FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[emma17]

I really want my archrivals 2010 playoff appearance affecting my 2015 playoff chances, I really do....

I don't think we want a 2016 Central team to have it's playoff fate decided by 2014 Wartburg.

Each team is different. Each year is different. We must look at everything in a vacuum from this year's results, not teams that don't exist anymore.

You argue like a child.

That is what you are implying, though. My team's playoff chances will be affected by other teams in my conference that don't exist anymore.

How many times have you said "that is what I'm implying".  The difference between you and me Smed, is that when I debate, I actually do my best to give the other person the benefit of the doubt that they aren't supporting something really stupid.  I respect the fact that you wouldn't be arguing a point that wasn't thought out a bit. 

I wouldn't consider the 2010 record of a team when considering 2015 entrance, unless that particular team appeared in the playoffs multiple times since 2010 and had success against good teams.

Emma -- you are implying that. You just said it above. Sure you include other factors, but Smed said you'd include 2010 data looking at a 2015 team and you just said yes. Smed is right, regardless of how you want to put it. Sure, more conditions, but 2010 doesn't have anything to do with 2015, the 2010 freshman weren't even on the team in 2015. So I don't care if they made it 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, 2010 is irrelevant except to say "they were good in the past, they must be good now." That isn't how college football should work. Each season needs to be judged on that season alone.

One lone example here. Elmhurst 2012. Look at the seasons before, look at the seasons after. There is nothing historically that suggests Elmhurst would deserve a C, but that team had special, special seniors. They earned that "C", went on the road and beat Coe, and then played National Runner Up St. Thomas to a tight one possession game.

According to your argument about how pedigree matters, some pedigreed team would have better deserved their spot because Elmhurst had one group of special kids and no history?

Pardon me, but that would be absolute garbage.

Of course I'd use 2010 as part of the big picture.  If a team made it to the playoffs 4 times since 2010, and each time had a strong showing in the playoffs, absolutely I'd consider it next year, in the context of the big picture.  If the big picture tells me that time and time again, this particular team has proven that they enhance the competitive nature of the playoff field, I feel more comfortable assigning a Pool C bid to them than a team that either failed to perform well against good competition or has no history to look at.  The team with no history needs to break through in Pool A.  The team with a poor history needs to play better against better competition in the future. 

We are only talking about a small number of Pool C bids available to be handed out.  It seems most agree the current system needs tweaking. 

How can any of you argue with the idea of looking at previous years performance for guidance?  The NCAA criteria allows for it now when it comes to seeding/home field.  This debate was had already.   The committee acknowledged past performance matters.

[BashDad]

I'm just farting on my computer at this point. I'm literally holding it under my butt and farting on it.

[ExTartanPlayer]

During the regular season, I've seen UWO and UWP and others play UWW very tough, because they are very good teams.  This is called pedigree.  It adds credibility to the statistical analysis that many want to focus on.

I want to dig into this idea that a close game against a conference champion like UWW really means something about how that team would do against other teams from other conferences.  Let's go back to the original genesis of this argument:

"UWO would crush Wabash. UWP would beat Wabash and UWRF, at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."

Why are we so sure about this?  Presumably because these teams played UWW closer and/or tougher than Wabash did?  OK...let's keep going.

I agree that UWRF probably played as well as they are capable of playing vs UWW. Yes, I really do think if UWRF played well vs Wabash, the Lil Giants would have their hands full.

I actually do agree with the bolded statement - that UWRF-on-their-best-day would give Wabash (or anyone in D3) a run - but what does that really mean about the strength of the WIAC on the whole?  UWRF at their best nearly knocked off UWW this year.  That is the sole data point supporting the idea that "UWRF at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."  Presumably, the "UWO would crush Wabash" and "UWP would beat Wabash" are derived from the fact that UWW 24, UWO 7 and UWW 17, UWP 7 are closer than UWW 38, Wabash 14.  Let's look at a few other data points, though.

UWRF also lost by 16 points to 3-7 Simpson.  That result suggests UWRF would lost by an awful lot to Wabash, because Simpson is at best the equivalent of all those teams Wabash beats by 40 in the NCAC.  If you accept the premise that UWRF's close game against UWW means that "if they played their best they could give Wabash a tough game" - you have to also acknowledge that wasn't exactly representative of UWRF over the course of the season, and that UWRF playing that good of a game against Wabash is actually pretty unlikely.

UWP - outside of the WIAC - rolled Buena Vista by 60, won by 5 against Dubuque, and lost to North Central.  Wabash absolutely could have matched or bettered those results.

Just because UWO, UWP, UWRF or whomever gave UWW a tougher game than (Playoff Opponent X) doesn't mean those teams are better than (Playoff Opponent X).

[jknezek]

How can any of you argue with the idea of looking at previous years performance for guidance?  The NCAA criteria allows for it now when it comes to seeding/home field.  This debate was had already.  The committee acknowledged past performance matters.

Only in a very specific case of two unbeaten teams where all other criteria has already been considered. Let's not make it more than it is.

[smedindy]

I think the NCAA specifically worded it that way to put blinders on except in those cases where you have two 10-0 teams that played a full D-3 schedule with similar SOS.

And yes the system needs tweaking but only for evaluating current years teams using current years data.

[smedindy]

BTW, the high and mighty North Central just squeaked past Elmhurst 38-31 and needed a late TD to win. Elmhurst lost to Loras 39-17. Loras finished 3-7 and lost to Stout. Stout lost to Whitewater 37-0.

How can NCC be expected to give UWW a game by examining that chain?

As for SJF, they lost two games in their league, a tough league, but their champ lost in the first round to Hobart. Hobart is playing this weekend, but barely survived JHU and is a tough team to read. We'll see for sure this Saturday against Wesley.

[bulk19]

Here's something for you all to chew on -
I've been following the WIAC conference since the mid-1970s, and have been known to tout this conference as the best in the country each year...

That being said, although I didn't see as many games/teams in person this year as I have in past seasons, this year was a downer for the WIAC... In my opinion the teams at the top of the conference standings were not as good/strong as in seasons past - Platteville, Oshkosh and Stevens Point... Perhaps, dare I say, they were all even a bit overrated throughout the season?

These teams all had their shots at making the playoffs, and they didn't string the necessary Ws to do so. They didn't take the decision out of the hands of the selection committee by taking care of business on the field. Thus, the WIAC conference is being represented by one team in this year's playoffs, as warranted, and as it should be...

[Li'l Giant]

What does "pedigree" mean anyway? Is that "won national titles?" Is that "won playoff games"? Is that "won playoff games against WIAC and OAC" teams? Is that "won lots of regular season games"? What does that mean? And how far back does "pedigree" go?

Do Allegheny and Albion have "pedigree" because of their 1990 and 1994 titles? Since 1999 those two schools have 3 playoff appearances between them. What about UW-Lacrosse for their 1992/1995 titles? They haven't been to a playoff since 2006. They have a "pedigree"?

I'd like some guidance with regard to that definition.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I can't answer the pedigree question, but we could probably all agree that at least 5 schools have it.  Linfield has 56(?) consecutive winning seasons.  Wesley and UMHB have both been flat out dominant for over a decade.  And UMU and UWW obviously have it.  NCC was well on their way (8 straight conference titles in the CCIW), but stumbled a bit this year.  St. John's certainly had it, but lost it for a while (may have regained it this season).  Can't think of any other definite candidates.

[Schwami]

Maybe Wabash?  In the Coach Raeburn era, only three teams have never lost more than 2 games in any season --- Mount Union, UMHB, and Wabash. 

[emma17]

What does "pedigree" mean anyway? Is that "won national titles?" Is that "won playoff games"? Is that "won playoff games against WIAC and OAC" teams? Is that "won lots of regular season games"? What does that mean? And how far back does "pedigree" go?

Do Allegheny and Albion have "pedigree" because of their 1990 and 1994 titles? Since 1999 those two schools have 3 playoff appearances between them. What about UW-Lacrosse for their 1992/1995 titles? They haven't been to a playoff since 2006. They have a "pedigree"?

I'd like some guidance with regard to that definition.

Asking about 1990 is about as intellectually stinky as bashdads computer. If you seriously think I'd argue that 1990 counts, I question your decision to engage in dialogue w me.

[SaintsFAN]

I'm just farting on my computer at this point. I'm literally holding it under my butt and farting on it.

This made me LOL.  I'm still chuckling at it.  +K

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'm just farting on my computer at this point. I'm literally holding it under my butt and farting on it.

Yeah, I thought some of your posts lately had a bit of 'aroma' to them!

[emma17]

During the regular season, I've seen UWO and UWP and others play UWW very tough, because they are very good teams.  This is called pedigree.  It adds credibility to the statistical analysis that many want to focus on.

I want to dig into this idea that a close game against a conference champion like UWW really means something about how that team would do against other teams from other conferences.  Let's go back to the original genesis of this argument:

"UWO would crush Wabash. UWP would beat Wabash and UWRF, at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."

Why are we so sure about this?  Presumably because these teams played UWW closer and/or tougher than Wabash did?  OK...let's keep going.

I agree that UWRF probably played as well as they are capable of playing vs UWW. Yes, I really do think if UWRF played well vs Wabash, the Lil Giants would have their hands full.

I actually do agree with the bolded statement - that UWRF-on-their-best-day would give Wabash (or anyone in D3) a run - but what does that really mean about the strength of the WIAC on the whole?  UWRF at their best nearly knocked off UWW this year.  That is the sole data point supporting the idea that "UWRF at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."  Presumably, the "UWO would crush Wabash" and "UWP would beat Wabash" are derived from the fact that UWW 24, UWO 7 and UWW 17, UWP 7 are closer than UWW 38, Wabash 14.  Let's look at a few other data points, though.

UWRF also lost by 16 points to 3-7 Simpson.  That result suggests UWRF would lost by an awful lot to Wabash, because Simpson is at best the equivalent of all those teams Wabash beats by 40 in the NCAC.  If you accept the premise that UWRF's close game against UWW means that "if they played their best they could give Wabash a tough game" - you have to also acknowledge that wasn't exactly representative of UWRF over the course of the season, and that UWRF playing that good of a game against Wabash is actually pretty unlikely.

UWP - outside of the WIAC - rolled Buena Vista by 60, won by 5 against Dubuque, and lost to North Central.  Wabash absolutely could have matched or bettered those results.

Just because UWO, UWP, UWRF or whomever gave UWW a tougher game than (Playoff Opponent X) doesn't mean those teams are better than (Playoff Opponent X).

How'd those data points work out for Wabash? 
You want to keep relying on data points to determine the best teams suited for 5 remaining playoff spots?  So your data points way is more reliable in selecting teams for Pool C. 

[SaintsFAN]

UWO records in the D3 Era.  I'm not sure about the pedigree of the program.  I played against them in 1998 -- we were on their 4 wins that year.  I understand they have a new coach, and they've been better since then but UW-Whitewater, they aren't.


2014 (6-4, 6-1 WIAC)
2013 (8-2, 5-2 WIAC)
2012 (13-1, 7-0 WIAC)
2011 (7-3, 5-2 WIAC)
2010 (4-6, 3-4 WIAC)
2009 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2008 (4-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2007 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2006 (5-5, 3-4 WIAC)
2005 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2004 (5-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2003 (4-6, 1-6 WIAC)
2002 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2001 (3-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2000 (3-7, 1-6 WIAC)
1999 (3-7, 2-5 WIAC)

*I do get the NCC pedigree part, though.