FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[smedindy]

I think you have to throw out H2H, sadly, since OWU and Witt didn't play, even though Wabash beat both. I think. Geez.

[old wabash]

hey, pat (or others),

when was the last time a top ten d3 poll team did not make the playoffs?
since wabash seems likely to finish top ten, yet unlikely to get aq!

[wally_wabash]

I think you have to throw out H2H, sadly, since OWU and Witt didn't play, even though Wabash beat both. I think. Geez.

Which would be criminal.  Because in that instance it doesn't matter what the OWU/Witt result would have been since they both lost to Wabash. 

[wally_wabash]

hey, pat (or others),

when was the last time a top ten d3 poll team did not make the playoffs?
since wabash seems likely to finish top ten, yet unlikely to get aq!

I think it happened in hoops a number of years ago (Capital maybe it was).  I don't think it's happened in football since the field expanded to 32 teams (or even 28).  I found an instance where 11th ranked UMHB did not get selected in 2003.  But I haven't seen an instance of a top 10 not playing in the tournament. 

And I wouldn't worry too much about it if the tiebreak doesn't go Wabash's way.  The LGs have a very strong at-large résumé and look like a near certainty to be selected if they keep on winning. 

[Pat Coleman]

hey, pat (or others),

when was the last time a top ten d3 poll team did not make the playoffs?
since wabash seems likely to finish top ten, yet unlikely to get aq!

I believe Wally Wabash's research below is correct but I also echo his sentiment -- Wabash's playoff resume looks pretty good right now so just hope St. Thomas beats Concordia-Moorhead and there aren't too many crazy upsets.

I think it happened in hoops a number of years ago (Capital maybe it was).

Yep, it was No. 8 Capital in 2002. They lost five games, three of them to Otterbein. (And Otterbein went on to win the national title.) That was a 48-team tournament, something like six or seven Pool C bids -- hasn't been anything that extreme since it expanded.

And hmm ... Otterbein's coach/AD was on the committee that year ...

[firstdown]

Pat

We all appreciate what you do and recognize that you have to make hard decisions about the Team of the Week.  The TE from Hobart clearly had a great game and is deserving of recognition.

The Wabash faithful are really proud of Houston Hodges and the game he played on Saturday.  Houston had a very busy day playing not only on offense - catching 2 TD's, including the one for 82 yards that broke open the game for Wabash, but defense with 5 tackles and an interception, but also fielding punts.  With OWU's no huddle offense and passes flying everywhere, I have no doubt that Houston slept well on Saturday evening.  He deserves a tip of my Dad's old leather helmet!  In this age of specialization, it really is a throw back to see guys going both ways.

Nate Scola, LB, was the North Coast Defensive Player of the Week.  Nate also deserves a tip of the leather helmet as well as he was playing blocking back/full back on offense as well.  Nate, Houston, and the entire Wabash defense played a great game that kept OWU out of the end zone despite Espinoza throwing the ball 72 times.  The entire Wabash team deserves cudos for playing a great game and getting a hard fought win!

[wabco]

Ahhh ... consistency ... the hobgoblin of mediocre minds .... someone said.  No to 12 players being honored.  Kenyon-esk tiebreaker goes to tight ends.

[smedindy]

I think the Team of the Week may need a 'utility' player, mayhaps. Though I don't know how many two-way players there are out there.

[Li'l Giant]

Pat:

It would seem that co-receivers of the week might work.  Or are you saying a less steller performance by a tight end is better than a steller performance by Huston?

A coach can't start 12 and we will not either. We have not shied away from these decisions in 14 years of Team of the Week and All-American and we are not starting now. And we don't start a tight end every week, just like not every D-III school uses a tight end on a regular basis, but we are not going to eliminate the entire position if we get reasonable nominations.

I'm with Pat on this one. They do the same thing on the pre and post season AA teams and it's what gives them credibility over the other AA teams that have 40 players on the "first team".

Would I have liked to see HH on the ToW? Sure. But Hussey and Pillar each had over 200 yards and 3 TDs. I'm not sure which of those two you can justify having lesser days than HH did.

Ahhh ... consistency ... the hobgoblin of mediocre minds .... someone said.  No to 12 players being honored.  Kenyon-esk tiebreaker goes to tight ends.

Start your own Team of the Week if you think this one is "mediocre".

[Pat Coleman]

Agreed -- and we have done that in the past. Shoot, in fact, one of the two wideouts on the team is a two-way player but we listed him as a wideout because his performance solely as a wideout would have been enough to get him on the team.

[wabndy]

Wabash/OWU/Witt: Interesting.  Seems obvious that Wabash should win this doesn't it?  Am I overthinking this by throwing out h2h because OWU and Witt didn't play?  If we do throw out h2h for that reason, again Wabash is elminated via common result vs. Allegheny, OWU is eliminated on power ranking; Wittenberg wins the tiebreak.  Unless Wabash does.  Honestly, I don't know how you could justify not making Wabash the winner in this scenario. 

In the quote - Billhardt was only saying that a tie with Kenyon eliminates the H2H criteria, which makes sense (if you care to ignore their non-conference record, etc.).  I think it is a stretch to toss all H2H because OWU and Witt didn't play.  If they had played - it would not have eliminated the win Wabash has on both teams.  Even if you did eliminate H2H - wouldn't the common opponent criteria eliminate both Witt and OWU since both lost to Wabash and Wabash is still ranked higher than Allegheney? 

Go Scots!

[BashBacker#16]

Pat

We all appreciate what you do and recognize that you have to make hard decisions about the Team of the Week.  The TE from Hobart clearly had a great game and is deserving of recognition.

The Wabash faithful are really proud of Houston Hodges and the game he played on Saturday.  Houston had a very busy day playing not only on offense - catching 2 TD's, including the one for 82 yards that broke open the game for Wabash, but defense with 5 tackles and an interception, but also fielding punts.  With OWU's no huddle offense and passes flying everywhere, I have no doubt that Houston slept well on Saturday evening.  He deserves a tip of my Dad's old leather helmet!  In this age of specialization, it really is a throw back to see guys going both ways.

Nate Scola, LB, was the North Coast Defensive Player of the Week.  Nate also deserves a tip of the leather helmet as well as he was playing blocking back/full back on offense as well.  Nate, Houston, and the entire Wabash defense played a great game that kept OWU out of the end zone despite Espinoza throwing the ball 72 times.  The entire Wabash team deserves cudos for playing a great game and getting a hard fought win!

...well said FirstDown well said!  Speaking of handles, isn't it ironic you raised 2 D-linemen and your handle is "FirstDown?"  HAHA.  You should have picked something like "Turnover" or "Kill-kill-kill" or "DEE-fence" or "Scoop-and-Score" or "Hit'em-so-hard-snot flies"...you get the point.   

All Wabash can do is keep playing well and control what they control.  I would love nothing more than for them to finish with 2 strong games, games where they can hopefully rest some guys and get some of the others some PT, and continue building on the momentum we have right now.  Looking forward to this weekend to see how the rest of the league shakes out.

[smedindy]

Wabash/OWU/Witt: Interesting.  Seems obvious that Wabash should win this doesn't it?  Am I overthinking this by throwing out h2h because OWU and Witt didn't play?  If we do throw out h2h for that reason, again Wabash is elminated via common result vs. Allegheny, OWU is eliminated on power ranking; Wittenberg wins the tiebreak.  Unless Wabash does.  Honestly, I don't know how you could justify not making Wabash the winner in this scenario. 

In the quote - Billhardt was only saying that a tie with Kenyon eliminates the H2H criteria, which makes sense (if you care to ignore their non-conference record, etc.).  I think it is a stretch to toss all H2H because OWU and Witt didn't play.  If they had played - it would not have eliminated the win Wabash has on both teams.  Even if you did eliminate H2H - wouldn't the common opponent criteria eliminate both Witt and OWU since both lost to Wabash and Wabash is still ranked higher than Allegheney? 

Go Scots!

It's common opponent amongst the non-tied teams.

[smedindy]

I really can't see any carnage that happens that would prevent Wabash from a "C" if it comes to that - provided they take care of Oberlin and those other guys down south a ways.

And "A" vs. "C" won't matter in seeding, either, since they are pool agnostic when it comes to that. Go 9-1 and most of the worries should be over.

[wabco]

Lil Giant ... you misread the quote.  It is not directed at the team selected.  It was a joke (which you did not get) slanted toward Pat ... who has no problems with a joke near as I know.