FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

And the criteria did not identify the five best teams.  Oshkosh, St. Thomas, Wabash...I think these are all better teams than Fisher and probably IWU as well, but there is more room for debate there.  But you can't know that when you are restricted to the selection criteria and don't place context around any of it.

See bolded. You think, I think, the committee thinks, the criteria indicates, Joe Blow thinks, and doofus around the corner has an opinion too. NO ONE CAN KNOW regardless of the criteria or the context or anything else. And that will always be the case, regardless of the criteria. Someone will always THINK they are correct. Good discussion, but it simply is unreasonable to think that the last spot or two can be decided by criteria that EVERYONE will know leads to the correct answer. Your opinion, my opinion, the committee's opinion, or the criteria's indication will never provide an absolute answer. Four of five uncontested and one contested but legitimate? Count your blessings we are that lucky the criteria did that good of a job.

[ExTartanPlayer]

And the criteria did not identify the five best teams.  Oshkosh, St. Thomas, Wabash...I think these are all better teams than Fisher and probably IWU as well, but there is more room for debate there.  But you can't know that when you are restricted to the selection criteria and don't place context around any of it.

See bolded. You think, I think, the committee thinks, the criteria indicates, Joe Blow thinks, and doofus around the corner has an opinion too. NO ONE CAN KNOW regardless of the criteria or the context or anything else. And that will always be the case, regardless of the criteria. Someone will always THINK they are correct. Good discussion, but it simply is unreasonable to think that the last spot or two can be decided by criteria that EVERYONE will know leads to the correct answer. Your opinion, my opinion, the committee's opinion, or the criteria's indication will never provide an absolute answer. Four of five uncontested and one contested but legitimate? Count your blessings we are that lucky the criteria did that good of a job.

But what I think is right!  At least it's more right than the doofus around the corner. 

[wabndy]

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2013/11/18/what-the-committee-chair-said/

Fascinating listening here.  You can skip to the 15:00 minute mark.  The head of the selection committee basically says they were not going to give one region a third pool C bid out of five when another "pretty good region" still had their #1 on the board.  Unwritten criteria?  Smed - can I have my tin foil hat back?

Oh - and lest anyone misinterpret what I'm saying - SJF was a legit pick.  A close pick? Yes. Would they be on the couch right now if they were in the north or west region? . . . .

[ExTartanPlayer]

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2013/11/18/what-the-committee-chair-said/

Fascinating listening here.  You can skip to the 15:00 minute mark.  The head of the selection committee basically says they were not going to give one region a third pool C bid out of five when another "pretty good region" still had their #1 on the board.  Unwritten criteria?  Smed - can I have my tin foil hat back?

Uh-oh.  I'm sure it's hard to say exactly what you mean, but given time to think about that one, he might wish he had that one back.  That's not the way this should work.  The four teams on the board should be compared independently of what has happened in the prior selection.  There shouldn't be any hint of a "quota" or "spreading it around."  If three of the five best candidates are from the same region, they should go in.

I'm not revisiting the SJF/Wabash debate, just making the philosophical point.  The above quote should absolutely NOT be part of the thought process.

[smedindy]

That's hard to say if they'd be on the board on another region. The East had no choice to have them up there - but they'd be third on the board out West (and maybe behind St. Thomas or Oshkosh - who can tell). In the North, our region seems to favor W/L at times (just a gut). In the South - definitely a choice between Thomas More, Millsaps, and SJF.

Maybe this is where the selection process can be tinkered for football - other sports have a lot more data points and the regional 'roll call' makes sense. Other sports have more slots and regions as well.

Perhaps we can just lump all of the "C" teams into one pot and select five. Still, you'd have to have some criteria, but then teams like Wabash, Oshkosh, etc. can make their case against everyone, not just who is on the board at the time - and you'd eliminate quality teams not getting to the board.

Of course, that'd be a lot of work for the committee. Those cocktails ain't gonna drink themselves! 

[HScoach]

Maybe I am the doofus around the corner, but I think the committee did a superb job selecting the 5 Pool C teams.   Anytime we're flipping a coin between the #5 and #6 teams on the board it's a win for D3 football as a whole.   I completely understand Wabash and the NCAC as a whole being pissed off, I would be too if I was in your position, but I understand why the NCAA selected SJF.   Just like I could easily see how Wabash could have gotten in instead.

However if you go by the numbers only, with no subjectivity applied, you end up with teams like B'Water State from a really weak conference getting a Pool C bid simply because they went 9-1.   If you play in a 10 team conference, you want subjectivity in the equation because your SoS is always going to be around the 500 mark. 

For the NCAC to get their 2nd place team to become an "automatic Pool C selection",  the NCAC champion needs to win a bunch of playoff games consistently and to prove to future NCAA selection committees that a loss to that team in conference is to be expected, and therefore easily forgiven.   Right or wrong, Mount and Whitewater have earned that respect for their respective conferences.   And though it's been a while, prior to Whitewater's historic run to 7 straight Staggs, the WIAC was often considered and "one and done" league come playoff time after the LaCrosse teams of the early-1990's.   Conferences like the MIAC, E-8, Northwest have all produced multiple teams that are legitimate playoff teams that have earned their conferences future respect come selection time.    If Witt makes it to the Semi-Finals, than the NCAC has a legit argument that 2nd place Wabash should have been in this season and likely the 2nd place team will get a harder look next year. 

The current system isn't perfect, but it's significantly better than some "numbers-only" metric like the high school playoffs are ranked in Ohio.   All 9-1 or 8-2 records are the same.   Nor are all RRO from different regions the same.   But with only 10 games and very limited cross-over between regions, let alone nationally, it's the best we have.   Unlike D-1 where inter-regional/national games are very common to judge relative strengths during a season, D3's only national measurement is the playoff performances which only helps with next year's selection.

Just my 2 cents as the doofus around the corner.

[jettssss]

Just wanted to comment on some of the comments on this board here lately.. First I'm sorry to see the Wabash season end this way...they should of got the bid to the playoffs. Also it's clear if you watched the same Wabash games we all watched this year #42 scola along with is23 tackles for a loses and leading the team in tackles by 20 or more than any other wally backer. Plus his 66 yard fumble return for a touchdown which is a  school record. Plus great leadership... Also let's not forget fellow Wallys. Scolas softmore year when he stepped over to middle linebacker when gum when out.. We won the cconference that year. The big problem is why did we ever take scola off punt blocks he had 3 in is career at Wabash 2 against Wittenberg. The 3rd was a ncaa record.... Clearly scola you deserve defensive player of the year... It would be a shame if you didn't..... Thx for being a wally..... Oh ya 8. Sacks to........ Hmmmmmmmmm

[hazzben]

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2013/11/18/what-the-committee-chair-said/

Fascinating listening here.  You can skip to the 15:00 minute mark.  The head of the selection committee basically says they were not going to give one region a third pool C bid out of five when another "pretty good region" still had their #1 on the board.  Unwritten criteria?  Smed - can I have my tin foil hat back?

Uh-oh.  I'm sure it's hard to say exactly what you mean, but given time to think about that one, he might wish he had that one back.  That's not the way this should work.  The four teams on the board should be compared independently of what has happened in the prior selection.  There shouldn't be any hint of a "quota" or "spreading it around."  If three of the five best candidates are from the same region, they should go in.

I'm not revisiting the SJF/Wabash debate, just making the philosophical point.  The above quote should absolutely NOT be part of the thought process.

Yeah, this comment surprised me. Appreciated a lot of what he had to say, but you can't penalize a team for being in a stacked region  IMO, if 4 of the 5 Pool C's came from a single region because they were the clear criteria choices, I'd have no beef. But if a quality team gets left home because they felt like they just needed to get an at large from somewhere else, ugh! They had the shot through Pool A. When it comes to Pool C time, ruthlessly apply the criteria to get the best teams in! Doesn't mean there might not still be some debate on those teams, but I hope they aren't just trying to make sure a certain region doesn't get it feelings hurt 

Also sounds like there were some strong feelings in regards to SoS and RRO. He flat out said, as a WIAC guy, I know good teams from other conferences won't schedule WIAC teams, and especially not the good teams. If you want a Pool C slot, paraphrasing here: "go schedule good teams from good conferences." The sense I got from that comment was that it wasn't so much SoS, but quality NonCon play. I realize everything you guys have said prior, but Hanover definitely sounds like it hurt you with the committee. Solution, try to get a UWSP, UWP, CCIW, Franklin, Wesley, etc. on the schedule. Although that could leave you in the spot of Linfield, where you schedule them and then they take an unexpected nosedive

[smedindy]

HSCoach -

They are ONLY supposed to consider prior playoff success when dealing with undefeated teams of similar profiles.

Otherwise, last year means jack squat, according to the criteria.

[wally_wabash]

"With five at large Pool C teams in the country, you're not gonna get three from one region." - Duey Naatz

I'm just incredulous at this.  Here all along I had been giving the committee the benefit of the doubt and doing due diligence per the criteria, even if it led to an answer that I didn't like....I could still respect it.  But now I'm hearing- straight from the mouth of the chairman-  that Wabash was essentially dismissed because they would have been the third team from the same region?  That's NOT part of the criteria.  That's NOT how the game is played. 

[smedindy]

I don't think this is going to be a good precedent for any sport, and any future football committee.

[jknezek]

Ouch. That's an ugly and ridiculous blunder.

[HScoach]

HSCoach -

They are ONLY supposed to consider prior playoff success when dealing with undefeated teams of similar profiles.

Otherwise, last year means jack squat, according to the criteria.

The key words are SUPPOSED TO.    But it does come into play.

[Li'l Giant]

"With 5 at large Pool C teams in the country you're not gonna get 3 from one region" was his exact quote. Utter BS. That is not a stated criterion. So much for giving the committee the benefit of the doubt.

[Frank Rossi]

"With 5 at large Pool C teams in the country you're not gonna get 3 from one region" was his exact quote. Utter BS. That is not a stated criterion. So much for giving the committee the benefit of the doubt.

In defense of our guest, Director Naatz, there are two things to consider here that I think point to the reality of his statement:

1) The use of a secret ordinal system is an important change over the last few seasons that actually makes his statement realistic.  Essentially, after discussion about the four on the board, each member has a secret ballot, assigning the teams an ordinal number of 1, 2, 3 and 4 (not sure in which direction).  While the first Pool C pick might be unanimous, the deeper you go, the less likely a unanimous pick becomes.  The nature of this type of voting system is that, eventually, teams that have been considered for three or four rounds will begin rolling up on all members' ballots, increasing their likelihood of being selected by the end of the process.  Before Round 5, Fisher, which had been there for four rounds most likely, had already achieved the #2 or #3 slot on most ballots.  In Round 5, that probably became #1 and #2 on most.  It is extremely tough for a team newly entering the board to just jump to #1 or #2 on ballots, supplanting the feelings of the members from Round 4, when that team is technically worse than the team that just came off the board.  So, his point is realistic -- this type of voting system allows the "rolling up" of teams that are involved from Round 1 such that they stand a huge chance of being selected in or by Round 5 because of their now-elevated position on most ballots.

2) How do you compare the West Region's #7 team to the East Region's #4 team?  Or the North's #6 to either one of them?  I don't know the regional rankings, but these are just base questions you have to ask yourself.  Unless and until more teams cross over in inter-regional games, or until the NCAA drops the regional breakdown in its entirety, there is really no 100% fair way to handle these types of questions.  We can all sit here and say, "The East was weak," but we don't know how they measure against the rest of the country by the end of Week 11 because there aren't enough inter-regional games to use as data points.  Thus, the feeling of some members is most likely, "Relative strength of regions must be ignored because we cannot ascertain what that relative strength is by W/L records alone."  The criteria do not include, "W/L record vs. RROs only if the ranked teams have one or less losses."  The Committee is simply being asked to compare teams inside a subset of teams that we have measurable comparisons to use.  That being the case, the relative positioning of Pool C teams in a region will mean that a third Pool C team, which 99.9% of the time will not be undefeated, will be ranked around the #6-#8 zone in the final rankings, if not lower.  His statement is essentially stating that there is a realistic problem if you're assuming the Committee is going to somehow jump on the bandwagon of the #6 or 7 team in a region if the #3 or #4 team from another region is still on the board after four rounds.  This shouldn't be a news flash in many ways, because it's a realistic and statistically sound position to take when you consider all of the above.

As such, I think the picks of the Committee were statistically sound, to be expected, and reflect a common sense concerning the system the NCAA still maintains today -- the regional system.  And I think his statement is being scrutinized as if he stated it as a criterion, when in essence, he's stating it as a reality of the system.