FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[PurpleSuit]

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.   
[/quote]

neither gives enough of a game to make an argument.   Like arguing which is worse to step in cat or dog yit? Both are no good.  I was simply defending the SEC...er....WIAC.

[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.

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.   

neither gives enough of a game to make an argument.   Like arguing which is worse to step in cat or dog yit? Both are no good.  I was simply defending the SEC...er....WIAC.
[/quote]

Wrong my trolling friend. 

[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. 

[smedindy]

I'm only going by what you type, and that you think past playoff performance is an indicator of future teams value. As I stated in my Wabash examples; it's a fallacy. Each team is different year over year. It's not that far of a leap from 2012 (Oshkosh) to 2010....

[wally_wabash]

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.

Right, but based on what?  What did either of those teams do in 2014 that make them clearly and obviously better choices for at-large invitation than the teams that were selected?  "Pedigree" is not an acceptable answer.  That's just a fun word we're tossing around to identify teams that you have an affinity for.  We can't discriminate based on name branding.

Can I use recent track record in its place?
What did NCC do?  They lost by a field goal in the closing seconds to WC, an undefeated team.  They had what I imagine you'd call a bad loss to UWSP.  They beat a very good UWP team.  In their two losses, both games were the sort that could have gone either way.  Thus, they proved they might be a team that can beat the best of the best.

This reads like 2+2 = 5.  I don't know how losing to Wheaton and UW-SP plus beating UWP adds up to "can beat Mount Union or Whitewater".  That's a pretty big leap of logic faith to take. 

UWO played a very difficult non-conf schedule despite the misconceptions of this board's leader.  They had to play that schedule you know why?  Pedigree.  Oops, I mean recent track record.  Or how about reputation in the D3 football community. Or should I call it standing or esteem or respectability?  Whatever it's called, UWO had to play non D3 teams for that reason.  That's fair to the UWO players how? 
Anyway, UWO played a very good UWW team strongly (unlike the result TLU had when it played a similarly strong D3 team).  And UWO beat a highly regarded UWP team.   

Oshkosh's non-league schedule was difficult to deal with.  Ultimately, the secondary criteria penalize teams for playing and losing to a bunch of non-D3 teams.  I don't know how fair that is really, but I'm also not opposed to selection/seeding criteria that encourage teams to play inside the division.  But nobody wanted to play Oshkosh, right?  Do we know this?  How hard did they try to find games?  I'm not criticizing here, I'm honestly asking because I don't know. 

As for the "they played UWW tough" thing...debatable...sort of.  24-0 in the 4th quarter of a game where Kumerow played one series before getting hurt.  Definitely better than TLU's result against UMHB, but it's not like Oshkosh had a shot in the 4th there either.  I think you're probably giving Oshkosh too much credit for showing up and not losing by 80.  That wasn't a close game. 

But here again, I think it's splitting  hairs.  You're convinced that UWO and NCC make the tournament field better.  In 2014, I'm not sure there's a difference whether they're in or not.  I'm on the record as having voted for UWO for the last spot so I think they were good enough, but ultimately the folks on that national committee think you need to win more than 6 games to get invited. 

[Pat Coleman]

Thanks for dive bombing with your "almighty" comment Pat- you set an excellent example of a classy leader.

I get that you're not a fan of the fact that I don't automatically agree with your tone or your every post, but I was not aware you also reserve the right to determine my tone of voice as well.

[Pat Coleman]

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.

Case in point.

[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.

Right, but based on what?  What did either of those teams do in 2014 that make them clearly and obviously better choices for at-large invitation than the teams that were selected?  "Pedigree" is not an acceptable answer.  That's just a fun word we're tossing around to identify teams that you have an affinity for.  We can't discriminate based on name branding.

Can I use recent track record in its place?
What did NCC do?  They lost by a field goal in the closing seconds to WC, an undefeated team.  They had what I imagine you'd call a bad loss to UWSP.  They beat a very good UWP team.  In their two losses, both games were the sort that could have gone either way.  Thus, they proved they might be a team that can beat the best of the best.

This reads like 2+2 = 5.  I don't know how losing to Wheaton and UW-SP plus beating UWP adds up to "can beat Mount Union or Whitewater".  That's a pretty big leap of logic faith to take. 

UWO played a very difficult non-conf schedule despite the misconceptions of this board's leader.  They had to play that schedule you know why?  Pedigree.  Oops, I mean recent track record.  Or how about reputation in the D3 football community. Or should I call it standing or esteem or respectability?  Whatever it's called, UWO had to play non D3 teams for that reason.  That's fair to the UWO players how? 
Anyway, UWO played a very good UWW team strongly (unlike the result TLU had when it played a similarly strong D3 team).  And UWO beat a highly regarded UWP team.   

Oshkosh's non-league schedule was difficult to deal with.  Ultimately, the secondary criteria penalize teams for playing and losing to a bunch of non-D3 teams.  I don't know how fair that is really, but I'm also not opposed to selection/seeding criteria that encourage teams to play inside the division.  But nobody wanted to play Oshkosh, right?  Do we know this?  How hard did they try to find games?  I'm not criticizing here, I'm honestly asking because I don't know. 

As for the "they played UWW tough" thing...debatable...sort of.  24-0 in the 4th quarter of a game where Kumerow played one series before getting hurt.  Definitely better than TLU's result against UMHB, but it's not like Oshkosh had a shot in the 4th there either.  I think you're probably giving Oshkosh too much credit for showing up and not losing by 80.  That wasn't a close game. 

But here again, I think it's splitting  hairs.  You're convinced that UWO and NCC make the tournament field better.  In 2014, I'm not sure there's a difference whether they're in or not.  I'm on the record as having voted for UWO for the last spot so I think they were good enough, but ultimately the folks on that national committee think you need to win more than 6 games to get invited.

I assume you're referring to what I actually said, which is "Thus, they proved they might be a team that can beat the best of the best."  And I stand by that.  Are you really serious when you say it's a leap of logic faith that NCC might have played UWW or Mt tight?  I'm surprised if that's your real take.  I realize comparative scores only go so far, but it's one of few pieces of evidence we can point to.  JCU was at the 3 yard line to beat Mt.  WC was a missed field goal from beating JCU.  WC hit a last second field goal to beat NCC.  NCC played Mt as tough as can be last year, and has experience.  And you think my math is out of whack?   

[Pat Coleman]

NCC played Mt as tough as can be last year, and has experience.  And you think my math is out of whack?   

If North Central were clearly the same team or comparable to the team that took Mount Union to the end, it would not have lost to UWSP. Fact is, though, that quarterback wasn't back and his replacements threw four picks at UWSP.

[jknezek]

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.

[wally_wabash]

I assume you're referring to what I actually said, which is "Thus, they proved they might be a team that can beat the best of the best."  And I stand by that.  Are you really serious when you say it's a leap of logic faith that NCC might have played UWW or Mt tight?  I'm surprised if that's your real take.  I realize comparative scores only go so far, but it's one of few pieces of evidence we can point to.  JCU was at the 3 yard line to beat Mt.  WC was a missed field goal from beating JCU.  WC hit a last second field goal to beat NCC.  NCC played Mt as tough as can be last year, and has experience.  And you think my math is out of whack?   

Last year.  You want to give teams legacy points for past accomplishments.  That's a no-no I think. 

[Schwami]

Regarding the WIAC scheduling problems --- I seem to recall that WIAC schools have occasionally scheduled a second (non-conference) game against a conference opponent to help fill out their schedules.  Obviously not an ideal situation, but at least another game against a D3 opponent.

[emma17]

Thanks for dive bombing with your "almighty" comment Pat- you set an excellent example of a classy leader.

I get that you're not a fan of the fact that I don't automatically agree with your tone or your every post, but I was not aware you also reserve the right to determine my tone of voice as well.

Don't kid yourself Pat, I could care less whether you agree with me. 
"almighty"- no other way to read that tone. 

[02 Warhawk]

Regarding the WIAC scheduling problems --- I seem to recall that WIAC schools have occasionally scheduled a second (non-conference) game against a conference opponent to help fill out their schedules.  Obviously not an ideal situation, but at least another game against a D3 opponent.

Yes, that was the one upside to that a few years back. Especially when they still looked at "regional" games played.

[smedindy]

Many of the D2 and NAIA football conferences out west play multiple games with conference opponents. Last year, the GNAC (west coast style) played a double-round robin! This year, CWU played three teams twice. It's not ideal, but you can't get around it sometimes.

I don't think it's ideal for the WIAC to do that. Playing a pay game against D1 or D2 isn't either.