stagg, LK was clearly saving something for Salem. Perhaps history had hinted that he was in for another UWW-MUC final? Given what happened in the 2005 UWW-Wesley "matchup" it wasn't a bad guess.
But yes, that SJF-MUC game was closer than the East's last two visits West. Combined score 90-10. In fact, the West in the past 4 semis -- vs. 2 South and 2 East -- 192-23.
As for Mt. Union, they have proven themselves to be in a class of their own and I don't think it would matter where they played. Let them get out and see the country.
The logic that since MUC is so good they could play anywhere is fatally flawed. Sure, they could but don't powerhouses deserve the same fairness as doormats? And don't fans deserve at least the best possible effort of having the No. 1 and 2 teams in the final rather than a semi.
Sure, you need to win them all to win a title ... but -- call me crazy -- I want to see the two best teams in Salem. I've been to Staggs in Alabama and Salem, and my most recent trip involved two teams with which I had no connection. I went because I knew MUC and UWW were the best two teams in the country.
And the "MUC can play anywhere" tact loses steam not only should the MUC dynasty fade but if it is applied to other programs.
coin flip as it tends to keep the current status of things.
No, it doesn't. A coin flip is a coin flip ... it's giving up. Give me human error and occasional mistakes anytime.
OK, here's an inter-regional example: MUC vs. Averett. Who did you pick you pick in that North-South matchup? And why? Just remember, you can't use history.
Quote from: hscoach on October 11, 2007, 10:19:01 AM
However without a legitimate sampling of games cross-regionally each year, the only data you have is past playoff history. Which says the West Region is the deepest and most balanced. The North has the 800 lb Gorilla no one wants to play. The East and South are 2nd tier regions.
Actually, all that data tells you is that, historically, the best team in the North and West has been better than the best team in the East and South. It says absolutely nothing about the depth or balance of any region.
I find it ironic that you dismiss the cross-region games because of a lack of a "legitimate sample," but you are willing to make broad assumptions about the various regions based on 2 games a year.
2006 Inter-Region Records:
East vs. South 28-16
South vs. West 7-5
South vs North 26-10
West vs. North 20-14
North vs. East 1-0
Just to clarify, I believe the NCAA is correct in giving semi-final home games in recent years to MUC and UWW and other teams from the west. Those teams have been the better of the #1 seeds each year, which is exactly how the decision should be made.
The best solution hasn't even been mentioned yet, I don't believe. The semi-final games should be played at neutral sites. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the cost of 2 additional teams traveling would not be approved by the bean counters.
Not to mention a neutral site involving teams from the south or west would be so far from anywhere that you wouldn't have anyone show up but the very hard core fans. You could split the difference between N and E pretty easily, but given where some of the better S and W teams are, you could end up with Podunk ND as your neutral site. ;)
Quote from: altor on October 11, 2007, 01:23:00 PM
I find it ironic that you dismiss the cross-region games because of a lack of a "legitimate sample," but you are willing to make broad assumptions about the various regions based on 2 games a year.
The original question was about the seeding of the regions against each other come playoff time. Which means ranking the #1 seeds against each other.
I highlighted the MUC/SJF and MHB/WWW inter-regional games because those games are between teams that are regarded amongst the best each region has to offer. Heading into this season, those 4 teams were the odds on favorites to be the #1 seeds in each of their regions. And therefore the head-to-head outcomes would give a very legitimate measure of the strength of the potential #1 seeds.
Mount Union beating the crap out of Averett tells us nothing about the North vs the South. Nor does Depauw's (South) win over Anderson (North). But MUC playing SFJ says alot about North vs. East as would MHB at WWW say alot about the South vs. West. That's why I singled out those 2 specific games.
I could see lots of 1,800 attendance figures with that "best" option. There's nothing wrong with home fields in the semis. It makes the trip to Salem stand out more.
The best way to see balance is look at the final d3football.com polls. Look at where the top four teams from each region land.
The West, for example:
2006 -- four in top nine
2005 -- four in top eight
2004 -- four in top 13
2003-- four in top eight
Total -- 38
East:
4-14
4-22
4-21
4-13
Total 70
North
4-19
4-15
4-12
4-26
Total 72
South
4-18
4-17
4-14
4-19
Total 68
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 11, 2007, 03:26:48 PM
but given where some of the better S and W teams are, you could end up with Podunk ND as your neutral site. ;)
Where do get off? Have you been to Podunk, ND? It may not be Times Square, but Bingo Night at St. Mary of the Lake is a hot, happenin' scene. Don't even get me started on the East Podunk nightlife.
I confess I'm not familiar with the charms of Podunk, ND, but I've twice been to Ypsilanti, ND. Since both times we went we were the only customers in the only 'restaurant' in town, they'd probably appreciate the business!
For those unfamiliar with Ypsi, ND, it is 35 miles east of Gackle - hope that clears things up. ;)
[In case Augustana ever resumes their national dominance, Wing, ND, might be considered!]
I actually lived in N.D. for a couple of years and the town was so dead we'd drive an hour to Podunk for a big night out.
Go Dickinson St. Savages ... now the Blue Hawks.
Quote from: Just Bill on October 11, 2007, 05:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 11, 2007, 03:26:48 PM
but given where some of the better S and W teams are, you could end up with Podunk ND as your neutral site. ;)
Where do get off? Have you been to Podunk, ND? It may not be Times Square, but Bingo Night at St. Mary of the Lake is a hot, happenin' scene. Don't even get me started on the East Podunk nightlife.
But you have to be careful because the West Podunk Police Station is half a block away. :D
BUT Podunk is not 100 yrds long is it??? ;D
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on October 11, 2007, 10:13:34 PM
BUT Podunk is not 100 yrds long is it??? ;D
The town is zoned four "single-wides" to the block, so you can get a couple of blocks in there. ;)
Quote from: altor on October 10, 2007, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: repete on October 10, 2007, 06:22:52 PM
I'm in no way saying that historic data should be the sole or even primary factor, but random isn't the answer.
Historic data should not even be considered. The four #1 seeds are basically seeded among themselves based on the prescribed selection and seeding criteria, with the top two getting to host the semi-finals (should they advance that far).
The fact that the North and West have been chosen to host these games lately is not a statement about the relative strength of the regions. The committee has decided each year (in a separate decision making process each year) that the #1 seed in these regions are better than the #1 seed in the others.
And the fact that John Carroll won the East a few years back says absolutely nothing about the strengths of these regions in 2007. It simply means that, in that year, John Carroll was better than the teams in the East region.
Exactly.
Arguing about the strength of the regions is fun, but with regard to the 2007 playoffs, only 2007 data should be in play.
sjfc has been at this for a while y'all (see pp. 56-58 or so), and what he's either failing or refusing to understand is that there
are established criteria for setting the semifinal seeds, which leave very little to human "judgement."
According to Ralph's post on p. 58, the criteria used to seed the four brackets is in fact the same selection criteria used to seed teams, period. Straight out of the handbook: Wins vs. in-region D3s, wins vs. other regionally-ranked teams, OOWP, etc.
If St. John Fisher went 10-0 against the Empire 8 and a handful of non-conference teams who had successful seasons, it could
earn the top seed for the semifinals. It might be difficult to do if Mount Union also goes 10-0 because it is likely to have at least one and probably as many as three wins over teams who are also regionally-ranked (and many of the regionally-ranked teams will end up in the playoffs, so you can almost consider this wins vs. other playoff teams), because there are usually 2-4 fairly successful OAC teams battling for at-large playoff spots.
The only real human element is the regional rankings, but even those are based mostly on indisputable data (wins against common oppoents, record, etc.) ... and in certain cases, the human element is needed, because 9-0 with Occidental's schedule might not be as strong as 8-2 (8-1 vs. D3) with UW-Whitewater's.
There was a case, two whole years ago, when Delaware Valley, then the East's No. 1 seed, was the No. 1 overall playoff seed. Had Mount Union, 9-1 that year but still the No. 1 seed in the North, advanced to play Del Val in the semis, they would have traveled to Doylestown, Pa. Instead, Del Val lost to a lower-seeded Rowan team, and the Profs went to Alliance on the basis of a lower seed not being able to host a higher seed, regardless of region.
Mount Union is not
given a home game every year in the semis. They
earn it by their regular-season performance and by lasting all the way to the semis where some 1s don't. I would like to see them play road games too, but when there are opportunities to make them travel, like in 2005, someone has to take advantage, or they'll have to shut their pie holes and play in Alliance.
So again, I submit to you all, the semifinal sites are not determined arbitrarily. Regardless of whether you think random is or isn't more fair, it's important for you to understand how things do work before you form your opinion on what might be a more fair process.
Let me know if this is not making sense and I will try to simplify. There was a time earlier in this thread when I had the details mixed up, so I know it can be confusing. Otherwise, feel free to discuss the strength of regions, but know that past history has little, if any, bearing on where even seeds would play in the semifinals.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 07, 2007, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 07, 2007, 02:07:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2007, 11:52:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by region to region distinction.
If you're asking how they seed the brackets against each other, it's basically a ranking of the No. 1 seeds in each bracket. The No. 1 and No. 2 top seeds' brackets get the home-field advantage if equal seeds advance to the semifinals.
Let me try an example, say by crazy coincidence all #1 seeds advance from the regional brackets. How is it decided which region will play which region and who would host the games?
Page 12-14 (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2007/2007_d3_football_handbook.pdf) from the 2007 NCAA D3 Football Championships Handbook answers these questions. :)
The selection committee will use the primary (and secondary if necessary) selection criteria to determine those seeds.
I have read this handbook and, obviously, I am missing something. The sections you refence do show criteria for seeding within the regional brackets but do not indicate any criteria for the selection of which region faces which region if the same seeds emerge from the regional bracket and which would be the home team.
If this hasn't been answered clearly before, it is the same criteria.
Anyone out there who hasn't read the handbook, it never hurts to refresh your memory. p. 12-14 will take you a few minutes to read, but will do wonders in helping you understand why at-large teams get in, why teams get seeded the way they are seeded and why regions are ranked the way they are ranked for the purpose of hosting semifinal games on campus.
FTR, I like the on-campus semis. And all playoff games, really. D3 games at D3 venues, with D3 crowds, with D3 reaping the rewards (if any) ... it's a tremendous honor to be able to host a playoff game, not to mention a joy for the home fans and in many cases, the school in general. Even on Thanksgiving break.
Anyway ...
Quote from: K-Mack on October 11, 2007, 11:23:35 PM
Mount Union is not given a home game every year in the semis. They earn it by their regular-season performance and by lasting all the way to the semis where some 1s don't. I would like to see them play road games too, but when there are opportunities to make them travel, like in 2005, someone has to take advantage, or they'll have to shut their pie holes and play in Alliance.
Oh, you HAD to mention 2005. How many drops did we have that game against Capital, when we had hardly any drops all season. :-\ :( :'(
We coulda been a contender, and Purple nation would have had to come to C'ville.
Ah, well. One year they will be in my hometown, and I WILL be there. I may be 90, but I'll be there!
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on October 08, 2007, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 07, 2007, 11:33:29 PM
Quote from: Ryan Tipps (WCLegacy) on October 07, 2007, 10:08:23 PM
Quote from: Foss on October 07, 2007, 09:53:39 PM
I do like the work/analyzation that must have went into moving St. Olaf up in the poll from #18 to #13 after almost upsetting St. Johns in Collegeville, and that being its only loss. In most other polls, they would have moved down, or at the best stayed where they were, simply because they lost.
Foss, you beat me to posting about this very thing.
I think it's great that Olaf moved up five spots despite losing. That's a testiment to them being a good team -- which is what I think is the case -- rather than to thinking that the Johnnies weren't playing up to snuff. The poll accepts the very real likelihood that that MIAC has two very good teams in it this year.
But, I have to ask, is this the biggest jump in the Top 25 poll that a team has made after losing? Obviously, I'm not questioning it, just asking the Web site of record. :)
Ryan,
Sorry -- I don't have an easy way to research that, sorry.
How about the hard way then? A slow night at work inspired me to do just that.
From what I could tell, clicking on every week going back to 2003, there has been only one other time that a team has lost and moved up in the rankings. And, the funny thing is, that loss was also to St. John's. In Week 7 of 2005, Concordia-Moorhead went from 13th up to 12th after losing 20-16 to the Johnnies.
It's good to have St. John's as a conference foe, it seems.
Feel free to point out my uber-retentiveness now. ;) :P
Tipps,
This is a 'gateway' to doing lengthy ATRs and ATNs for the next seven years.
Two words: Rehab. Now.
Two of the most memorable Stagg stories since the creation of the Pool systems...
1999 Pacific Lutheran (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Pacific+Lutheran&year=1999) National Championship team. Beats Rowan
2004 UMHB (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Mary+Hardin-Baylor&year=2004) Loses 21-28 to Linfield, led by Brett Elliott.
If you look at the schedules, all four games to the Stagg Bowl were played on the road!
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 12, 2007, 08:30:50 AM
Two of the most memorable Stagg stories since the creation of the Pool systems...
1999 Pacific Lutheran (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Pacific+Lutheran&year=1999) National Championship team. Beats Rowan
2004 UMHB (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Mary+Hardin-Baylor&year=2004) Loses 21-28 to Linfield, led by Brett Elliott.
If you look at the schedules, all four games to the Stagg Bowl were played on the road!
Don't forget the
2000 Johnnies (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=St.+John%27s&year=2000) falling 3 points short against Mount Union. That would have made it back-to-back West #7's to hit the road and win the Stagg.
Quote from: TC on October 12, 2007, 08:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 12, 2007, 08:30:50 AM
Two of the most memorable Stagg stories since the creation of the Pool systems...
1999 Pacific Lutheran (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Pacific+Lutheran&year=1999) National Championship team. Beats Rowan
2004 UMHB (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Mary+Hardin-Baylor&year=2004) Loses 21-28 to Linfield, led by Brett Elliott.
If you look at the schedules, all four games to the Stagg Bowl were played on the road!
Don't forget the 2000 Johnnies (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=St.+John%27s&year=2000) falling 3 points short against Mount Union. That would have made it back-to-back West #7's to hit the road and win the Stagg.
Yes!! Thanks and +1!
That was my first "Stagg Bowl". I remember listening over my 28K modem to the webcast of the game played in the rain!
Well, I'll admit it was the talk about "random" or coin-flip semifinal seedings that sucked me in "because conference strengths vary years to year" and later detoured to one of my favorite subjects ... that all regions are not equal.
They are two separate arguments and need to be considered that way. One actually affects the teams and the other is purely a messaging board debating topic (... and one I'll enjoy at least until the numbers change :) )
There will alway be quibbles and sometimes be injustice but using data and human intervention when needed seems the best option IMHO. The Oxy situation is a great example. A question, KMack: how much of the John Carroll move was in black & white and how much was human judgment/ interpretation?
----
Ralph,
I'm shocked such a wise man can be a relative "newbie!" ;)
Quote from: repete on October 12, 2007, 09:16:06 AM
Well, I'll admit it was the talk about "random" or coin-flip semifinal seedings that sucked me in "because conference strengths vary years to year" and later detoured to one of my favorite subjects ... that all regions are not equal.
They are two separate arguments and need to be considered that way. One actually affects the teams and the other is purely a messaging board debating topic (... and one I'll enjoy at least until the numbers change :) )
There will alway be quibbles and sometimes be injustice but using data and human intervention when needed seems the best option IMHO. The Oxy situation is a great example. A question, KMack: how much of the John Carroll move was in black & white and how much was human judgment/ interpretation?
----
Ralph,
I'm shocked such a wise man can be a relative "newbie!" ;)
repete, I may have watched a Stagg on ESPN or somewhere sometime in the past.
McMurry and the ASC have only been in the NCAA since 1996-97, and the ASC didn't have a team get a football bid until the initiation of the pools in 1999, so discovering D3football.com and D3hoops.com in 1999-2000 was the first real chance to explore D3.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 12, 2007, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: TC on October 12, 2007, 08:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 12, 2007, 08:30:50 AM
Two of the most memorable Stagg stories since the creation of the Pool systems...
1999 Pacific Lutheran (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Pacific+Lutheran&year=1999) National Championship team. Beats Rowan
2004 UMHB (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Mary+Hardin-Baylor&year=2004) Loses 21-28 to Linfield, led by Brett Elliott.
If you look at the schedules, all four games to the Stagg Bowl were played on the road!
Don't forget the 2000 Johnnies (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=St.+John%27s&year=2000) falling 3 points short against Mount Union. That would have made it back-to-back West #7's to hit the road and win the Stagg.
Yes!! Thanks and +1!
That was my first "Stagg Bowl". I remember listening over my 28K modem to the webcast of the game played in the rain!
That SJU No. 7 is frequently overlooked, including when I posted earlier today.
I thought I remembered another West 7 ...
Quote from: repete on October 12, 2007, 09:16:06 AM
Well, I'll admit it was the talk about "random" or coin-flip semifinal seedings that sucked me in "because conference strengths vary years to year" and later detoured to one of my favorite subjects ... that all regions are not equal.
They are two separate arguments and need to be considered that way. One actually affects the teams and the other is purely a messaging board debating topic (... and one I'll enjoy at least until the numbers change :) )
There will alway be quibbles and sometimes be injustice but using data and human intervention when needed seems the best option IMHO. The Oxy situation is a great example. A question, KMack: how much of the John Carroll move was in black & white and how much was human judgment/ interpretation?
----
Ralph,
I'm shocked such a wise man can be a relative "newbie!" ;)
Well, repete, it's a plenty fun topic to discuss, we just have to remind people sometimes where the message board rhetoric fits in the big picture. Even if committee members were sitting around reading the site to get their information, there are controls in place to limit how much influence is based on "opinion."
As far as the John Carroll question, I'm not sure I can really answer that. I think in '01 (maybe '00), Hardin-Simmons was moved to the North and played at Wittenberg.
So at the time, I thought moving teams to balance the brackets was going to become a common thing. But even in subsequent years when moves seemed both logical and likely, they haven't often happened.
I would prefer they adopt the D1 basketball model of picking No. 1 seeds first, then building geographically-focused pods around them. (At least I think that's D1s model) ... in any case, for us, it would serve a purpose in a season, let's say, when St. John's, Central, Whitworth and UW-Whitewater all went 10-0 and there were few convincing cases for No. 1 overall seeds elsewhere.
I'd prefer not to see one of those teams relegated to a four seed while an 8-1 in, let's say, the East, was a 1 seed.
In years when a logical N, S, E, W No. 1 could be appointed, that would happen. When those options weren't as strong, there are usually North/West and North/East/South schools close enough to each other to use the 1-seed theory without inflating the budget unneccessarily.
Anyway, the question about Carroll going to the East.
My personal opinion is that that particular committee interpreted the rules differently than subsequent committees and chose to create was essentially was a more balanced set of brackets.
If there are situations where geography forces a game in a round earlier than it would normally happen if the teams were matched according to seed, and it could be avoided by moving a team, I would back that.
Does that make sense?
I have a feeling I didn't really answer the question.
Quote from: smedindy on October 11, 2007, 11:37:58 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 11, 2007, 11:23:35 PM
Mount Union is not given a home game every year in the semis. They earn it by their regular-season performance and by lasting all the way to the semis where some 1s don't. I would like to see them play road games too, but when there are opportunities to make them travel, like in 2005, someone has to take advantage, or they'll have to shut their pie holes and play in Alliance.
Oh, you HAD to mention 2005. How many drops did we have that game against Capital, when we had hardly any drops all season. :-\ :( :'(
We coulda been a contender, and Purple nation would have had to come to C'ville.
Ah, well. One year they will be in my hometown, and I WILL be there. I may be 90, but I'll be there!
That would've been fun.
I too hope to still be alive when Mount Union is just another playoff team travelling and hoping to move on. ;D
I seem to recall that in 2005, if the #1 in the North (Wabash) and the #1 in the East (Del Val) made it through to the semifinals, Wabash would have travelled to Del Val for the semifinals. So in fact the East region was bracketed ahead of the North region as recently as two years ago. Mount Union (#2 in the North) needed both the #1 and #2 seeds in the East to lose for it to host the semifinal that year - which, of course, is what actually happened!
Yeah, that makes sense. There needs to be a place for interpretations and the Carroll is a good example of it working.
The Witt-HSU game, meanwhile, was a good game that went Witt's way in OT -- and Witt's run continued until the Tigers ran into Pugh and Moore. Still, another South power represented the region well that year in that 30-27 Stagg.
Yes, we would have happily made that trip to Del Valley. In fact, I had already looked at a good route! Sigh...
Yeah. And Del Val would've happily hosted. Double sigh. :)
Quote from: K-Mack on October 12, 2007, 01:44:21 PM
Even if committee members were sitting around reading the site to get their information, there are controls in place to limit how much influence is based on "opinion."
As far as the John Carroll question, I'm not sure I can really answer that. I think in '01 (maybe '00), Hardin-Simmons was moved to the North and played at Wittenberg.
So at the time, I thought moving teams to balance the brackets was going to become a common thing. But even in subsequent years when moves seemed both logical and likely, they haven't often happened.
I have a feeling I didn't really answer the question.
Been busy, all the posts on this have been fun to read. My last post on this is summed up by the above comments. Although there is a handbook, explicit statements describing the seeding between the regions is missing. I bow to K-Mack as an informed expert. That he can not answer some of the actions of the past seedings shows there is some latitude in the seeding process including moving teams from one region to another. My statement is where there is latitude, opinions come in to play. However, I could be wrong.
As far as the Div I seeding is concerned, I believe they have a much larger database to work from with the amount of regular season travel. Thanks for the information.
Neutral sites don't make sense. People are prone to biase. Random is worst. Rotating locations gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years. It could result in increasing fan base. Ok, I'm done.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 14, 2007, 11:40:56 PM
Although there is a handbook, explicit statements describing the seeding between the regions is missing. I bow to K-Mack as an informed expert.
Actually, there are. It's been explained several times now, I'm not sure how, if you read the part Ralph asked you to read, you keep missing it.
The handbook says the criteria for regional seeding is the same as criteria for seeding teams overall.
Look it up. Please.
How do you think informed experts become informed?
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 14, 2007, 11:40:56 PM
That he can not answer some of the actions of the past seedings shows there is some latitude in the seeding process including moving teams from one region to another. My statement is where there is latitude, opinions come in to play.
Well, that's not really what you were implying, was it?
I realize that's your statement now. When this whole thing started, at the very top of p. 56 on this thread, you were implying a couple of things. 1) That D3football.com, indirectly or directly, influenced the seedings and 2) that Mount Union getting home games in the playoffs was a product of committee bias and not something that they earned by grading out best on predetermined criteria.
The implication that St. John Fisher is/was getting the shaft and the committee or the site favors other teams, or the system is somehow unfair, is something that I can't let slide because there are a lot more people reading these boards than posting on them, and I don't want them to get the wrong impression.
I don't mean to be a [jerk], but if you have your mind made up, please let me know so I can stop using my time to help you understand.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 14, 2007, 11:40:56 PM
where there is latitude, opinions come in to play.
Taken without all the back context, this statement is fine. In fact, I don't even have a problem with there being some latitude. I think the committee should be able to determine that an 8-1/9-1 record vs. a tougher schedule deserves a higher seed than a 9-0/10-0 vs. a bunch of cupcakes.
I also thought the John Carroll thing was great for us to watch. That I can't explain why the committee hasn't done things like that more often when they've had opportunities (and if you see who's within a 500-mile radius of perennial playoff spots like Mount Union, St. John's, Bridgewater, etc., you could really get some interesting matchups) does mean there is latitude in the process, but it doesn't mean a process with latitude is inherently unfair.
One more small thing ...
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 14, 2007, 11:40:56 PMNeutral sites don't make sense. People are prone to biase. Random is worst. Rotating locations gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years. It could result in increasing fan base. Ok, I'm done.
Agree about Neutral sites, really only because of the travel aspect (people have trouble getting less-than-7-day-advance fares to the Stagg Bowl when flying is necessary) and because games on campus would probably draw better anyway.
Agree about people being generally prone to bias.
Rotating locations, as discussed earlier, was the previous system. I don't recall the reasons for the switch, if I even ever knew, but one thing that rotating locations could do is produce more unfairness. If we determined the East was the semifinal host this year no matter what, and an 8-2 East champ advanced, why exactly would they deserve a home game over a 10-0 (or 13-0 by then) North champ?
We could use the same seed caveat again to help there. But that doesn't explain how predeterming a site would produce the most fair outcome more than it wouldn't.
Also, influencing one season over something expected to produce fairness over multiple seasons ("gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years") doesn't match up.
Are you also saying it could increase the fan base because having a semifinal at home might draw in a significant number of people who hadn't followed the team up until then?
Are you still done? I'd kind of like to hear your answers, and clearly I have not yet dropped the subject. :)
This may be a little off base K-Mack. But this arguement seems more about politcal correctness (fairness) than about reality. It isn't fair that MUC (the haves) and the East Region (the have nots) or the North or the West for that matter can be thrown into the have nots (the ones without the Walnut and Bronze) dont always get to host the semi finals. I agree with you that MUC earns their spot with getting to host the home games. UWW has earned that spot here in the West until someone can beat them. That is a fact we in the West have to live with until the time comes that we can put up a team that can beat them. I am sure that Hope College or some other North team would love to be able to host a game or get a shot at MUC at home, but that has to be earned. The team here in the West that gets to travel every playoff has been ST Norberts of late. Even at 10-0 they travel because they haven't overcome the first playoff game with a win. To me it is kind of a moot point. Central (my team) has to do the same thing. Earn the respect with some playoff wins. Then the tide will change until then we are just a playoff team. Home field can help but it is not a part of winning. Look at SJU last year. They stumble with Bethel and then have to go on the road for two games and they come out with 2 wins and almost beat UWW last year. If a team is truly a contender it does not matter where they play. I think the past few years if MUC had all road games they still get the the Stagg. If the committee was really bias as sjfcclimbing thinks they would have found a way to leave SJU at home to reap all that money from their fan base. One thing I have found to be true that D3 is not money influenced like D1.
On to the top 25
Not surprised that the Dutch fell but I was surprised that they fell two spots. Having said that Capital must not have had the confidence until their win last week. Understandable that that might give some voters clarity in their position on voting. I was listening to a local radio show last night driving home from the grandkids home. Jim Walden (former Iowa State coach) was ranting on how Ohio State was #1 and that an Arizona State team was #12 with a similar record from a similar conference as Ohio State and that how could there be that much difference in those two spots. I have learned from Pat and you K-Mack that voters take many other things into their voting. In ASU case they haven't played the meat of their schedule yet and the voters dont think they can beat USC, Cal, and Oregon. So after pondering that I came to the conclusion that the voters had Capital to low last week and they deserved the bump past Central and Wheaton. Polls should be taken with a grain of salt anyway cause the only thing that matters is the W's any way. If a team keeps winning it all takes care of itself.
"Gives everyone a fair shake ..." is just plain inaccurate. It gives the home field to someone who may not have deserved it and is absolutely not a fair shake to the better team who must play on the road.
Dutchfan said it best. You want the home field advantage in the playoffs? Win all your regular season games and start winning playoff games.
St John's Fisher made huge strides in that last year by making it to the Semi-Finals and playing Mount very tough. If they would have finished this season at 10-0, they most assuredly would have been the #1 seed in the East. I would have then expected them to carry the East Region to being the #3 seed nationally behind the winner of the Whitewater/Mary Hardin Baylor game. And one could possibly make the arguement (though I wouldn't buy it) for the the #2 seed nationally.
But SJF slipped up a few weeks ago and therefore it looks like the regional seedings will go like this (assuming no upsets the rest of the way):
1. North (Mount Union)
2. West/South (winner of MHB at WWW or St John's)
3. West/South (loser of MHB at WWW or St. John's)
4. East (St John Fisher)
Quote from: hscoach on October 15, 2007, 12:19:40 PM
1. North (Mount Union)
2. West/South (winner of MHB at WWW or St John's)
3. West/South (loser of MHB at WWW or St. John's)
4. East (St John Fisher)
I think your assessment is right on, and I totally agree that Mount Union should continue to be the overall #1 seed in the tournament as long as their play justifies it, but just once I'd like to see the Purple Raiders travel to Collegeville.
TC - We can all dream, can't we. Face it, it's going to take Mt. Union losing at Alliance in the playoffs (or an OAC regular season game) to make that happen.
That was the case in 2005, but the East #2 couldn't hold up their end of the deal.
Quote from: hscoach on October 15, 2007, 12:19:40 PM
Dutchfan said it best. You want the home field advantage in the playoffs? Win all your regular season games and start winning playoff games.
St John's Fisher made huge strides in that last year by making it to the Semi-Finals and playing Mount very tough. If they would have finished this season at 10-0, they most assuredly would have been the #1 seed in the East. I would have then expected them to carry the East Region to being the #3 seed nationally behind the winner of the Whitewater/Mary Hardin Baylor game. And one could possibly make the arguement (though I wouldn't buy it) for the the #2 seed nationally.
But SJF slipped up a few weeks ago and therefore it looks like the regional seedings will go like this (assuming no upsets the rest of the way):
1. North (Mount Union)
2. West/South (winner of MHB at WWW or St John's)
3. West/South (loser of MHB at WWW or St. John's)
4. East (St John Fisher)
I really don't think Fisher is a lock in the East at this point.
I don't think (I hope anyway) anyone was saying SJF was an East #1 lock. I think the point was that the East #1 is a lock for the #4 seed in the overall picture.
Although I fully realize thast "repete's gut feeling" isn't part of the semi seeding formula, I think that if had SJF gotten through unbeaten it wouldn't necessarily be a lock for the No. 2 or even No. 3 spot.
For instance, if MHB beats UWW and finishes unbeaten but an unbeaten SJU (or Central or Oxy) survives the West gantlet, then you could make a strong case for UMHB 2 and the West 3 -- even if SJF was unbeaten.
Of course, Hartwick turned this into solely a mental exercise ... and there's still plenty of football to be played.
The final week of the season is almost always huge and this year the West is especially ripe with SJU-Bethel, Wartburg-Central and the enticing possibility of a wounded LaCrosse team hosting surprising Stevens Point.
Consider this.....MUC is riding a 28 game win streak. Before the loss to ONU that broke their 54 game win streak. They also once had a 55 game win streak before that. All this means is that getting MUC off their own field is not likely to compell them to lose. They play one non conference game a year, so if you think you can beat them on YOUR field....schedule them for game 1 and take your chances. You could conceivably make the playoffs and play them twice in one year. That way you would have twice the chances of beating them!
Quote from: K-Mack on October 15, 2007, 01:42:40 AM
One more small thing ...
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 14, 2007, 11:40:56 PMNeutral sites don't make sense. People are prone to biase. Random is worst. Rotating locations gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years. It could result in increasing fan base. Ok, I'm done.
Agree about Neutral sites, really only because of the travel aspect (people have trouble getting less-than-7-day-advance fares to the Stagg Bowl when flying is necessary) and because games on campus would probably draw better anyway.
Agree about people being generally prone to bias.
Rotating locations, as discussed earlier, was the previous system. I don't recall the reasons for the switch, if I even ever knew, but one thing that rotating locations could do is produce more unfairness. If we determined the East was the semifinal host this year no matter what, and an 8-2 East champ advanced, why exactly would they deserve a home game over a 10-0 (or 13-0 by then) North champ?
We could use the same seed caveat again to help there. But that doesn't explain how predeterming a site would produce the most fair outcome more than it wouldn't.
Also, influencing one season over something expected to produce fairness over multiple seasons ("gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years") doesn't match up.
Are you also saying it could increase the fan base because having a semifinal at home might draw in a significant number of people who hadn't followed the team up until then?
Are you still done? I'd kind of like to hear your answers, and clearly I have not yet dropped the subject. :)
Ok, since you asked:
Alright, I misunderstood the Handbook. It states that seedings are based on regional seeding criteria and then discusses the regional grouping. I understood this to mean the regions were seeded by the criteria rather then all the teams are first seeded, 32 teams selected and then regionally grouped. Not really clearly stated but I understand how it is meant now. My Bad (probably a result of my bias).
Nice to know we agree on the first two.
My problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2. I am sure if Alfred wins out, most will say that it is the East and say a Capital at 9-1 is still better. While it can be argued there is no real way to settle the issue. So why doesn't the 8-2 deserve a home game? Because we don't reward losers??? Are we really interested in absolutes? Let's go to a best of five series - oh wait, who gets home 3 games! (Sarcasm). Rotation is just as fair as guessing between regions. Maybe a decision after the region is decided would be better. My statement is that there isn't a fair way only various flawed ways and I prefer to remove bias and give everybody a shot.
The fan base comment stems from giving access to larger populations of these games. In the unfortunate case that Alfred wins out through the East region and had a home game, I would certainly attend and many fans in the region would do so. It is how you grow a product, give as many as you can access and hope the product sells itself. More fans, more money, more cross region games (maybe)???
My answers, right or wrong.
The committee looks at in-region winning percentage, OWP and OOWP.
1.000 is better than .800. Unless there is a big difference in OWP and OOWP, I think that the team with the 1.000 gets the higher seed. :)
In the South, we may see the committee looking at UMHB and Salisbury with the only common opponent being CNU.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 15, 2007, 09:28:47 AM
This may be a little off base K-Mack. But this arguement seems more about politcal correctness (fairness) than about reality. It isn't fair that MUC (the haves) and the East Region (the have nots) or the North or the West for that matter can be thrown into the have nots (the ones without the Walnut and Bronze) dont always get to host the semi finals. I agree with you that MUC earns their spot with getting to host the home games. UWW has earned that spot here in the West until someone can beat them. That is a fact we in the West have to live with until the time comes that we can put up a team that can beat them. I am sure that Hope College or some other North team would love to be able to host a game or get a shot at MUC at home, but that has to be earned. The team here in the West that gets to travel every playoff has been ST Norberts of late. Even at 10-0 they travel because they haven't overcome the first playoff game with a win. To me it is kind of a moot point. Central (my team) has to do the same thing. Earn the respect with some playoff wins. Then the tide will change until then we are just a playoff team. Home field can help but it is not a part of winning. Look at SJU last year. They stumble with Bethel and then have to go on the road for two games and they come out with 2 wins and almost beat UWW last year. If a team is truly a contender it does not matter where they play. I think the past few years if MUC had all road games they still get the the Stagg. If the committee was really bias as sjfcclimbing thinks they would have found a way to leave SJU at home to reap all that money from their fan base. One thing I have found to be true that D3 is not money influenced like D1.
Dutch,
You make some decent points, but if I'm reading you right, you are missing a big point about the playoffs.
Past success has virtually no influence on this year's brackets. So a team or conference getting playoff wins
Those things have a very big influence on the D3football.com poll. The poll's got a very different goal (to determine the 25 best/strongest D3 teams) than the playoff committee does (to seed the 21/22 automatic qualifiers, plus Pool B and C teams in a 32-team bracket).
Where seeding is concerned, "strength" has in the past been determined by the Quality of Wins index (QoWi) and this year and beyond will be determined by opponents winning percentage and opponents opponents winning percentage (OWP and OOWP). Ralph or Pat, correct me if I'm wrong.
So what this means is technically, St. Norbert or Hope could host a home game. Any team from any conference could, provided it plays a strong (as determined by OWP/OOWP) schedule and does well against it, and how that stacks up against the other seven teams in its bracket.
Sometimes in the West it's hard to tell because there are more undefeated teams than available home games. But the MIAA champ could earn a home game, it just never does because it always has two or three losses.
There are some examples of so-called weaker leagues hosting. In '04, Alma hosted Carthage, but I think that had to do with the Red Men's field not being playoff-ready. (bathrooms and press facilities or something have to meet certain requirements, and paperwork has to be filed mid-season)
In any case, even where strictly semifinals are concerned, regular-season performance determines that because of the way the bracket is seeded on the opening weekend of the playoffs.
Again, the top seeds in the four brackets are chosen, and then they are seeded using the same criteria used to pick at-large teams and seed teams once the 32 are determined. Then, in the case of equal seeds advancing, the team from the higher-seeded bracket gets the game on their campus. In teh case of a 2 seed from a higher-seeded bracket playing a 1 seed, the 1 seed hosts regardless.
Make sense?
Here's that '05 bracket (http://www.d3football.com/playoffs/05/bracket.htm) that had Mount Union seeded second in the North behind Wabash, and the North seeded third behind the East. No. 2 Union could've hosted Mount Union that year too if it had made the semis.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 15, 2007, 09:36:58 AM
On to the top 25
Not surprised that the Dutch fell but I was surprised that they fell two spots. Having said that Capital must not have had the confidence until their win last week. Understandable that that might give some voters clarity in their position on voting. I was listening to a local radio show last night driving home from the grandkids home. Jim Walden (former Iowa State coach) was ranting on how Ohio State was #1 and that an Arizona State team was #12 with a similar record from a similar conference as Ohio State and that how could there be that much difference in those two spots. I have learned from Pat and you K-Mack that voters take many other things into their voting. In ASU case they haven't played the meat of their schedule yet and the voters dont think they can beat USC, Cal, and Oregon. So after pondering that I came to the conclusion that the voters had Capital to low last week and they deserved the bump past Central and Wheaton. Polls should be taken with a grain of salt anyway cause the only thing that matters is the W's any way. If a team keeps winning it all takes care of itself.
This is very on-point.
One way to explain Capital last week is that they played ONU, ranked No. 11 and won more convincingly (24-6) than either Wheaton or Central did against unranked teams (though Augie and Coe are actually pretty good)
Also, they both have had multiple squeakers now, and voters might also have taken that into account, cumulatively.
Rockies are going to the WS, back to work :)
Quote from: TC on October 15, 2007, 12:41:44 PM
but just once I'd like to see the Purple Raiders travel to Collegeville.
I'm sure Kehres would take a home-and-home if he ever saw (320) 363-3387 come up on his caller ID.
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 15, 2007, 11:33:26 PMMy problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2.
QoWi or OWP and OOWP.
I agree, a common opponent is preferable, but not always possible.
In that case, at least with some kind of strength-of-schedule rating they are trying to get it right. Because not all schedules are the same, and therefore all performances against said schedules shouldn't be judged the same, at least when some reason to judge them (seeding) is necessary.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:10:37 AM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 15, 2007, 11:33:26 PMMy problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2.
QoWi or OWP and OOWP.
I agree, a common opponent is preferable, but not always possible.
In that case, at least with some kind of strength-of-schedule rating they are trying to get it right. Because not all schedules are the same, and therefore all performances against said schedules shouldn't be judged the same, at least when some reason to judge them (seeding) is necessary.
The one problem I see with looking at common opponents is that the common opponents may not be the same. Here is why. If Team A plays Team B at the first game of the season and beats them by 21 and then Team B plays Team C in week 11 and Team C Beats them by 42 on paper it says that Team C is the better team. Do they take into consideration that Team B has lost 8 starters to injury or fill in blank that they are not the same teams. Team B has lost the starting back field or some other scenario.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 16, 2007, 08:32:18 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:10:37 AM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 15, 2007, 11:33:26 PMMy problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2.
QoWi or OWP and OOWP.
I agree, a common opponent is preferable, but not always possible.
In that case, at least with some kind of strength-of-schedule rating they are trying to get it right. Because not all schedules are the same, and therefore all performances against said schedules shouldn't be judged the same, at least when some reason to judge them (seeding) is necessary.
The one problem I see with looking at common opponents is that the common opponents may not be the same. Here is why. If Team A plays Team B at the first game of the season and beats them by 21 and then Team B plays Team C in week 11 and Team C Beats them by 42 on paper it says that Team C is the better team. Do they take into consideration that Team B has lost 8 starters to injury or fill in blank that they are not the same teams. Team B has lost the starting back field or some other scenario.
Dutch, margin-of-victory is not included in the OWP or OOWP calculations! ;)
Ralph my comment was to the line common opponents is preferable but not always possible. Common opponents only tell what team you played not who (the players on the field) you played and can be misleading. I have no opinion on the OWP or the OOWP. I have not researched it enough to render an opinion on that or not sure I can even figure out what it all means. I am sure that there is some sound reasoning and basis for the switch.
Past success has virtually no influence on this year's brackets. So a team or conference getting playoff wins
Well to a point don't you think this is wrong. The conferences at least from reading on the boards here need to prove themselves somewhat in the past. The discussions about the best conferences are like the NWC is better than the IIAC because of Linfield and PLU winning it all. Or the MIAC being better than the IIAC. Yes St Johns has success in the playoffs and beat us last year but as a whole how does the conference stack up. The OAC is tuff because of MUC and granted the second place team it seems like there is some references to the past. Now having said that I believe that by the end of the year or at least by week 9-10 the polls have a good idea as to who is good and that is based on the current year but I dont know how much of that is true at week 1-5. The current case for that IMO is UW Lacrosse. I know the WIAC as a whole is a tuff conference and maybe no one will come through undefeated but that is a point I think. Past does play a role until things get sorted out.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 16, 2007, 04:41:10 PM
Past success has virtually no influence on this year's brackets. So a team or conference getting playoff wins
Well to a point don't you think this is wrong. The conferences at least from reading on the boards here need to prove themselves somewhat in the past. The discussions about the best conferences are like the NWC is better than the IIAC because of Linfield and PLU winning it all. Or the MIAC being better than the IIAC. Yes St Johns has success in the playoffs and beat us last year but as a whole how does the conference stack up. The OAC is tuff because of MUC and granted the second place team it seems like there is some references to the past. Now having said that I believe that by the end of the year or at least by week 9-10 the polls have a good idea as to who is good and that is based on the current year but I dont know how much of that is true at week 1-5. The current case for that IMO is UW Lacrosse. I know the WIAC as a whole is a tuff conference and maybe no one will come through undefeated but that is a point I think. Past does play a role until things get sorted out.
I respectfully disagree with you. :)
--Past performance has nothing to do with the selection process. (That is clearly absent from the rule books as of several years ago.)
--Strong teams from strong conferences usually rise to the top each season.
When I was in school, the answer to those 2 statements was:
"B" True/True Unrelated
:-\
Or maybe I don't comprehend that we are talking apples (Top 25 Rankings) and oranges (NCAA Post-season Selections)!
Thanks.
Sorry Ralph,
I am talking about top 25 not post season.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 16, 2007, 08:32:18 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:10:37 AM
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 15, 2007, 11:33:26 PMMy problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2.
QoWi or OWP and OOWP.
I agree, a common opponent is preferable, but not always possible.
In that case, at least with some kind of strength-of-schedule rating they are trying to get it right. Because not all schedules are the same, and therefore all performances against said schedules shouldn't be judged the same, at least when some reason to judge them (seeding) is necessary.
The one problem I see with looking at common opponents is that the common opponents may not be the same. Here is why. If Team A plays Team B at the first game of the season and beats them by 21 and then Team B plays Team C in week 11 and Team C Beats them by 42 on paper it says that Team C is the better team. Do they take into consideration that Team B has lost 8 starters to injury or fill in blank that they are not the same teams. Team B has lost the starting back field or some other scenario.
Agreed. I almost considered posting something very similar last night, but I actually held back for fear the conversation would devolve into mincing of the highest order.
The truth is, there's no perfect way to compare teams.
But one of the reasons we like sports, and a playoff system, is that there are absolutes: At the end of the game, you've either won or lost, you either advance or go home.
Quote from: DutchFan2004 on October 16, 2007, 04:41:10 PM
Past success has virtually no influence on this year's brackets. So a team or conference getting playoff wins
Well to a point don't you think this is wrong. The conferences at least from reading on the boards here need to prove themselves somewhat in the past. The discussions about the best conferences are like the NWC is better than the IIAC because of Linfield and PLU winning it all. Or the MIAC being better than the IIAC. Yes St Johns has success in the playoffs and beat us last year but as a whole how does the conference stack up. The OAC is tuff because of MUC and granted the second place team it seems like there is some references to the past. Now having said that I believe that by the end of the year or at least by week 9-10 the polls have a good idea as to who is good and that is based on the current year but I dont know how much of that is true at week 1-5. The current case for that IMO is UW Lacrosse. I know the WIAC as a whole is a tuff conference and maybe no one will come through undefeated but that is a point I think. Past does play a role until things get sorted out.
If the question is do I think not considering past year's success in the formula for this year's playoffs is wrong, the answer is no. I think that's right.
It's OK for history to have a bearing on the polls, but even the pollsters' views of the strong conferences change as inter-conference results come in.
The postseason spots need to be determined on this season alone, at least as much as possible. Or rather, they need to be determined by actual accomplishments, with as little subjectiveness as possible.
That's where the regional rankings and the OWP/OOWP (basically a strength-of-schedule rating) come in. The strongest teams from the strongest conferences (or playing the strongest schedules) should usually grade out best.
And, even if 9-1 or 8-2 teams are matched up and some get in and some don't, at least we know the reasons why, rather than the feelings of someone who likely would never reveal their reasons.
Anyway, I think we've about beat this topic to death; However, Ralph, I think we got on it because someone was questioning the link between the rankings and particular seeds in a particular part of the playoffs.
All of this points to the need for an expanded field of teams.....32 just simply isn't enough when you have as many automatic qualifiers from conferences. Last year only 8 at large teams?? There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....it would just help to end the arguements over lack of common opponent data. Obviously D III schools don't travel across country during the season, and in an expanded field there might be more travel but it is an opportunity to ignite fan bases that have traditionally not had to travel....could wake up a sleeping giant in terms of renewed interest for all programs!
Quote from: billrt66 on October 17, 2007, 05:17:33 PM
There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....
Really?! No impact?
The move from 28 teams to 32 made a lot of sense and had very little impact...but I don't know how you just slip another week in there without anyone noticing.
Quote from: billrt66 on October 17, 2007, 05:17:33 PM
All of this points to the need for an expanded field of teams.....32 just simply isn't enough when you have as many automatic qualifiers from conferences. Last year only 8 at large teams?? There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....it would just help to end the arguements over lack of common opponent data. Obviously D III schools don't travel across country during the season, and in an expanded field there might be more travel but it is an opportunity to ignite fan bases that have traditionally not had to travel....could wake up a sleeping giant in terms of renewed interest for all programs!
Win your conference and there isn't a problem. Pretty simple, really.
If you go to 40 then you have those byes. 32 is perfect for D-3. The playoffs are the right length, too.
Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?
Woops, for some reason I thought SJU was a higher seed that year-but I do remember the 2000 season. How about, was PLU the last team to win the Stagg as a 7 or 8 seed?
Quote from: sju56321 on October 18, 2007, 10:30:11 AM
Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?
Um...no. Your own Johnnies made it all the way to the Stagg Bowl as a 7 seed the very next year (2000). UMHB (in 2004) was a lower seed as well.
Quote from: d-train on October 18, 2007, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: sju56321 on October 18, 2007, 10:30:11 AM
Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?
Um...no. Your own Johnnies made it all the way to the Stagg Bowl as a 7 seed the very next year (2000). UMHB (in 2004) was a lower seed as well.
Here is what UMHB played in 2004.
UMHB's schedule in the playoffs... On the road to #7, #3, #5, #1, and #2 (http://www.d3football.com/previous_info.php?school=Mary+Hardin-Baylor&year=2004)
2004 Week #11 Top 25 (http://www.d3football.com/top25/2004/week-11).
I think the committee has learned better how to seed, a little bit.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 18, 2007, 02:38:03 PM
I think the committee has learned better how to seed, a little bit.
Johnnies and PLU, yes!
But the Trinity and HSU games were "geographic proximity games", and HSU had the #1 seed and the bye! :-\
Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 15, 2007, 11:33:26 PM
My problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other than bias can say the 10-0 is better than the 8-2?
I find this question kind of amusing. I don't see any bias even possible in claiming that a 10 - 0 team has a better record than an 8 - 2 team. If you want to look past the records, then the two most common techinques--and arguably the two most reliable techniques--are common opponent analysis and Strength of Schedule analysis.
In the 10 - 0 v. 8 - 2 comparison, if there are any common opponents, that can only strengthen the case that the 10 - 0 team has a better record than the 8 - 2 team (unless you're going to look at margin of victory v. common victories, which is a pretty tenuous statistic for analyzing relative team strengths).
As for Strength of Schedule analysis, it's clearly an inexact science. First of all, the NCAA formula for OWP is essentially the purest form of SoS analysis--at its core, it simply asks "how many games did your opponents win?" In the case of an undefeated 10 - 0 team, the answer is simple. In the case of the 8 - 2 team, there's an automatic secondary consideration, namely "including the games that they beat us, or not?" So SoS analysis is really difficult to use when comparing teams with different records.
But, even if you were to rely on SoS analysis to compare a 10 - 0 team against an 8 - 2 team, you're going to run into the situation where there's no clear cut way to decide who should get a boost from having a high Strength of Schedule. [Erroneous Example Deleted] A team could claim that it's lost every game, but to really good teams, but so what?
Comparing records head to head without further analysis is not bias. It
might--only might--be an incomplete analysis, but it's clearly the best statistic for comparing relative team strength. No other statistic by itself is as meaningful.
As of today (end of week 8, right?), how many undefeated teams are there in D3? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Ironic that you use just OWP and call is SOS. That widely discredited metric is (essentially) the late, unlamented QOWI. This year they have moved to a much more informative combination of OWP and OOWP - not just how what were your opponents' records, but what were THEIR opponents' records.
Record alone (while it may or may not be the SINGLE best indicator) does not tell the whole story. At the extreme, an 0-10 team could be the 11th best in the country (if their opponents are 1 thru 10), while a 10-0 team could be the 11th worst! Obviously, in real life, a 10-0 team is likely to be better than an 8-2 team, but by no means is that always true.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2007, 08:18:19 PM
Ironic that you use just OWP and call is SOS. That widely discredited metric is (essentially) the late, unlamented QOWI. This year they have moved to a much more informative combination of OWP and OOWP - not just how what were your opponents' records, but what were THEIR opponents' records.
Which "that" widely discredited metric? I didn't mention last year. I was talking about OWP/SoS.
As I understand it, OWP is entirely different from the unrelated-to-anything, out-of-the-clear-blue-sky, Playoff Handbook-originated Quality of Wins Index. Opponents' Winning Percentage is synonymous with Strength of Schedule. There is no QoWI in 2007, is there?
It certainly is possible, that a 0 - 10 team is the 11th best team in the country. If there are only 11 teams in the country, then comparison of records reaches that result more easily than by SoS analysis.
No QOWI in 2007.
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 21, 2007, 08:04:19 PM
As of today (end of week 8, right?), how many undefeated teams are there in D3? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
16. And 17 winless.
The rest of my contribution to this discussion will be in ATN though. ;)
The Top 25 is showing considerable consensus among the top 6 schools.
1 Mount Union (25) 7-0 625 (Perfect #1 vote tally)
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-0 596 (-4 from perfect #2)
3 UW-Whitewater 6-1 575 (Perfect #3)
4 St. John's 8-0 549 (-1 vote from perfect #4)
5 Wheaton (Ill.) 7-0 521 (-4 votes from perfect #5)
6 Central 8-0 494 (-6 votes from perfect #6)
The second tier of teams is the cluster around #7- #9. A perfect #7 receives 475 votes; #8 -- 450; #9 -- 425.
7 St. John Fisher 7-1 423
8 Washington and Jefferson 6-0 414
9 Salisbury 8-0 411
Wesley comes in a solid #10. A perfect #10 will receive 400 votes. Wesley's 376 is closer to a perfect #11, but there is a drop-off to the next cluster of teams between #11 and #13. Perfect #11 , #12 and #13 should receive 375 votes, 350 votes and 325 votes, respectively.
10 Wesley 7-1 376
11 Alfred 7-0 343
12 Capital 6-1 337
13 Wabash 7-0 334
Occidental at #14 is clearly a step below in the minds of the voters. A perfect #14 should get 300 votes, so the voters are telling us that Oxy "seems" like a #16 to them.
14 Occidental 6-0 251
Top 25 -- Week #8 (http://www.d3football.com/top25/2007/week-8)
Awesome analysis Ralph!! I never knew that was how it worked with the perfect votes and all.
Half of the Top 6 in the West region...how does that play out if all are 10-0?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2007, 11:28:58 AM
The Top 25 is showing considerable consensus among the top 6 schools.
1 Mount Union (25) 7-0 625 (Perfect #1 vote tally)
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor 7-0 596 (-4 from perfect #2)
3 UW-Whitewater 6-1 575 (Perfect #3)
4 St. John's 8-0 549 (-1 vote from perfect #4)
5 Wheaton (Ill.) 7-0 521 (-4 votes from perfect #5)
6 Central 8-0 494 (-6 votes from perfect #6)
The second tier of teams is the cluster around #7- #9. A perfect #7 receives 475 votes; #8 -- 450; #9 -- 425.
7 St. John Fisher 7-1 423
8 Washington and Jefferson 6-0 414
9 Salisbury 8-0 411
Wesley comes in a solid #10. A perfect #10 will receive 400 votes. Wesley's 376 is closer to a perfect #11, but there is a drop-off to the next cluster of teams between #11 and #13. Perfect #11 , #12 and #13 should receive 375 votes, 350 votes and 325 votes, respectively.
10 Wesley 7-1 376
11 Alfred 7-0 343
12 Capital 6-1 337
13 Wabash 7-0 334
Occidental at #14 is clearly a step below in the minds of the voters. A perfect #14 should get 300 votes, so the voters are telling us that Oxy "seems" like a #16 to them.
14 Occidental 6-0 251
Great stuff, Ralph. As I'm sure you know, the potential for erroneous conclusion of your analysis increases as you move past the top few spots. By the time you reach mid-poll, comparison to "perfect" scores is nearly impossible to gauge.
1 As a simple example, in a top 25 vote, if Voter A picked the Screaming Chickens #1, and Voter B picked the same team #25, then the Screaming Chickens would have a "perfect #13 vote tally," with very little consensus.
1 The fact that the top teams in this week's poll do in fact have a pretty clear consensus makes my simple example impossible, but you get the idea.
Redswarm, your example is clearly borne out in the East Region Fan Poll and the South Region Fan Poll that are being conducted on these boards! The fact that the poll conductors are sharing the vote tallies is very instructive.
There is much less consensus as we get farther down the poll.
I was particularly struck by how "tightly" the first 6 teams were voted this week. :)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2007, 01:03:39 PM
Redswarm, your example is clearly borne out in the East Region Fan Poll and the South Region Fan Poll that are being conducted on these boards! The fact that the poll conductors are sharing the vote tallies is very instructive.
There is much less consensus as we get farther down the poll.
I was particularly struck by how "tightly" the first 6 teams were voted this week. :)
Agreed on all points. Great stuff.
It's like the Top 25 is a parfait, with all of the good stuff at the top, though.
So if UWW beats MHB by 1, lets say a 7-8 defensive struggle, UWW wins on a 2pt conversion in OT. DO they swap spots or does someone else jump them?
Quote from: mhb8904 on October 22, 2007, 03:58:23 PM
So if UWW beats MHB by 1, lets say a 7-8 defensive struggle, UWW wins on a 2pt conversion in OT. DO they swap spots or does someone else jump them?
I would think they swap spots and/or they both stay in the top 5 unless there is a decent blowout. If UMHB wins by a large margin I would guess UWW would drop out of top 10. If UWW wins by a large margin I would guess UMHB wouldn't drop as far.
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 22, 2007, 12:30:51 PM
As a simple example, in a top 25 vote, if Voter A picked the Screaming Chickens #1, and Voter B picked the same team #25, then the Screaming Chickens would have a "perfect #13 vote tally," with very little consensus.
Wait! You mean my beloved Screaming Chickens AREN'T #1? What's with all the anti-poultry bias around here.
Quote from: Just Bill on October 22, 2007, 04:08:56 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 22, 2007, 12:30:51 PM
As a simple example, in a top 25 vote, if Voter A picked the Screaming Chickens #1, and Voter B picked the same team #25, then the Screaming Chickens would have a "perfect #13 vote tally," with very little consensus.
Wait! You mean my beloved Screaming Chickens AREN'T #1? What's with all the anti-poultry bias around here.
;)
My poultry bias is based on the fact that I'm a vegetarian.
If UMHB blows out UWW I would expect UMHB might pick up a first-place vote or two and UWW would slide a little. But frankly, other than St. John's, would we have confidence that teams are actually better than UWW? I'm not sure. It would just mean that UWW played two better teams than other teams have played.
Is it Capital, which would likely have two losses after playing Mount Union?
Is it Central, which keeps winning but dominates nobody?
Is it Wheaton, which is playing its third string quarterback and has three defensive ends out?
Is it St. John Fisher, which lost at Hartwick?
Is it Washington & Jefferson, whose opponents' winning percentage is in the low .400s?
That's the problem -- I would have a hard time believing all of those teams are better than UWW in this situation.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2007, 05:23:54 PM
If UMHB blows out UWW I would expect UMHB might pick up a first-place vote or two and UWW would slide a little. But frankly, other than St. John's, would we have confidence that teams are actually better than UWW? I'm not sure. It would just mean that UWW played two better teams than other teams have played.
Is it Capital, which would likely have two losses after playing Mount Union?
Is it Central, which keeps winning but dominates nobody?
Is it Wheaton, which is playing its third string quarterback and has three defensive ends out?
Is it St. John Fisher, which lost at Hartwick?
Is it Washington & Jefferson, whose opponents' winning percentage is in the low .400s?
That's the problem -- I would have a hard time believing all of those teams are better than UWW in this situation.
+1 Pat!
There is some insight for new readers as to why we respect the D3football.com Top 25!
Thanks!
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 22, 2007, 05:23:54 PM
If UMHB blows out UWW I would expect UMHB might pick up a first-place vote or two and UWW would slide a little. But frankly, other than St. John's, would we have confidence that teams are actually better than UWW? I'm not sure. It would just mean that UWW played two better teams than other teams have played.
Is it Capital, which would likely have two losses after playing Mount Union?
Is it Central, which keeps winning but dominates nobody?
Is it Wheaton, which is playing its third string quarterback and has three defensive ends out?
Is it St. John Fisher, which lost at Hartwick?
Is it Washington & Jefferson, whose opponents' winning percentage is in the low .400s?
That's the problem -- I would have a hard time believing all of those teams are better than UWW in this situation.
If UWW loses a close game, and they drop like South Florida dropped in the polls, then I would scream.
South Florida lost a conference game on the road to a quality opponent on a non-traditional night. And they drop from 2 to 11 because, well, it proved the skeptics right. Insane.
If it's a close game, no matter who loses, I think the loser stays in the top 4.
The other question I had was this:
If it's a close game and the Cru loses and then wins out, do both teams end up with a regional #1 with UWW being the overall 2 and MHB being the overall 3 setting a possible semifinal rematch?
Quote from: mhb8904 on October 22, 2007, 10:03:49 PM
The other question I had was this:
If it's a close game and the Cru loses and then wins out, do both teams end up with a regional #1 with UWW being the overall 2 and MHB being the overall 3 setting a possible semifinal rematch?
If UMHB loses to UWW, there is a chance that UMHB might end up as the #2 or #3 seed in the South, depending on the South Region action this week and the rest of the year.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 22, 2007, 10:20:55 PM
Quote from: mhb8904 on October 22, 2007, 10:03:49 PM
The other question I had was this:
If it's a close game and the Cru loses and then wins out, do both teams end up with a regional #1 with UWW being the overall 2 and MHB being the overall 3 setting a possible semifinal rematch?
If UMHB loses to UWW, there is a chance that UMHB might end up as the #2 or #3 seed in the South, depending on the South Region action this week and the rest of the year.
Who do you think would jump them? Especially given the scenario of a one point loss?
The Wesley/Salisbury winner.
I agree that UMHB is in more danger of losing the No. 1 seed in the South to Salisbury (or even a 10-0 Muhlenberg -- crazier things have happened)
Pat's list and Ralph's analysis of the strong top 6 (it's a strong 7 in my book, but I have Fisher at the back end of that and I understand why others wouldn't, since they have a loss to a not-traditional power) show you about how far UWW or UMHB would fall with a medium or even bad loss.
You really have to toss the UWW loss vs. St. Cloud. It tells us nothing about how good they are in relation to D3 teams, and it's basically just serves to show that they can be beat and they maybe aren't overconfident.
I assume that was why people thought UWW would fall further with a loss than UMHB would.
I would not expect UMHB to pick up any first place votes, even with a convincing win over the No. 3 team in the nation. Normally that would be a chance to leapfrog No. 1, but not this No. 1, who happens to be coming off five games allowing three points and plays No. 12 this week.
If 1 beats 12 the same week 2 or 3 beats the other, I expect 1 to hold its votes.
(knows a voter will now switch just to spite me)
Also, a gripe I was going to post on the Dose podcast thread, but felt was more appropriate here:
Quotearnoldb Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 pm e
Why doesn't Wabash get any love...they are undefeated and have beat Franklin, Witt, and Allegheny
QuotePat Coleman Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm e
I believe last week, when they beat Witt, we talked about it in the podcast. This week we mainly focused on teams that got upset or nearly upset, or teams playing ranked teams next week. Wabash didn't really fit into either category this time.
We did talk about Wabash last week, I even inexplicably mispronounced the name, ever so slightly.
Podcast aside, I think Wabash, at No. 13, is getting a little too much love. I recognize them being unbeaten and all, and you can only play who you schedule, and certainly those are three nice wins you mention.
But the combined record of the opponents played is 25-24, and there two more 2-5 teams left (for a total of five) before the rivalry game.
You guys will probably finish 10-0 and ranked in or near the top 10, but I don't know if that schedule proves you're one of the 10 best teams in the country.
The Franklin win puts you there with, or maybe a shade ahead, of Occidental, W&J and RPI, as teams who are undefeated but have not played a that many strong opponents.
Still, it takes plenty to beat not-strong opponents, so I'm not completely discouting those feats.
But hey, that's why we have playoffs.
smed - Your lament on USF underscores what some people have talked about here regarding history playing a part in poll voters votes. It just shows how human nature works. I know the criteria says one thing, but how do you take human nature out of humans when making hard decisions that go into seeding/selection. I don't think you do, despite contrary opinions here by some of the very knowledgeable people here.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. What's the correlation between the Top 25 and playoff selections? Are there examples of "teams with history" being taken ahead of "teams with better numbers" that you can point to?
Since I don't have the desire to crunch numbers, I don't have any hard evidence to back up such an assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt. I do however, know people, and I just find it hard to believe that it doesn't affect people knowing such history, are able completely disregard it. Some people were making the point last year that St John's was one such beneficiary over one or two east region teams that, numbers wise could have had a case made for them over SJU. I'm just sayin'.
If UWW loses I dont know that anyone below them now is better than WW. Wheaton, Central, and SJU all seem to belong where they are with UWW just ahead of them.
Quote from: retagent on October 23, 2007, 07:29:53 PM
Since I don't have the desire to crunch numbers, I don't have any hard evidence to back up such an assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt. I do however, know people, and I just find it hard to believe that it doesn't affect people knowing such history, are able completely disregard it. Some people were making the point last year that St John's was one such beneficiary over one or two east region teams that, numbers wise could have had a case made for them over SJU. I'm just sayin'.
Since you're too uninterested to give us anything substantiative to chew on, remind us why we should care what you're "just sayin'?"
As for the assertion that St. John's got into last season's playoffs over Cortland State on name recognition and not criteria, please refer to last year's D3football.com playoff projections (http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/?p=270). They project St. John's in and Cortland out and if you scroll about halfway down the comments, there's a note from Gordon Mann that explains why. The "numbers" didn't favor Cortland, although they had a slightly stronger QoW. If they had, Cortland would have been in. Simple and plain.
The reason I refer you to those projections is because I know they are made not with name recognition in mind, but with the sole goal of projecting the exact 32 teams the committee would take. Pat and Gordon pore over the criteria trying to nail them (and usually do pretty well), and I've never once heard them say that anything but the criteria was a factor.
When teams as close as the last of the nine for seven Pool C spots were last year, they can all make a case. By the same token, they all had a direct route to the playoffs via Pool A.
Alas, Cortland and Franklin were 9-1 with 7-point losses to their conference champions and there was no room for them in the postseason. Tell "regular season matters" Herbstreit to stick that in his pipe and smoke it.
(sorry, just like that phrase)
Personally, I find it hard to believe why people find it so hard to believe that a professional person can put aside his bias and follow the pre-determined criteria. (granted, the inability to use MapPoint might not inspire much confidence) ... I don't have a hard time not voting for my alma mater in the top 25, for instance, even though they are 6-1, because I don't think they're a top 25 team compared with resumes of some other teams.
Don't see why a committee member wouldn't be able to do something similar.
It's not like Division III is going to reap major financial rewards by putting one team in the postseason over another, like say, Notre Dame always getting placed in a high-profile bowl they don't quite deserve because they draw well and ads during their broadcasts sell.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Since you're too uninterested to give us anything substantiative© to chew on, . . .
My
pro bono copyright work (
pro bono publico, pro bono D3football.com-o, right, dewcrew?) is getting downright voluminious off of the ATN staff alone.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Personally, I find it hard to believe why people find it so hard to believe that a professional person can put aside his bias and follow the pre-determined criteria.
Not meaning to offend, Keith, but I can understand any person's reluctance to believe that an establishment media journalist will put aside his or her bias.
As for NCAA Playoff Selection Committee members and bias, that's a different kettle of fish. There, I might just wonder about their intellectual capacity, when they study teams all year long, and spend hours in smoke filled rooms, to announce on national television that Al Guhainey (Allegheny) has been selected to play.
Swarm,
That was a talking head at ESPN who spoke that, not anyone associated with the NCAA.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 24, 2007, 07:09:56 AM
Swarm,
That was a talking head at ESPN who spoke that, not anyone associated with the NCAA.
This is why they should let you lead.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 23, 2007, 07:29:53 PM
I don't have a hard time not voting for my alma mater in the top 25, for instance, even though they are 6-1, because I don't think they're a top 25 team compared with resumes of some other teams.
Or perhaps a loss to mighty Frostburg is an automatic disqualifier ... :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 24, 2007, 07:09:56 AM
Swarm,
That was a talking head at ESPN who spoke that [Al Guhainey line], not anyone associated with the NCAA.
D'oh!! My bad.
I guess if I want to bash the NCAA
(Halliburton) , I'll have to stick with my go-to scapegoat, President (and RPI
(Halliburton) grad, I'm not proud to admit) Myles Brand
(Halliburton) , who is directing the NCAA's jihad on names and mascots of American Indian derivation or even of tenuous connection.
At least until I can either find another credible explanation, or figure out a way to hang it on Steinbrenner or Selig.
Quote from: repete on October 24, 2007, 10:49:44 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 23, 2007, 07:29:53 PM
I don't have a hard time not voting for my alma mater in the top 25, for instance, even though they are 6-1, because I don't think they're a top 25 team compared with resumes of some other teams.
Or perhaps a loss to mighty Frostburg is an automatic disqualifier ... :)
Well, basically, yeah ...
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 24, 2007, 02:58:35 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Personally, I find it hard to believe why people find it so hard to believe that a professional person can put aside his bias and follow the pre-determined criteria.
Not meaning to offend, Keith, but I can understand any person's reluctance to believe that an establishment media journalist will put aside his or her bias.
And I can understand that "The Media" is as hated by the general public as lawyers, or, well, The NCAA.
I'm also telling you it's just not that hard to recognize your own bias(es), then put it (them) aside for the purposes of getting a job done. I've never been on the committee, but I imagine it must be even easier to do when you're given a list of rules to follow.
Basically, with the criteria, any reasonable person or group of people should come up with virtually the same results. It's why Pat and Gordon can nail all or all but one team each year. Clearly there's some room for variation in interpreting the criteria, and it's significant to the 33rd team on the list. But "bias" is not the only possible or logical explanation for those variations.
People have generally been too quick to criticize what they haven't taken the time to understand.
The selection committee each year is made up of eight D3 coaches and ADs/administrators. Even if they had no professional pride, it would make sense for them to want to understand the process and get it right, since it's bound to affect them sooner or later. They are basically a bunch of folks who have devoted their lives already to student-athletics at our level.
The portrayal of the committee as a bunch of Montgomery Burns-looking guys sitting in a room figuring out how they can screw poor little Cortland State is just silly.
They definitely have a job to do, and it's one that affects hundreds of kids' lives. They're human and they make mistakes, but I have no problem holding them accountable for their mistakes.
Let's just not pretend they're something they aren't.
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 24, 2007, 10:53:12 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 24, 2007, 07:09:56 AM
Swarm,
That was a talking head at ESPN who spoke that [Al Guhainey line], not anyone associated with the NCAA.
D'oh!! My bad.
I guess if I want to bash the NCAA (Halliburton) , I'll have to stick with my go-to scapegoat, President (and RPI (Halliburton) grad, I'm not proud to admit) Myles Brand (Halliburton) , who is directing the NCAA's jihad on names and mascots of American Indian derivation or even of tenuous connection.
At least until I can either find another credible explanation, or figure out a way to hang it on Steinbrenner or Selig.
Now that's funny.
And substantiativitaitiaittiiative.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:29:14 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 24, 2007, 02:58:35 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Personally, I find it hard to believe why people find it so hard to believe that a professional person can put aside his bias and follow the pre-determined criteria.
Not meaning to offend, Keith, but I can understand any person's reluctance to believe that an establishment media journalist will put aside his or her bias.
And I can understand that "The Media" is as hated by the general public as lawyers, or, well, The NCAA.
Agreed. But we can all take comfort from the fact that Congress is hated more than any of us. :D
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:29:14 PM
I'm also telling you it's just not that hard to recognize your own bias(es), then put it (them) aside for the purposes of getting a job done. I've never been on the committee, but I imagine it must be even easier to do when you're given a list of rules to follow.
Let's just not pretend [the Selection Committee is] something they aren't.
Agreed, in spades. My comment about the establishment media journalists was more of a tangent, related to your solid point about how easy it is for any person to put aside bias. (Including NYTimes reporters, and Bill Moyers, which makes their sleeve-worn biases that much more disappointing).
I've never really had any complaints about which teams were selected, although I remember thinking in 2003 that Johns Hopkins got stiffed. I'm with you 100% on the motivation behind the selection criteria, i.e. to keep it performance-based. I might occasionally quibble with their seedings, but generally the selections are clear according to the selection criteria, as D3football.com's exceedingly accurate predictions bear out.
Good Lord, at that rate your karma will be up to negative 40 by the end of the week.
Is your avatar from Romancing The Stone?
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:01:16 PM
Quote from: repete on October 24, 2007, 10:49:44 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 23, 2007, 07:29:53 PM
I don't have a hard time not voting for my alma mater in the top 25, for instance, even though they are 6-1, because I don't think they're a top 25 team compared with resumes of some other teams.
Or perhaps a loss to mighty Frostburg is an automatic disqualifier ... :)
Well, basically, yeah ...
But Frostburg does have the best OWP in the country right now at .900. That ought to count for something! :D
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:29:14 PM
The portrayal of the committee as a bunch of Montgomery Burns-looking guys sitting in a room figuring out how they can screw poor little Cortland State is just silly.
Excellent!
I personally know someone who was on the NCAA selection committee for Basketball and also was chair of the Atlantic Region committee for a time. I would be shocked if he was not completely professional about his job and allowed personal bias to enter into his decision making.
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 24, 2007, 01:56:40 PM
...
I've never really had any complaints about which teams were selected, although I remember thinking in 2003 that Johns Hopkins got stiffed.
The stiffing of JHU, and Hampden-Sydney, and UMHB (ASC-Tri-Champion) and maybe even Hardin-Simmons (another ASC Tri-Champion) (
2003 Playoff Projections (http://d3football.com/news.php?item=268)) can be more accurately attributed to the 1:7.5 access ratio for Championships that D3 was authorizing in championships before 2005. There were only 3 Pool C bids to give.
I suggest that you work with RPI's president, Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson*, and encourage her that access to the playoffs is a high priority with you. Furthermore your active participation in alumni and fundraising activities for the Athletic Department at a "sacrificial" level will convey the importance of the issue for you. :)
*Thanks to redswarm!
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 24, 2007, 02:58:35 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Since you're too uninterested to give us anything substantiative© to chew on, . . .
My pro bono copyright work (pro bono publico, pro bono D3football.com-o, right, dewcrew?) is getting downright voluminious off of the ATN staff alone.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:49:17 AM
Personally, I find it hard to believe why people find it so hard to believe that a professional person can put aside his bias and follow the pre-determined criteria.
Not meaning to offend, Keith, but I can understand any person's reluctance to believe that an establishment media journalist will put aside his or her bias.
As for NCAA Playoff Selection Committee members and bias, that's a different kettle of fish. There, I might just wonder about their intellectual capacity, when they study teams all year long, and spend hours in smoke filled rooms, to announce on national television that Al Guhainey (Allegheny) has been selected to play.
.com-o. You've got it. At this rate, you'd have to add more people to your practice. ;)
Maybe I should just wave the white flag, but I feel like stirring a bit more. I'm not sure that having certain historical biases is necessarily a bad thing. Certain teams should have to show that they belong before they are regarded as well as teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong.
Over the years, I've had little (to no) problem with the teams selected. The seedings? That's a different story......
seedings=joke
Tough to seed correctly when you have to pinch pennies... :(
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 02:01:56 PM
Good Lord, at that rate your karma will be up to negative 40 by the end of the week.
Not everyone around here has your sense of humor, though.
To quote the Boss (for whom I have tickets in Albany and Washington, DC):
I'm the same old story, same old act;
One step up and two steps back.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 02:01:56 PM
Is your avatar from Romancing The Stone?
You bet!
Michael Douglas: Marijuana--you ever smoke this stuff?
Kathleen Turner: I went to college.
I'll be able to die happy if I ever hear a Supreme Court nominee give that answer.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 05:10:13 PM
I suggest that you work with your university president, and encourage him1 that access to the playoffs is a high priority with you. Furthermore your active participation in alumni and fundraising activities for the Athletic Department at a "sacrificial" level2 will convey the importance of the issue for you. :)
1 Her. Shirley Ann Jackson href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Ann_Jackson (http://shirley%20ann%20jackson %20href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Ann_Jackson) Mind your manners Doc. :D
2 I participate in withholding taxation at the "sacrificial" level already, Ralph.
Quote from: retagent on October 24, 2007, 05:42:00 PM
Maybe I should just wave the white flag, but I feel like stirring a bit more. I'm not sure that having certain historical biases is necessarily a bad thing. Certain teams should have to show that they belong before they are regarded as well as teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong.
So, you support the idea of say, an 8 - 2 Ithaca being invited to the tournament based on what they did in the 80s, versus a 10 - 0 Curry team being invited based on what they did in 2007?
How are you going to phrase that in the handbook that you send to all the schools, informing them of what they need to do to get invited to the tournament?
I have some real discomfort with your implication. First and foremost, this is college football. The rosters change significantly every year, so the historical significance is not based primarily on roster, as would be the case in professional sports. Second, these are non scholarship DIII schools. Even those students who are more interested in the athletics than the academics clearly aren't world class athletes, or else they'd be playing on a scholarship somewhere. My third concern is who defines the following:
- who are the "certain" teams who must "show they belong?"
- what constitutes "show[ing] they belong?"
- who are the teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong?
- how long is "a longer period?"
I'm sure you mean well, but put yourself in the shoes of the incoming Utica head coach, at a team meeting. How do you explain to your players what they have to do to "show that they belong," in order to be regarded as well as teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong?
Quote from: Knightstalker on October 24, 2007, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 24, 2007, 01:29:14 PM
The portrayal of the committee as a bunch of Montgomery Burns-looking guys sitting in a room figuring out how they can screw poor little Cortland State is just silly.
Excellent, Smithers!
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 24, 2007, 10:33:19 PM
So, you support the idea of say, an 8 - 2 Ithaca being invited to the tournament based on what they did in the 80s, versus a 10 - 0 Curry team being invited based on what they did in 2007?
This isn't really a comparison since Curry will get the AQ regardless.
As for the topic on a whole, I have a rather low opinion of human nature most of the time, so you probably wouldn't want to hear it. :D
Quote from: retagent on October 24, 2007, 05:42:00 PM
Maybe I should just wave the white flag, but I feel like stirring a bit more. I'm not sure that having certain historical biases is necessarily a bad thing. Certain teams should have to show that they belong before they are regarded as well as teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong.
Well, I agree that you need humans on the committee to interpret the data. You wouldn't want to take a one-loss OAC team and a one-loss NEFC team and try to say they're the same, even if a statistical model says they are.
But I wouldn't call that "bias."
Maybe semantics is half the battle.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2007, 11:32:02 PM
...... You wouldn't want to take a one-loss OAC team and a one-loss NEFC team and try to say they're the same, even if a statistical model says they are.
But I wouldn't call that "bias."
I agree. I'd call that "logic".
Off topic alert:
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 24, 2007, 02:58:35 AM
Not meaning to offend, Keith, but I can understand any person's reluctance to believe that an establishment media journalist will put aside his or her bias.
Of course, why even have '"establishment media journalist(s)" when the
FEMA folks can play them on TV ...
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502488.html)
At least the established media called BS on that.
Time to resurrect this thread from page two!
While there's still a week to go before the final poll, all but two teams have now turned in their uniforms for the year, so nothing much can change. Barring an unprecedented 'triple' monkey-stomp in the Stagg (and perhaps even then!) #1 and #2 will be the Stagg participants. IMO, UMHB is pretty obvious for #3 (except, perhaps, if UWW lays an egg in Salem). But after that it gets mighty cloudy in my crystal ball.
Thoughts?
In the overall grand scheme of things does it matter where the next 6 or 7 teams end up ranked? I think that Bethel should get the No. 4 just like Welsey should have gotten it last year. They made the final four although their region was the 4th seed. It's all subjective after the Stagg Bowl. We have a playoff to determine a champion but the domino's don't fall equally because somewhere someone feels a no. 3 seed in one region is better than a no. 1 of another.
When a coach is recruiting does he say we were no. 3 or no. 5 or does he say we are a top ten team?
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on December 08, 2007, 07:07:04 PM
When a coach is recruiting does he say we were no. 3 or no. 5 or does he say we are a top ten team?
Your right. Recruit's and parents will always hear the first number. Top 10 vs 4th, 5th, etc.
As far as where the rest will fall, I wonder if strenght of schedule again comes into play?
I think you tell people that you were the 5th ranked team in the country. If you were 9th or 10th, then maybe you might tell people that you were a top 10 team.
You know, the final poll means nothing to me, since D3 does it the right way and crowns a champion on the field. From there, its how far you advanced in the playoffs, etc.
True, the final poll determines nothing, but it appears to mean something. In other words, I'm not sure how much it matters, but it seems to interest people.
It also seems to be a worthwhile pursuit, to determine the final rank of teams now that all the data is in, since we spend so much time trying to do it with only limited data (i.e. four weeks of games in Week 4, etc.)
PA Wesley Dad, of course the chips don't fall equally because teams haven't played the same strength of schedule (although that should benefit the Wolverines this year, esp. since The South went to UWW and did not get smacked), and of course it is subjective.
UMHB is 3 no matter what UW-W does because UW-W beat them head-to-head.
After that, Bethel is still in pretty good shape as the champion of the West, esp. if Mount finishes the year with all blowouts.
Wesley, Central probably next.
After that I'd really have to put some thought into it.
Whitworth would be in my final 25, I believe :)