FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[emma17]

Smed,
I didn't post on this board because I felt it was the courteous thing to do given the game results.  I get it, you feel I made the wrong decision.  Let's just move on as it's really a silly topic.

Related to courtesy though, can I ask why you don't just ask me what I think of the committee or ask me if the current committee is capable of filling the role rather than posting this "Who doesn't have the 'football knowledge' you speak of? Name names"?  Isn't there a small part of you that reads this and says, "Hey Smed, you might want to slow down on your assumptions and just ask the guy what he meant?"

I have always been taught to seek first to understand rather than jumping to or drawing conclusions.  For such an educated guy, I'm blown away at how often you bypass the part about seeking first to understand.  You needn't be in such a hurry to prove your point. 

I know little about the current committee, for all I know, they may fit the bill perfectly for the process I'd prefer to see in place.  The problem currently is, and I believe Wally confirmed this (and please Wally, feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your point), the current National Committee doesn't want to or isn't comfortable with the idea of overruling the regional committee rankings in an effort to get who they feel would most enhance the playoff pool.  I'd rather see them scrap the current rotating four region (I picture a Pez Dispenser) approach and simply select the best 5 or 7 teams per their judgment, period. 

You appear to have a high degree of mistrust or skepticism toward committees.  I don't share that mistrust as long as the committee is required to openly discuss the rationale behind the selections. 

I think your ideas of the weighted SOS, power rankings and partial MOV have great merit as an improvement to the current system. 

Each time you use all caps, your message means less to me because I see you as trying to scream a weak point to relevance.  My kids tried that- to no avail.

I am not suggesting only teams from the WIAC or power conferences should get the Pool C.  What I am suggesting, and I understand you probably won't agree with me (and you can do so without all caps), is that in the decision process of the committee (whomever that should be), they should consider pedigree.  Yes, I understand your point that if a team doesn't get into the playoffs they'll never build pedigree.  My answer to that, which is rather cold I know, is that you build pedigree by winning your conference and getting the AQ.  You can also build pedigree by beating teams in the regular season that have playoff pedigree.   

I don't agree with you at this point that Muhl playing Widener tough proves they belonged over NCC or some other team. 
I'll ask these questions again: 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'll add, how about NCC vs. Muhl- what would your spread be?   

Yes, one of my goals is to have more competitive playoff games, and yes, Muhl accomplished that in their game vs. Widener.  That isn't my only goal.  My main goal is to get the teams that are most likely capable of playing with the best of the best into the tournament.  In doing that, we will have better games.  In doing that, we will increase the likelihood that the Purple Powers don't meet as frequently. 

Yes, I did say in a post I was defending the WIAC and UWO.  I can defend the WIAC and UWO and also support a change in the Pool B and C system for all teams though.  I don't want to get into the defense of the WIAC thing now because it's a subject that can be tackled separately.     

[emma17]

-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.

No, that's not right.  Because logical people look for context before jumping to conclusions.  I'd be happy to provide the box scores/play sheets of both the UWP v NCC game and the UWW v Wabash game for comparison.  Ultimately we may disagree on the interpretation, but I feel pretty secure that my definition of domination would only apply to one game.  I certainly wouldn't reach the conclusion that UWP wasn't competitive in that game. 

Buff State-  Really?  That game counts less in my estimation of the D3 world because UWW has won the national championship 5 times since 2007 and 4 of the last 5 years.  UWO made it to the semifinals in the Buff State year.  UWP was beat in the second round by an excellent NCC team.  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 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. 
 

[BashDad]

I think we're getting somewhere.

[emma17]

-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.

Your bolded statement is an implication I didn't intend.  I don't mean to imply, at all, that a "not good" team got in.  I only want to imply that there were teams that didn't get in that I believe most of the D3 world would agree would enhance the level of competition in the playoffs.  To me, it's not enough to say "look how close Muhl played Widener" or look how close Del Val played.  I see the few spots of Pool B and C as different than the rewards of Pool A.  The AQ provides the reward regardless of the national strength of a team, and that's fine.  I'd love to see the committee look at the Pool B and C process as a challenge to them to find the teams that will beat the best of the best. 

You say there is no evidence, and I guess depending on how you define that you may be right.  I see it differently.  I think there is evidence that NCC would have a better chance of beating Widener, CN and Linfield than Muhl, Del Val and TLU had.  In the second round, I think there is still evidence that NCC would have a better chance of beating a UWW, Mt. Union and any other team than the remaining Pool C teams have other than JCU.   

NCC has pedigree, they are a proven commodity.  This year they lost a game to UWSP (I admit my WIAC basis shows) that played nearly flawless offensive football and they lost by 3 to Wheaton in the last seconds.   
Evidence that UWO would have been better vs. Widener, CN or Linfield?  Pedigree for one.  A much more respectable audition vs a national power than TLU had vs a national power.   

[smedindy]

Pedigree changes and it unfairly and unjustly penalizes teams without national rep that may be as good OR better. The past is past, it is unwise and foolish to cling to it. By selecting on pedigree you miss teams because of myopic devotion to what has happened in the past. You CANNOT keep clinging on the past. "C"s should never just come from a select few - "C" should be open to all. We're lucky to have "C" anyway, really. The concept of at-larges didn't start in basketball until the mid-70's.

You claimed you wanted a committee with football knowledge - the implication is that the current committee then doesn't have it, and the regional committees don't have it.

The national committee CAN and DOES change the rankings of the regional committee, at least how I understood Frank and Wally say that. They probably did some manuevering to make sure a 10-0 Centre got in there. But, again, the current system CANNOT be changed just for football. That's also why the final regional rankings aren't released; several sports do not want those released.

As for the spreads, it's very dependent:

1. Where the game will be played.
2. Injuries, suspensions, etc.
3. When in the season it's played.

I don't think anyone would give North Central / Muhlenberg much of a thought in week one. The Mules were a good team, but the 'rep' of North Central probably  now, though, it'd be a toss-up depending on where it was played. The data plays that out. And that's why it is not a good idea to rely on reputation.

Sorry I'm not changing my posting style or MO...and sorry the playoff system isn't geared toward your biases. They play good football everywhere, not just the upper midwest. You just see a sliver of the games, again games played by teams that their entire season towards that one game, for the most part.

[smedindy]

So we can just play this year's Widener team against the 2012 Oshkosh team or the 2013 North Central team? Wow, I'd like to see that happen in your magic sphere.

We are choosing THIS YEARS teams, not the past years. THIS YEAR matters. Not the past. What is the evidence that 2014 North Central is more competitive than 2014 Muhlenberg without relying on teams that do not exist anymore except in fond memories?

[wally_wabash]

I know little about the current committee, for all I know, they may fit the bill perfectly for the process I'd prefer to see in place.  The problem currently is, and I believe Wally confirmed this (and please Wally, feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your point), the current National Committee doesn't want to or isn't comfortable with the idea of overruling the regional committee rankings in an effort to get who they feel would most enhance the playoff pool.

Why should they?  Why would we expect the national committee to have a more informed opinion of the teams in specific regions than the regional committees whose purview is focused very specifically in those regions?  Those regional committees are important because 8 people can track and rank 60-ish teams much better than 8 people can track and rank 240-ish teams.  You undermine the entire purpose of delegating those regional rankings if you just redo their work at the last minute anyway.  This isn't a thing that I think is ever going to happen- a massive reordering of the final regional rankings.  There needs to be a pretty egregious error in the rankings (like a committee overlooked a h2h result or something like that) in order to tinker too much with those ranking sets prior to selection. 

I am not suggesting only teams from the WIAC or power conferences should get the Pool C. 

Actually, you kind of are.  And if that's not what you mean, then you're not saying it very well. 

What I am suggesting, and I understand you probably won't agree with me (and you can do so without all caps), is that in the decision process of the committee (whomever that should be), they should consider pedigree.

Define "pedigree" in a way that doesn't exclude everybody except those in the power conferences that you swear you're not building a system to support. 

Yes, I understand your point that if a team doesn't get into the playoffs they'll never build pedigree.  My answer to that, which is rather cold I know, is that you build pedigree by winning your conference and getting the AQ.  You can also build pedigree by beating teams in the regular season that have playoff pedigree.   

Back to Sagan...just because a team doesn't have a pages-long playoff history, doesn't mean they aren't good enough to be in the playoffs.  You want to build a system that perpetuates the inclusion of the same handful of teams over and over and over without giving anybody else a fair shot and you're disguising that discrimination under the mask of "pedigree". 

By the way, what exactly is Oshkosh's "pedigree" that is supposed to get them an EZ Pass into the tournament?  They've made the tournament exactly once ever. 

[PurpleSuit]

I know little about the current committee, for all I know, they may fit the bill perfectly for the process I'd prefer to see in place.  The problem currently is, and I believe Wally confirmed this (and please Wally, feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your point), the current National Committee doesn't want to or isn't comfortable with the idea of overruling the regional committee rankings in an effort to get who they feel would most enhance the playoff pool.

Why should they?  Why would we expect the national committee to have a more informed opinion of the teams in specific regions than the regional committees whose purview is focused very specifically in those regions?  Those regional committees are important because 8 people can track and rank 60-ish teams much better than 8 people can track and rank 240-ish teams.  You undermine the entire purpose of delegating those regional rankings if you just redo their work at the last minute anyway.  This isn't a thing that I think is ever going to happen- a massive reordering of the final regional rankings.  There needs to be a pretty egregious error in the rankings (like a committee overlooked a h2h result or something like that) in order to tinker too much with those ranking sets prior to selection. 

I am not suggesting only teams from the WIAC or power conferences should get the Pool C. 

Actually, you kind of are.  And if that's not what you mean, then you're not saying it very well. 

What I am suggesting, and I understand you probably won't agree with me (and you can do so without all caps), is that in the decision process of the committee (whomever that should be), they should consider pedigree.

Define "pedigree" in a way that doesn't exclude everybody except those in the power conferences that you swear you're not building a system to support. 

Yes, I understand your point that if a team doesn't get into the playoffs they'll never build pedigree.  My answer to that, which is rather cold I know, is that you build pedigree by winning your conference and getting the AQ.  You can also build pedigree by beating teams in the regular season that have playoff pedigree.   

Back to Sagan...just because a team doesn't have a pages-long playoff history, doesn't mean they aren't good enough to be in the playoffs.  You want to build a system that perpetuates the inclusion of the same handful of teams over and over and over without giving anybody else a fair shot and you're disguising that discrimination under the mask of "pedigree". 

By the way, what exactly is Oshkosh's "pedigree" that is supposed to get them an EZ Pass into the tournament?  They've made the tournament exactly once ever.

Maybe you missed the first part of UW-O, it's UW meaning they are part of the mighty WIAC.  How else can we make sure that the WIAC is the best conference without a second team in the postseason?  UW-O did beat UWW once btw.

[emma17]

Wally and Smed, you are the most condescending debaters I've ever come across. 

My answer on Pedigree is the same for each of you:
The past does matter.  Why does D3 list the number of returning starters in Kickoff?
Why do coaches point to a senior laden team as a strength?
Why do coaches feel it's an advantage to have playoff experienced players on a roster?
How on God's earth can there be a top 25 before the season starts?

Pedigree matters.  It is earned.  And it's available to every single team in D3.  Here's how you get it.  If your team hasn't been in the playoffs for a while, win your division and you get in.  That takes care of Smed's incessant whining about fairness. Win your division and you get the ball rolling to prove something.
If you don't happen to win your division, but you play against a team with pedigree, as TLU did vs MHB, don't get beat by 56 points.  Rather, be in the game.  Show that your team can compete with the best.  That's how you start to build pedigree.

Smed, I don't care where the game between NCC and Muhl is played and I don't care where the game between UWO and Del Val is played, you can play them in the backyard of the Muhl's head coach.  NCC will be the favorite. 

[emma17]

Maybe you missed the first part of UW-O, it's UW meaning they are part of the mighty WIAC.  How else can we make sure that the WIAC is the best conference without a second team in the postseason?  UW-O did beat UWW once btw.
[/quote]

I think this is what is meant by trolling.  I don't mind because I want to ask you a question Suit.
Who gives Mt Union a better game this year- Wash and Jeff or NCC?
I realize W&J isn't a Pool C, but the point is valid.     

[Pat Coleman]

Who gives Mt Union a better game this year- Wash and Jeff or NCC?
I realize W&J isn't a Pool C, but the point is valid.   

No, this is a red herring and completely unrelated to picking at-large teams.

For all the hand-wringing over the system, UWO had a clearly defined path to the postseason available to it from Day One and it failed to follow that path. If a committee led by a WIAC AD and former coach didn't put them in the field, then they were not going to get in. We can talk all we want about them having "just one loss" but South Dakota State was the only game on its schedule that was completely unwinnable. Some defense in the final 45 seconds vs. Marian makes UWO 7-3 and the Titans were a touchdown away or less from RMU-Chicago the entire fourth quarter.

We should not give UWO a pass just because those schools have some scholarships. A team from the almighty WIAC can and should beat them.

[wally_wabash]

Maybe you missed the first part of UW-O, it's UW meaning they are part of the mighty WIAC.  How else can we make sure that the WIAC is the best conference without a second team in the postseason?  UW-O did beat UWW once btw.

I think this is what is meant by trolling.  I don't mind because I want to ask you a question Suit.
Who gives Mt Union a better game this year- Wash and Jeff or NCC?
I realize W&J isn't a Pool C, but the point is valid.     

The point is moot.  North Central didn't win enough games to get invited.  W&J did. 

I need to correct myself here- North Central DID win enough games to get invited.  They were most certainly on the board at the end of the selection process.  But they didn't get picked.  And my guess here is that they got outvoted by both Muhlenberg and St. Thomas (in some order).  I'm sure they had support on the call, but they just didn't get the votes.  Again, those teams on the end of the bubble are all really good and pretty interchangeable. 

[smedindy]

There's a big huge large difference between forecasting and predicting the season, and then selecting the playoff teams. It's a chasm. Kickoff and the pre-season top 25 are all about "we THINK these are the teams that will be good". There is no correlation between them and what the final selections are. None.

In theory, senior leadership and experience are good things. They do help. But whoever was left from 2013 North Central didn't make them invincible this year.

It is unfair and unjust to exclude a 9-1 team with good criteria simply because they haven't been there before. I feel bad for this year's Chicago team. We can't see the rankings, but they may have been 1-1 in RRs. They lost a great game against Pacific due to air traffic issues. That would have helped their SOS greatly. I'd say that in another year they may have made a "B" (if there were two spots). It wasn't their lack of pedigree that caused them to fall behind NC in the regional rankings; it was the SOS and if Rhodes didn't get ranked, then it was their 0-1 RR record.

A few years ago Concordia-Chicago was #2 in the RRs and everyone looked at that funny. I mean, really funny. Then they almost beat Bethel in the playoffs.

[emma17]

No, the point isn't moot because we're not talking about whether the committee followed the selection rules as they stand now. 

Pat and Wally,
I thought we were discussing a change to the Pool B and C process.  There are no red herrings.  The point is, if the Pool B and C process was different and the committee was truly trying to field the most competitive teams with the best chance of knocking off the best of the best, teams like NCC and UWO would be playing IMO.

   

[wesleydad]

This is fun to read.  My question is, why should a team that had a chance to beat the powers and failed deserve another chance to beat them just because the game was close?  I agree with Smed, there has to be a way to judge the teams other than "I think they are better because they play in so and so league".

As for Muhlenberg, if not for some crazy stuff at the end of the Widener game they would be playing against Linfield this week.  In the final 8 and kill any argument that they didn't deserve to get in.  Maybe UWO would be in the same position, but you never know.  I am pretty sure that Muhlenberg would have beaten CNU and I am using the eye test on that one, not any stats.