FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[HCAlum86]

Troll.

I imagine there is a debate to be had over this, but I don't know what you mean. What do you mean by troll?

Someone who purposely stirs things up on message boards just to be a jerk. (i.e purplesuit) 

Purplesuit is the worstttt

[ExTartanPlayer]

The tendrils of the discussion were both on "C" or here. It's appropriate to discuss them in the forum they appeared in, not in a chop-shop cut and paste format taking things out of context without the relevant points and counter-points in their whole, and also on a board I don't visit, much less post to. The denizens of that board had no idea the genesis of the argument and just saw as you framed it with you being the Paladin. Yeesh.

So I'd never have seen it had Bashdad not linked to it, and then I didn't think it was appropriate to respond to the expurgated version of the arguments, sans context. By not arguing it here or in the "C" board (where I was expecting it...) that's cowardly. Tell the board to go see the actual give and take, not just selectively edited Baghdad Bob highlights.

We're big boys in here; we can discuss it. It's germaine to the NCAC since we did get a "C" this year.

You do realize that I've defended the WIAC in the past, especially when it comes to their Massey Ratings (some have accused Massey of having a WIAC bias, but all they did was win almost all of their non-conference games - same with the CCIW a couple of years ago, they were killer in Massey because they almost swept their non-conference), always defend Whitewater's place in D3 against those who want them to move to D2 or D1AA (especially national columnists), AND also am very team neutral when it comes to the AQ and "C" issues, even to the chagrin of my fellow Wabash posters at times. So put that in the context of your vituperation and claim that you were merely defending the WIAC. I've defended them plenty in the past.

I don't care if it's Platteville, or Buena Vista, or Curry. The criteria is the criteria. Oshkosh probably did not get to the board, period. They were behind St. Thomas.

Come up with an at-large scenario that keeps the AQs, allows for non-AQ teams access AND keeps the semi-regional focus of D3. I'm all ears. Because Framingham had a much stronger beef than Oshkosh when it comes to the criteria (not that we'll see the rankings, which may have screwed them and put Muhlenberg over the top - who knows). And Framingham has as much right to a "C" chance as the WIAC.

Basically, it was a given that Wesley and either Centre or TLU would be the "B"'s. Then Del Val, JCU, and Wabash three of the "C" brigade along with Centre or TLU. Those two were going to get in as a B or C. So it was two spots for Muhlenberg, Framingham, North Central, Chicago (blocked by NC), St. Thomas, Oshkosh (blocked by St. Thomas). Had the committee chose St. Thomas fifth, maybe Oshkosh gets in over Muhlenberg. But Muhlenberg was the choice and I can see some of the reasons. I'm not in the room, but only one loss to a well-regarded team, only one non-conference game, and a conference that wasn't as stratified as some, I can see the pick.

This is a good explanation, but I think emma already gets "the system" - I just don't think he agrees with it.  He'd rather keep complaining that UWO and UWP would kill half the teams in the playoffs (we already know this) and that River Falls would give Wabash "all they could handle" (not sure how we can possibly know this, but okay, whatever) and that no team with a 50-point loss should be allowed in the playoffs. 

I'd reiterate smed's question: instead of telling us how much better the WIAC is than everyone else, emma, give us a solution that gets the precious WIAC runner up into the playoffs based on something other than "We just know that they're better because results say so" (a side bone to pick: it's very easy to see only the convenient results that we want to see and ignore the ones we don't, like you mostly brushing off UWP's loss to North Central, or hell, even UWW's loss to Buffalo State a couple of years ago; the WIAC is an extremely strong league, but let's at least acknowledge that they lose OOC games once in a while, and it's not just "Eau Claire losing to St. Thomas" losses).

Anyways, in smedindy's words - "Come up with an at-large scenario that keeps the AQs, allows for non-AQ teams access AND keeps the semi-regional focus of D3."

[wabndy]

Anyways, in smedindy's words - "Come up with an at-large scenario that keeps the AQs, allows for non-AQ teams access AND keeps the semi-regional focus of D3."

. . . that doesn't cost the NCAA another nickel.

[emma17]

Keeping things in context Smed.
When you use words like expurgated and vituperation there is a strong chance I may reply in a way that has nothing to do with what you're saying.   

-When you use words like cowardly to define me or my actions, I have to believe you're smart enough to realize you are injecting highly charged language- am I right? 

-You may disagree with my placement of the post, but all we're debating is whether I chose the appropriate board to post on.  I had my reasons for posting there, and not one of the reasons had to do with cowardice.  Really, you accuse me of being afraid to challenge you or anybody on this board or any board?  Come on man.  This is one of the biggest issues I have with you.  You oftentimes try to strengthen your position with absolute malarkey (that's about as big a word as I've got).  In fact, there are others on this site that do the same.  Surely the Wabash way of teaching students how to win a debate doesn't include embellishment does it?  I mean, when I read the website it seems you'd be all about intellectual honesty and cross examination to be certain the debate is factual.  I've posted multiple examples of you literally making things up in an effort to strengthen your position.  I guess I have a problem when people do that.       

-Do you think I am aware that "you don't visit" the WIAC board?  (see above on embellishment by the way).  I figure you are like me, I read many boards just to get a feel for what's going on.  I especially read the board of the team UWW will be playing or just played.  I never thought for a second that I wanted to hide my post from you or anybody.   

-Regarding Pool C.  Context.  Much of my focus (I started my Pool C post long ago with saying it's my wish list) on the subject is that I believe the whole process should be changed and there should be a greater emphasis on subjective determination of teams that qualified people feel would most enhance the overall competitiveness of the playoffs.  You argued understandably that there might be a fairness issue, and then came the "elitist" comments.  A person isn't an elitist simply because they don't agree with your position.  It's not elitist for me to believe there are more qualified teams (WIAC or not) that would stand a better chance of eliminating the Purple Powers than what the current selection process so heavily impacted by SOS allows for. 

-It seemed no matter how many times I posted that my position isn't WIAC or UWO specific, including time and time again listing other teams like NCC, SJF, CM- both you and Wally would come back to UWO.  And then I'd hear about how I don't understand the process.  Yes, I absolutely believe UWO belonged in the tournament based upon my preference of how Pool C should be filled.  I also understand that in the 4 region ranking and selection process they probably never came up.  I get that.  But my point is, a really good team was left out-more than one.  And that is where you and I and Wally seriously disagree.  I know UWO doesn't have the stats (W-L record and SOS) that shines brightly in the quantitative criteria based current process, but they can flat out play tough football.  And yes, IMO Wabash could not beat UWO nor could Wabash beat UWP.  If I'm correct, then from the perspective of a WIAC guy, maybe you can see why I get frustrated that the conference doesn't get enough Pool C consideration (another reason for me to post on the WIAC board).  In fact, I'd love to ask the Spread Pickers, including Pat and Keith, to take on this question.  If UWO were to play Muhl, what would the spread be?  What would the consensus on Triple Take be? How about NCC or UWP vs Del Vall?  I may be surprised by the answers that come back, but I believe most would pick UWO, NCC and UWP.  If that's the case, then doesn't that say something about the Pool C selection process?  Why is it good to care about the feelings of players from TLU and Muhl and not about the feelings of the players from UWO or NCC? 

-Perhaps I'm taking this next comment too far, and I welcome feedback.  I was surprised with the physical dominance displayed by UWW over Wabash.  When the UWW starters were pulled, Wabash had 125 yards of offense, somewhere around mid fourth quarter.  I was surprised because I watched a lot of Wabash football online and I was sure (there is proof) the Wabash D would create havoc.  Noting Wabash did was effective vs UWW.  Doesn't that say something about UWO and UWP and the WIAC in general?  Doesn't that suggest that SOS and W-L only go so far?  And since I believe the Pool C spots should be held only for teams that lost their conference but performed best in their regular season auditions- I feel several teams were left out.  No matter how the ridiculous 4 region merry-go round works.  It still doesn't get the best teams into Pool C.     

-Smed, you said my actions were cowardly.  I want to know, are you man enough to acknowledge you went over the line with that comment? 




   

[emma17]

The tendrils of the discussion were both on "C" or here. It's appropriate to discuss them in the forum they appeared in, not in a chop-shop cut and paste format taking things out of context without the relevant points and counter-points in their whole, and also on a board I don't visit, much less post to. The denizens of that board had no idea the genesis of the argument and just saw as you framed it with you being the Paladin. Yeesh.

So I'd never have seen it had Bashdad not linked to it, and then I didn't think it was appropriate to respond to the expurgated version of the arguments, sans context. By not arguing it here or in the "C" board (where I was expecting it...) that's cowardly. Tell the board to go see the actual give and take, not just selectively edited Baghdad Bob highlights.

We're big boys in here; we can discuss it. It's germaine to the NCAC since we did get a "C" this year.

You do realize that I've defended the WIAC in the past, especially when it comes to their Massey Ratings (some have accused Massey of having a WIAC bias, but all they did was win almost all of their non-conference games - same with the CCIW a couple of years ago, they were killer in Massey because they almost swept their non-conference), always defend Whitewater's place in D3 against those who want them to move to D2 or D1AA (especially national columnists), AND also am very team neutral when it comes to the AQ and "C" issues, even to the chagrin of my fellow Wabash posters at times. So put that in the context of your vituperation and claim that you were merely defending the WIAC. I've defended them plenty in the past.

I don't care if it's Platteville, or Buena Vista, or Curry. The criteria is the criteria. Oshkosh probably did not get to the board, period. They were behind St. Thomas.

Come up with an at-large scenario that keeps the AQs, allows for non-AQ teams access AND keeps the semi-regional focus of D3. I'm all ears. Because Framingham had a much stronger beef than Oshkosh when it comes to the criteria (not that we'll see the rankings, which may have screwed them and put Muhlenberg over the top - who knows). And Framingham has as much right to a "C" chance as the WIAC.

Basically, it was a given that Wesley and either Centre or TLU would be the "B"'s. Then Del Val, JCU, and Wabash three of the "C" brigade along with Centre or TLU. Those two were going to get in as a B or C. So it was two spots for Muhlenberg, Framingham, North Central, Chicago (blocked by NC), St. Thomas, Oshkosh (blocked by St. Thomas). Had the committee chose St. Thomas fifth, maybe Oshkosh gets in over Muhlenberg. But Muhlenberg was the choice and I can see some of the reasons. I'm not in the room, but only one loss to a well-regarded team, only one non-conference game, and a conference that wasn't as stratified as some, I can see the pick.

This is a good explanation, but I think emma already gets "the system" - I just don't think he agrees with it.  He'd rather keep complaining that UWO and UWP would kill half the teams in the playoffs (we already know this) and that River Falls would give Wabash "all they could handle" (not sure how we can possibly know this, but okay, whatever) and that no team with a 50-point loss should be allowed in the playoffs. 

I'd reiterate smed's question: instead of telling us how much better the WIAC is than everyone else, emma, give us a solution that gets the precious WIAC runner up into the playoffs based on something other than "We just know that they're better because results say so" (a side bone to pick: it's very easy to see only the convenient results that we want to see and ignore the ones we don't, like you mostly brushing off UWP's loss to North Central, or hell, even UWW's loss to Buffalo State a couple of years ago; the WIAC is an extremely strong league, but let's at least acknowledge that they lose OOC games once in a while, and it's not just "Eau Claire losing to St. Thomas" losses).

Anyways, in smedindy's words - "Come up with an at-large scenario that keeps the AQs, allows for non-AQ teams access AND keeps the semi-regional focus of D3."

Oh Right, the solution part. 
Before that, I see you suffer from the same problem as others on this board, embellishmentitis. 
I'll complain that NCC would kill half the field and CM would kill have the field and SJF might (not sure this year) too.  There, is that better for you?   

You automatically lose credibility when you insinuate my only concern is the "precious WIAC".  You're blatantly wrong and there is all kinds of posted proof that all I want are the best teams.  It's very easy for me to use the WIAC because I'm intimately familiar with them and they are good examples. 

The solution:
Bleedpurple posted his idea of a solution a week or two ago.  I feel it had a lot of merit.  First, as for the AQ process, I didn't say it should change.  Quite honestly I'm still up in the air about it.  As for Bleed's idea on Pool C, the general idea is that we should be able to trust the decision to people that have agreed upon football knowledge.  And the process should be completely transparent.  I can envision a situation where, had this committee been in place this year, they would appear on the selection show and they would explain why they feel their Pool C selections would most enhance the overall competitiveness of the playoffs.  That might not appeal to you.  But it would to me because I trust football people more than I trust stats, especially any stats that have anything to do with SOS. 

I believe you and Smed and Wally and maybe many others are more comfortable with a hard and fast set of rules based on measurable data.  I'm not.   

[ExTartanPlayer]

-Perhaps I'm taking this next comment too far, and I welcome feedback.  I was surprised with the physical dominance displayed by UWW over Wabash.  When the UWW starters were pulled, Wabash had 125 yards of offense, somewhere around mid fourth quarter.  I was surprised because I watched a lot of Wabash football online and I was sure (there is proof) the Wabash D would create havoc.  Noting Wabash did was effective vs UWW. Doesn't that say something about UWO and UWP and the WIAC in general?

See, I'd want to be careful with this because it was one game.

Earlier this season, North Central beat UW-Platteville "convincingly" (since you won't allow use of the word "domination" even though that game was never closer than 14 points after 10:06 remained in the first quarter, while Wabash stayed within that distance of UWW for much longer, but whatever).  If you just looked at that NCC-UWP game and no others, you'd conclude that hot damn, a CCIW contender beat the pants off a WIAC contender, must say something about the WIAC, amirightguys?

Buffalo State - a mediocre Empire 8 team that hasn't lost fewer than three conference games since they joined a league in 2004 - beat UWW a couple of years ago.  Sure, it was a season that UWW lost two league games, but still, that UWW team didn't, like, finish last in the league.  Why does that game count less in your estimation of the WIAC's place in the world?

I'm bringing up isolated examples, on purpose, because you're doing the same.  The WIAC is a really good league, we all know that, and they win their fair share of non-league games.  Take UWW out of that league and I still think they're putting someone in the quarters or semifinals every year.  But just looking at UWW's playoff results against other teams and concluding that the rest of the WIAC would take out their playoff opponents just because UWW blew them out worse than they blew out the WIAC teams is a dangerous step to take.

Like, for instance, the River Falls thing.  Do you really think that Wabash would "have their hands full" with River Falls just because UWRF played a close game with UWW?  Teams aren't the same every day; that was the best game UWRF played all season by far.  UWRF brought it against UWW; they also lost to Simpson, who finished dead last and winless in the IIAC.  The UWRF team that showed up against UWW might give Wabash a really tough game, but that's not the same UWRF team that showed up for most of the season.

[smedindy]

I got a lot going on outside of here, and I keep arguments in the same board that's happening. It's courtesy. I also don't do a quote from several posts without attribution on a different board. It's courtesy. I sometimes forget to quote, but I always keep it in the same thread in the same board. It's courtesy. I do not assume someone is going to jump from board to board to board. It's courtesy. It's not cutting and running.

I generally don't wade into the other conferences because it's not germaine to me. Many boards have a lot of partisan hackery going on. I have limited time and focus on the NCAC in football and hoops, and in the general boards in football and hoops. Since there's not a D3 school within 2 hours of me now, and I have duties at our campus football and basketball games, I don't participate in the NWC boards like I did when I lived in Minnesota for a bit (and could see a couple of MIAC games). I don't assume anyone board jumps, at all.

The issue with 'agreed upon football knowledge' is that it implies the current committee does NOT have it. They do. They also understand what the heck D3 is about - allowing access and championship opportunities to all regardless of region and / or conference. The "A" system should not change. The "C" system is a lot better than it used to be. What is so wrong with the current committee? Who doesn't have the 'football knowledge' you speak of? Name names.

Committees of this sort can also be corrupted by political intrigue. Most of the issues with the 80's and 90's playoffs were due to some political wrangling. We don't want to go there again.

You also assume that I and others are enamored with SOS. We are most certainly not; we also understand that we have to deal with it. I prefer a weighted SOS and power ranking (like Massey or the RPI) that uses a slight MOV element (with diminishing returns) that allows for more comparison between regions. Then again, though, Framingham looks great in that light. They can play 'tough' as well - if given a chance. Sadly, some would rather not give them the chance because they are in a weaker conference in the East.

It IS elitist to assume that X team has to be better than Y team because X team plays in so-and-so conference and Y does not. It IS elitist to deny teams the chance to play in the playoffs simply and only because some one perceives WITHOUT corresponding data one is 'weak' because they are NOT in so-and-so conference. It IS elitist to think Muhlenberg has no reason to be in the playoffs and then rejecting any objective data that states that they do. Eye tests fail without corresponding data. Muhlenberg almost beat Widener. Do not scoff at that.

You initially claimed you wanted competitive games and SJF over Muhlenberg would get that. Welp, no. Muhlenberg gave them a game. The only non-competitive "C" was JCU over Centre, and I think JCU has the stuff to beat Mt. Union and that Saturday probably would have rolled more than half the field. You also said in the post over there you were defending the WIAC and Oshkosh, at least when I scanned it briefly.

You have to look at the entire body of work; no cherry picking. River Falls has a smart coach and knows how to game plan against a team he's seen time and again so he was ready for them. Conference games, especially those against top dogs, are just different animals.

[wally_wabash]

-It seemed no matter how many times I posted that my position isn't WIAC or UWO specific, including time and time again listing other teams like NCC, SJF, CM- both you and Wally would come back to UWO.  And then I'd hear about how I don't understand the process.  Yes, I absolutely believe UWO belonged in the tournament based upon my preference of how Pool C should be filled.  I also understand that in the 4 region ranking and selection process they probably never came up.  I get that.  But my point is, a really good team was left out-more than one.  And that is where you and I and Wally seriously disagree.  I know UWO doesn't have the stats (W-L record and SOS) that shines brightly in the quantitative criteria based current process, but they can flat out play tough football.  And yes, IMO Wabash could not beat UWO nor could Wabash beat UWP.  If I'm correct, then from the perspective of a WIAC guy, maybe you can see why I get frustrated that the conference doesn't get enough Pool C consideration (another reason for me to post on the WIAC board).  In fact, I'd love to ask the Spread Pickers, including Pat and Keith, to take on this question.  If UWO were to play Muhl, what would the spread be?  What would the consensus on Triple Take be? How about NCC or UWP vs Del Vall?  I may be surprised by the answers that come back, but I believe most would pick UWO, NCC and UWP.  If that's the case, then doesn't that say something about the Pool C selection process?  Why is it good to care about the feelings of players from TLU and Muhl and not about the feelings of the players from UWO or NCC? 

So, here's the thing with the bolded statement: the unsaid, but very strongly implied, conclusion to that thought is "a really good team was left out, and a not good team was put in."  And that's where you steer right into the ditch.  What, in 2014, did any of those "good teams" on your list that got left out do to deserve inclusion over any of the teams that did get in?  They have some pelts, sure.  They also have some serious warts.  You're right- good teams did get left out.  This happens every single year.  The tournament isn't big enough to include all of the good teams.  But those good teams weren't excluded in favor of bad teams.  Not by a long shot.  The only C team that really got hammered was Centre (oddly enough, by another Pool C team).  Del Val got nipped by field goal.  Muhlenberg got nipped by a field goal.  Wabash took out Franklin and too a pretty good shot at the champs (you'll disagree, but whatever).  John Carroll is still playing.  The C selections really acquitted themselves well in this tournament- I wouldn't call any of those teams bad and I wouldn't call any of those teams, like head and shoulders, better than UWO or UWP or NCC or SJF or C-M or whatever other teams are on your favored nations list.  There's no evidence to say those teams would have done any better in this tournament than the teams that were selected.  Good teams got selected, good teams didn't.  I think the selection process could be fleshed out a little more- I've made no secret about that.  I don't know that any reasonable additional criteria would have brought us to a vastly different group of Pool C teams. 

[smedindy]

We also have to keep in mind that changes made here cannot be made in a vacuum. Correct me if I am wrong, but the football selection process can't go 'rogue' from the rest of D3's selection process. The process IS.

[GRIZ_BACKER]

We also have to keep in mind that changes made here cannot be made in a vacuum. Correct me if I am wrong, but the football selection process can't go 'rogue' from the rest of D3's selection process. The process IS.

IMO you can make your points without having a thesaurus handy.  Some of your wording in recent posts comes off a bit pretentious.  Give me a -k for being honest.

[smedindy]

Griz,

That's how I talk and write. I prefer the precise word to express what needs to be expressed. Can't be anything but myself.

[Mr. Ypsi]

We also have to keep in mind that changes made here cannot be made in a vacuum. Correct me if I am wrong, but the football selection process can't go 'rogue' from the rest of D3's selection process. The process IS.

IMO you can make your points without having a thesaurus handy.  Some of your wording in recent posts comes off a bit pretentious.  Give me a -k for being honest.

You may want to avoid the CCIW board, where discussions of Spinoza and words of over three syllables are common!

Occasionally we even degenerate into Latin (though fortunately that is rare.)

[GRIZ_BACKER]

We also have to keep in mind that changes made here cannot be made in a vacuum. Correct me if I am wrong, but the football selection process can't go 'rogue' from the rest of D3's selection process. The process IS.

IMO you can make your points without having a thesaurus handy.  Some of your wording in recent posts comes off a bit pretentious.  Give me a -k for being honest.

You may want to avoid the CCIW board, where discussions of Spinoza and words of over three syllables are common!

I enjoy a more arcane word as it relates to the topic but my point was the appearance of trying to hard. To each his own.  LOL

Occasionally we even degenerate into Latin (though fortunately that is rare.)

[GRIZ_BACKER]

Griz,

That's how I talk and write. I prefer the precise word to express what needs to be expressed. Can't be anything but myself.

Does your wife roll her eyes when you are conversing that way on a long car trip? (or maybe those longer words compensates for lesser length other places?)   

[SaintsFAN]

Griz,

That's how I talk and write. I prefer the precise word to express what needs to be expressed. Can't be anything but myself.

Be you, Smeds.  I don't mind it at all... but who am I?