FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[BashBacker#16]

Wally,

See any comparison's to Woo's #4 and Witt's #21?  Wow.

#24 for Woo had Lemond but the poor kid got absolutely no help and Woo never adjusted which was crazy.  My guess is that they were equally concerned about Wes but man, Kody had a day...

What was the Wooster team chant thing after each score?  That was a bit odd...

WAF!

[smedindy]

Now that the Woo/ Bash game is over and Witt stands alone, how does this play out?

Assuming Witt and Wooster both win out to week 10 (hoping Allegheny doesn't pull an upset):

A) Witt beats Wooster and wins the NCAC outright and Wabash probably sneaks in with a at large @ 9-1

B) Woo beats Witt and causes some drama within the league and a 3-way tie for 1st place.

My sources swear on their life that in this situation (B) it is Wooster that gets the Automatic Bid because of the circumstances and the "rose bowl rule": Wabash beat Wooster, Wooster beat Witt and Witt beat Wabash. If this were the case as well......will the NCAC get an at large if Wooster gets the Automatic?

I think a 9-1 Wabash is in the conversation for a "C" bid. As is a 9-1 Wittenberg. But it all depends on the lack of tomfoolery in other conferences and regions. The regional rankings will give us an idea of where each stand in the pecking order. There are six bids in "C" and a lot of big conference games ahead. I think it's time to keep an eye on the scoreboard.

[aueagle]

Washington humbles Bishops

Monday, October 26, 2009


By GARY HENERY
Sports Writer

Struggle: to proceed with difficulty or with great effort.

In a matchup of struggling Division III football programs, Washington (St. Louis) University took advantage of Ohio Wesleyan mistakes and first-half field position to score a 26-14 non-conference victory over the Battling Bishops on a wet and windy Saturday afternoon at Selby Field....

(I thought it was interesting that the sports guy for the Delaware Gazette choose the word...struggling. The Bishops SHOULD win the next 2....BUT, how much they will win by, might be of concern)

[smedindy]

Here are teams that NCAC fans need to watch for "C" bids:

Mary Hardin-Baylor
Dickinson or Franklin & Marshall
Wheaton or Illinois Wesleyan (or North Central, even)
Springfield
Coe
Delaware Valley or Lebanon Valley (or Albright)
St. Norbert (could happen depending on rankings)
St. Thomas
Centre or DPU
Cal Lutheran, Occidental or Redlands
Thomas More or W & J
Hampden Sydney (huge game vs. Randy Mac could be for auto bid)
Otterbein
Kean, Montclair State or Rowan

Some really good teams that could finish with 1 loss, and because of who they play could be in better shape than the NCAC runner-up.

You know, a 9-1 Gheny would be a "C" candidate as well. Let's not discount them.

[jam40jeff]

What was the Wooster team chant thing after each score?  That was a bit odd...

Did the Wooster players on the sideline chant "Hammer" every time they were on defense?  They did against CWRU.  I found it odd they were still chanting it when CWRU was about to top the half-century mark.

[seinfeld]

OK, here is the lowdown on the NCAC tiebreaker rules, straight from the NCAC football policies document

1. Head-to-Head
2. Results vs. individual opponents in descending order ...
3. Team with the fewest losses on conference away games
4. Team with the higher preseason power ranking used to determine conference schedule. This provision would not apply if a tiebreaker had been used to separate the teams in final power ranking.
5. Team with the longest active winning streak in conference play at the end of the season.
6. Team that has not participated in the NCAA playoffs for the longest period of years.
7. Coin toss.

So the only slight mystery has to do with item #4. I don't see anywhere on the NCAC site what the current power rankings are, but I'm 95% sure Wabash would be No. 1, since they have won the conference title four straight years. Wittenberg would likely be second and Wooster third.

So if there is any kind of three-way tie, Wabash gets the AQ. The only plausible scenario where this would even come into play is if the winner of Allegheny-Wooster beats Wittenberg. But considering Wittenberg has both of these teams at home, that's pretty long odds.

[Li'l Giant]

What? No "Big 12 rule" using the standings in the D3Football.com poll? 

[wally_wabash]

Here you go in case the link doesn't work.....I suggest a little Maalox and 2 Tylenol before reading this....

• "1. Head-to-Head result(s) between tied teams."

• "2. Result(s) versus individual opponents examined in descending order, individually, until tie is broken. The tied teams must have a common opponent in order for the result to be considered; if not a common opponent, move to the next team in the standings. The first team to have beaten a higher-ranked team that is a common opponent wins the tiebreaker.

"If the tie is not broken in the descending order review, start from the bottom of the standings and examine opponents in ascending order. The first team to have lost to a lower-ranked team loses the tiebreaker (no common opponent provision in ascending review)."

• "3. The team with the fewest losses in conference away games."

• "4. The team with the higher preseason power ranking used to determine conference schedule. This provision would not apply if a tiebreaker had been used to separate the teams in final power ranking."

"5. The team with the longest active winning streak in conference play at the end of the season."

"6. The team that has not participated in the NCAA playoffs for the longest period of years ("Rose Bowl rule")."

"7. Coin Toss. When three or more teams are tied, the same procedure shall be followed until one team is eliminated. The process shall then be repeated until one team emerges.

This is the NCAC tie breaker rule (unless it has changed since 2006).  It is unlikely that a tie would be broken by the Rose Bowl rule.  If it were decided by the Rose Bowl rule, then either Allegheny (2003 champ - don't forget about them!) or Woo (2004 champ) would go before Witt (2006) or Wabash (2008).

Edit - should also note that Kenyon can finish with one loss - on paper their stiffest remaining test is this Saturday at home against Allegheny.

Let's try this again...these, to the best of anybody's knowledge, are the tiebreak criteria used by the NCAC.  If Wooster beats Wittenberg and everybody else wins teh rest of their games, this is what happens.

Step 1 - H2H's are a wash.  Wabash beat Woo who beat Witt who beat Wabash...all on the road. 

Step 2 - The only losses the three teams suffered were against one another and everybody beat every other conference team they played.  The tie can not be broken here. 

Step 3 - All three teams would be undefeated in conference road games.  And we move on...

Step 4 - Finally, a tiebreak.  Wabash has a stranglehold on the #1 spot in the power ranking.  AQ to Wabash. 

So, unless they've changed this tiebreak system, that's how it would break down.  It is possible that they've gone to a tiebreak system that otherwise makes little to no sense (see the 2010 schedule to see what kind of "creativity" the league office is capable of) in which case who knows what would happen.   

Under this structure though, it is pretty much not possible for the league to get to a Rose Bowl rule kind of situation.  A three way tie is going to get broken by a power ranking or a conference win streak tiebreak before the Rose Bowl rule kicks in. 

[FightinScot]

What was the Wooster team chant thing after each score?  That was a bit odd...

Did the Wooster players on the sideline chant "Hammer" every time they were on defense?  They did against CWRU.  I found it odd they were still chanting it when CWRU was about to top the half-century mark.

Cheering for your teammates on the field is not odd, IMO, regardless of the situation.

[zed07]

Agree that cheering for your teamates isn't odd, but to an outsider, the dance thing before kickoffs is a tad different from cheering...  I'm sure it's meant to fire you guys up, and I mean no disrespect with my opinion.

I thought that the chant during defense was "never" but I could be wrong.  Some of the 'Bash faithful were replying "forever..."

[jam40jeff]

What was the Wooster team chant thing after each score?  That was a bit odd...

Did the Wooster players on the sideline chant "Hammer" every time they were on defense?  They did against CWRU.  I found it odd they were still chanting it when CWRU was about to top the half-century mark.

Cheering for your teammates on the field is not odd, IMO, regardless of the situation.

Cheering is perfectly normal for players to do after a big play, etc.  Organized sideline team chants are odd.  I have never seen another team do that.

EDIT:  I actually couldn't tell if they were yelling "hammer" or "never".  If they were yelling "never", they probably should gave given that up after Whalen disproved their theory with a 94 yard TD pass on 3rd and 30.

[wally_wabash]

I'm 99% sure that they say "hammer".  And I have no problem with it no matter what the score of the game is.  Most teams have some kind of chant or some such thing that looks weird to anybody who doesn't see it 10 times a year. 

Now, they had a whole different and more elaborate thing going on before they kicked off after scoring.  I have no idea what they were saying there. 

[BashDad]

What a tease that front page is! No wabash in the podcast (though, of course, it's very good, etc. etc. etc.)...

[wally_wabash]

I was wondering if I just missed the Bash talk.  Glad it wasn't just me....it is a good podcast though.  At 40 minutes long, I wonder if the Bash stuff hit the cutting room floor. 

[bashbrother]

Listened to it three times making sure i didn't miss it....  it was a good podcast.

Interesting stuff..... seems like they were talking about the possibility that Depauw still may need some help for the AQ.   Thus the Bell Game would be for both teams Playoff possibilities....

Nice pic of Belton though.