FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[firstdown]

Emma17 - clearly you are unhappy about the Pool C selection process for some of the WIAC teams.  The Wabash folks had similar feelings last year when we got jumped by an 8-2 team when Wabash was 9-1.  It was for this reason that Wally Wabash and Smedindy spent the amount of time that they did this year to understand the selection process.  The safest approach is to win the WIAC AQ, otherwise a team is at the mercy of the Pool C selection process and that is not a place you really want to be.

[ExTartanPlayer]

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 want to dig into this idea that a close game against a conference champion like UWW really means something about how that team would do against other teams from other conferences.  Let's go back to the original genesis of this argument:

"UWO would crush Wabash. UWP would beat Wabash and UWRF, at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."

Why are we so sure about this?  Presumably because these teams played UWW closer and/or tougher than Wabash did?  OK...let's keep going.

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.

I actually do agree with the bolded statement - that UWRF-on-their-best-day would give Wabash (or anyone in D3) a run - but what does that really mean about the strength of the WIAC on the whole?  UWRF at their best nearly knocked off UWW this year.  That is the sole data point supporting the idea that "UWRF at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."  Presumably, the "UWO would crush Wabash" and "UWP would beat Wabash" are derived from the fact that UWW 24, UWO 7 and UWW 17, UWP 7 are closer than UWW 38, Wabash 14.  Let's look at a few other data points, though.

UWRF also lost by 16 points to 3-7 Simpson.  That result suggests UWRF would lost by an awful lot to Wabash, because Simpson is at best the equivalent of all those teams Wabash beats by 40 in the NCAC.  If you accept the premise that UWRF's close game against UWW means that "if they played their best they could give Wabash a tough game" - you have to also acknowledge that wasn't exactly representative of UWRF over the course of the season, and that UWRF playing that good of a game against Wabash is actually pretty unlikely.

UWP - outside of the WIAC - rolled Buena Vista by 60, won by 5 against Dubuque, and lost to North Central.  Wabash absolutely could have matched or bettered those results.

Just because UWO, UWP, UWRF or whomever gave UWW a tougher game than (Playoff Opponent X) doesn't mean those teams are better than (Playoff Opponent X).

How'd those data points work out for Wabash? 
You want to keep relying on data points to determine the best teams suited for 5 remaining playoff spots?  So your data points way is more reliable in selecting teams for Pool C.

Still waiting for an answer to, uh, the entire post.  Specifically, I want you to address this again.

"UWO would crush Wabash. UWP would beat Wabash and UWRF, at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."

...and preferably do it with evidence besides "UWO/UWP/UWRF played a closer game against UWW than Wabash did."

[emma17]

UWO records in the D3 Era.  I'm not sure about the pedigree of the program.  I played against them in 1998 -- we were on their 4 wins that year.  I understand they have a new coach, and they've been better since then but UW-Whitewater, they aren't.


2014 (6-4, 6-1 WIAC)
2013 (8-2, 5-2 WIAC)
2012 (13-1, 7-0 WIAC)
2011 (7-3, 5-2 WIAC)
2010 (4-6, 3-4 WIAC)
2009 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2008 (4-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2007 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2006 (5-5, 3-4 WIAC)
2005 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2004 (5-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2003 (4-6, 1-6 WIAC)
2002 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2001 (3-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2000 (3-7, 1-6 WIAC)
1999 (3-7, 2-5 WIAC)

*I do get the NCC pedigree part, though.

Clearly not my point.  Let's ditch the term pedigree since so many of you have such a hard time with it.
I'll go with recent track record or performance ok?  Anybody here have a 401k? 
Anybody look at the recent performance of a portfolio manager?  Why?

[jknezek]

UWO records in the D3 Era.  I'm not sure about the pedigree of the program.  I played against them in 1998 -- we were on their 4 wins that year.  I understand they have a new coach, and they've been better since then but UW-Whitewater, they aren't.


2014 (6-4, 6-1 WIAC)
2013 (8-2, 5-2 WIAC)
2012 (13-1, 7-0 WIAC)
2011 (7-3, 5-2 WIAC)
2010 (4-6, 3-4 WIAC)
2009 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2008 (4-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2007 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2006 (5-5, 3-4 WIAC)
2005 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2004 (5-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2003 (4-6, 1-6 WIAC)
2002 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2001 (3-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2000 (3-7, 1-6 WIAC)
1999 (3-7, 2-5 WIAC)

*I do get the NCC pedigree part, though.

Clearly not my point.  Let's ditch the term pedigree since so many of you have such a hard time with it.
I'll go with recent track record or performance ok?  Anybody here have a 401k? 
Anybody look at the recent performance of a portfolio manager?  Why?

Because the entire portfolio manager's office doesn't turn over every four years and the most important part doesn't leave at the end of every year? Horrible argument.

[emma17]

Emma17 - clearly you are unhappy about the Pool C selection process for some of the WIAC teams.  The Wabash folks had similar feelings last year when we got jumped by an 8-2 team when Wabash was 9-1.  It was for this reason that Wally Wabash and Smedindy spent the amount of time that they did this year to understand the selection process.  The safest approach is to win the WIAC AQ, otherwise a team is at the mercy of the Pool C selection process and that is not a place you really want to be.

I appreciate your respectful reply.  However, this really isn't about the WIAC being slighted in Pool C.  This discussion is supposed to be about changes to make to the Pool C selection process.  I believe there was at least one WIAC team this year that would have made the cut if the process were more subjective. 
I respect the amount of time that Wally and Smed put into all of their analysis.  However, we see time and again that the data points aren't reliable.  Some may take this as a jab but it's not, it's just the fact.  Wabash was the #1 defense in the country and many of the same people on this board were very, very confident because of that data point. 

I think there is a better way to fill the Pool C slots, whether it benefits the WIAC or not. 

[emma17]

UWO records in the D3 Era.  I'm not sure about the pedigree of the program.  I played against them in 1998 -- we were on their 4 wins that year.  I understand they have a new coach, and they've been better since then but UW-Whitewater, they aren't.


2014 (6-4, 6-1 WIAC)
2013 (8-2, 5-2 WIAC)
2012 (13-1, 7-0 WIAC)
2011 (7-3, 5-2 WIAC)
2010 (4-6, 3-4 WIAC)
2009 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2008 (4-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2007 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2006 (5-5, 3-4 WIAC)
2005 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2004 (5-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2003 (4-6, 1-6 WIAC)
2002 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2001 (3-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2000 (3-7, 1-6 WIAC)
1999 (3-7, 2-5 WIAC)

*I do get the NCC pedigree part, though.

Clearly not my point.  Let's ditch the term pedigree since so many of you have such a hard time with it.
I'll go with recent track record or performance ok?  Anybody here have a 401k? 
Anybody look at the recent performance of a portfolio manager?  Why?

Because the entire portfolio manager's office doesn't turn over every four years and the most important part doesn't leave at the end of every year? Horrible argument.

Horrible reply since you refuse to debate the point.  UWO has a recent track record that indicates they would enhance the field of play in the playoffs.  Not only did they perform exceptionally well in their recent playoff run, every one of their games against D3 opponents were battles.  I was at the UWW-UWO game, UWO was the toughest LOS UWW played all year.  That translates to competitive play in D3. 

[SaintsFAN]

UWO records in the D3 Era.  I'm not sure about the pedigree of the program.  I played against them in 1998 -- we were on their 4 wins that year.  I understand they have a new coach, and they've been better since then but UW-Whitewater, they aren't.


2014 (6-4, 6-1 WIAC)
2013 (8-2, 5-2 WIAC)
2012 (13-1, 7-0 WIAC)
2011 (7-3, 5-2 WIAC)
2010 (4-6, 3-4 WIAC)
2009 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2008 (4-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2007 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2006 (5-5, 3-4 WIAC)
2005 (7-3, 4-3 WIAC)
2004 (5-5, 2-5 WIAC)
2003 (4-6, 1-6 WIAC)
2002 (4-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2001 (3-6, 2-5 WIAC)
2000 (3-7, 1-6 WIAC)
1999 (3-7, 2-5 WIAC)

*I do get the NCC pedigree part, though.

Clearly not my point.  Let's ditch the term pedigree since so many of you have such a hard time with it.
I'll go with recent track record or performance ok?  Anybody here have a 401k? 
Anybody look at the recent performance of a portfolio manager?  Why?

My apologies for not being able to move past that.  I get what you're saying -- and your point.  I just don't agree with it, completely.  And thats ok.  Its ok for you to feel the way you do.  I just think the Committee did a pretty good job this year and we've had an entertaining tournament thus far... especially compared with previous years when it seemed to be just chalk. 

[jknezek]

Horrible reply since you refuse to debate the point.  UWO has a recent track record that indicates they would enhance the field of play in the playoffs.  Not only did they perform exceptionally well in their recent playoff run, every one of their games against D3 opponents were battles.  I was at the UWW-UWO game, UWO was the toughest LOS UWW played all year.  That translates to competitive play in D3.

Ridiculous. I answered your question perfectly with a quick reason why your analogy was garbage. Now you are back to UWO, which you keep insisting is not your point. As was pointed out above, UWO's recent history is mediocre, at best, except for one year. They don't deserve your pedigreed status except they are in the WIAC.

I brought up Elmhurst which is an outstanding example of the havoc and garbage your "pedigree is important" argument would cause and you didn't touch it.

You keep saying everyone else doesn't know how to make an argument, but really it's simply you don't agree with the valid points we all bring up. You just keep wanting pedigree and a smell test to trump all. It's not going to happen, it shouldn't happen, and it's ridiculous that you just keep pushing the same UWO-UWW score over and over as your main point while simultaneously claiming it isn't about UWO.

[emma17]

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 want to dig into this idea that a close game against a conference champion like UWW really means something about how that team would do against other teams from other conferences.  Let's go back to the original genesis of this argument:

"UWO would crush Wabash. UWP would beat Wabash and UWRF, at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."

Why are we so sure about this?  Presumably because these teams played UWW closer and/or tougher than Wabash did?  OK...let's keep going.

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.

I actually do agree with the bolded statement - that UWRF-on-their-best-day would give Wabash (or anyone in D3) a run - but what does that really mean about the strength of the WIAC on the whole?  UWRF at their best nearly knocked off UWW this year.  That is the sole data point supporting the idea that "UWRF at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."  Presumably, the "UWO would crush Wabash" and "UWP would beat Wabash" are derived from the fact that UWW 24, UWO 7 and UWW 17, UWP 7 are closer than UWW 38, Wabash 14.  Let's look at a few other data points, though.

UWRF also lost by 16 points to 3-7 Simpson.  That result suggests UWRF would lost by an awful lot to Wabash, because Simpson is at best the equivalent of all those teams Wabash beats by 40 in the NCAC.  If you accept the premise that UWRF's close game against UWW means that "if they played their best they could give Wabash a tough game" - you have to also acknowledge that wasn't exactly representative of UWRF over the course of the season, and that UWRF playing that good of a game against Wabash is actually pretty unlikely.

UWP - outside of the WIAC - rolled Buena Vista by 60, won by 5 against Dubuque, and lost to North Central.  Wabash absolutely could have matched or bettered those results.

Just because UWO, UWP, UWRF or whomever gave UWW a tougher game than (Playoff Opponent X) doesn't mean those teams are better than (Playoff Opponent X).

How'd those data points work out for Wabash? 
You want to keep relying on data points to determine the best teams suited for 5 remaining playoff spots?  So your data points way is more reliable in selecting teams for Pool C.

Still waiting for an answer to, uh, the entire post.  Specifically, I want you to address this again.

"UWO would crush Wabash. UWP would beat Wabash and UWRF, at 3-7 would give Wabash everything they could handle."

...and preferably do it with evidence besides "UWO/UWP/UWRF played a closer game against UWW than Wabash did."

I'm not real anxious to dig into this because you started it off on an incorrect premise.  The genesis of this conversation (I'm assuming you're referring to this long thread) was not my comment about UWRF giving Wabash a game.  The genesis has to do with Pool C. 

In any event, I'm going to answer your question about all the UW's and stuff.  Not that you all need encouragement to attack, but I imagine this will sit wrong. 
The evidence is because I imagine, unlike you, I saw UWO, UWP, UWW and Wabash all play live this year.  I admit to only watching UWRF on video. 
I don't need a single data point to tell me what a good offensive line looks like, or a good defensive line, or a good quarterback, or a well coached team.  I saw them all with my own eyes.

As such, I truly believe that if we left the Pool C selection to a committee that had to perform some sort of evaluation (understanding they can't see every D3 team) based on review (Bleedpurple posted a more detailed version of this concept) of play and not of data points, the 5 coveted spots would more likely be filled by teams that raise the bar in the tournament.  By raise the bar, I mean they force the best of the best to play a full 4 quarters and every now and then knock a power out of the tournament. 

[emma17]

Horrible reply since you refuse to debate the point.  UWO has a recent track record that indicates they would enhance the field of play in the playoffs.  Not only did they perform exceptionally well in their recent playoff run, every one of their games against D3 opponents were battles.  I was at the UWW-UWO game, UWO was the toughest LOS UWW played all year.  That translates to competitive play in D3.

Ridiculous. I answered your question perfectly with a quick reason why your analogy was garbage. Now you are back to UWO, which you keep insisting is not your point. As was pointed out above, UWO's recent history is mediocre, at best, except for one year. They don't deserve your pedigreed status except they are in the WIAC.

I brought up Elmhurst which is an outstanding example of the havoc and garbage your "pedigree is important" argument would cause and you didn't touch it.

You keep saying everyone else doesn't know how to make an argument, but really it's simply you don't agree with the valid points we all bring up. You just keep wanting pedigree and a smell test to trump all. It's not going to happen, it shouldn't happen, and it's ridiculous that you just keep pushing the same UWO-UWW score over and over as your main point while simultaneously claiming it isn't about UWO.

Do you think I have a problem with speaking my mind?  Does it seem obvious to you that I hold back on what I really feel?

Who the heck are you to tell me that my argument is all about UWO?
Did I not spend time talking about NCC?
Or am I guilty there too because I like them?

[emma17]

For all those that are debating this subject, I asked a question a couple of times.  Only Smed partially answered it.
I''ll remove WIAC out as it seems to create a blind spot for some.

What are the spreads:

NCC v Del Val
NCC v Muhl


I believe the way to improve the playoffs is for the committee to use greater subjectivity, in a transparent way, where they are required to explain to the fans, why they feel the teams they selected raise the level of competition in the playoffs.

[ExTartanPlayer]

In any event, I'm going to answer your question about all the UW's and stuff.  Not that you all need encouragement to attack, but I imagine this will sit wrong. 
The evidence is because I imagine, unlike you, I saw UWO, UWP, UWW and Wabash all play live this year.  I admit to only watching UWRF on video. 
I don't need a single data point to tell me what a good offensive line looks like, or a good defensive line, or a good quarterback, or a well coached team.  I saw them all with my own eyes.

So, I imagine that this UWRF team, with its good offensive line, good defensive line, good quarterback, and well-coached team (or whatever combination of those aspects that they displayed to give UWW a game) was a different one than the team that went and lost to Simpson? 

I do appreciate that you saw all the teams play live this year and make a qualitative judgement.  Really, I do.  But I don't get how you can sit there and say UWRF would actually be on equal footing with Wabash when you saw them both play one time, and the preponderance of evidence (like, literally, everything else that happened for the entire season) suggests that UWRF was, um, not as good as the performance they gave against UWW. 

The same goes for UWO or UWP - you saw them play Whitewater, and play well they certainly did - but there are other games that happened against teams from other conferences where those UW-(InsertTeamHere) teams' good offensive lines, good defensive lines, good quarterbacks, and well-coached teams did not show as well as their might efforts against Whitewater. 

Truth be told, I wish that WIAC runners-up had gotten into the playoffs a bit more for the last five-six years because we'd have a better answer to this question.  For many years the OAC runnerup was a perennial quarterfinalist or even semifinalist, and I believed that the OAC was every bit the powerhouse you're describing the WIAC to be; I thought the OAC runnerup practically deserved their own AQ (or at least that the committees had a tacit understanding that a 9-1 OAC runnerup had to be the first team off the board).  Then, a funny thing happened...the OAC runnerup started getting bounced early from the playoffs almost every year (this year being an exception).  Eventually, I got off that soapbox because the OAC runnerup was making the playoffs and definitely not holding up their end of the bargain.  Now I don't use any special lens for the OAC runnerup just because "they played Mount Union close and that means they're better than those other shmucks in Pool C."

An example that might be somewhat germane to the current discussion: 2012 Heidelberg.  Check out the 2012 Mount Union season - they blitzed everyone up to the semifinals except for one pseudo-competitive game with Heidelberg, a game that's probably not all that different from the UWO-UWW or UWP-UWW games this year.  So, you know, that Heidelberg team is gonna totally rock the playoffs, right?  Lost in the first round.  As did 2013 John Carroll, fresh off taking Mount Union to the wire in week 11.  Playing a close/competitive game against your Purple Power of choice is not a guarantee of playoff success, nor does it mean you're better than (Playoff Opponent X) who (Purple Power) ran off the field.

Sadly, we have not seen enough of the WIAC runners-up in the playoffs to know if this would extend further.  2012 UW-Oshkosh did show that the WIAC is more than a one-team league - but it would be nice to see a couple more of those to know if we're really dealing with a league whose second and third-best teams are slam-dunk top-15 teams (hint: Platteville's loss to North Central this year is not a point in favor of this argument) or if they occasionally play Whitewater close because of familiarity, coaching strategies, or whatever.

[Li'l Giant]

What does "pedigree" mean anyway? Is that "won national titles?" Is that "won playoff games"? Is that "won playoff games against WIAC and OAC" teams? Is that "won lots of regular season games"? What does that mean? And how far back does "pedigree" go?

Do Allegheny and Albion have "pedigree" because of their 1990 and 1994 titles? Since 1999 those two schools have 3 playoff appearances between them. What about UW-Lacrosse for their 1992/1995 titles? They haven't been to a playoff since 2006. They have a "pedigree"?

I'd like some guidance with regard to that definition.

Asking about 1990 is about as intellectually stinky as bashdads computer. If you seriously think I'd argue that 1990 counts, I question your decision to engage in dialogue w me.

Well, see, that's why I asked what it means and how far it goes. Because I don't want to guess what you mean because no one in this conversation has been able to accurately interpret what you mean anyway. Whatever interpretation anyone has offered is wrong. Kind of reminds me of law school.

One can argue that a team can be a "storied program" without being good lately. (St. John's comes to mind; no offense Johnnies fans). In FBS I think of Michigan. (Offense intended Wolverines fans).

***Accidentally hit "Post" not "Preview. So, completed below:

So, does "pedigree" mean "history" or "storied" was what I was asking. Or does it mean something more recent. Last year, 2 years?

[emma17]

Fair post Ex Tarten.

Perhaps in closing, I personally have seen way too many games to not trust my ability to determine quality. I've been fortunate to see (you pick the highly regarded team) in action and likely multiple times. In this stretch, can you imagine how many teams UWW people have seen in action that have come in with the "data points"? This isn't boasting, it's just the facts.  Try and put yourself in the other shoes.  Stats help to tell a story, don't get me wrong, but I think the current Pool C (and B) process puts too much emphasis on them. 

I think there is a better way to fill the few Pool C slots.  Yes, it will probably benefit the WIAC, but it will help any team that passes the regular season audition.  Those that think the WIAC is my primary motivation are simply wrong.     

 

[emma17]

What does "pedigree" mean anyway? Is that "won national titles?" Is that "won playoff games"? Is that "won playoff games against WIAC and OAC" teams? Is that "won lots of regular season games"? What does that mean? And how far back does "pedigree" go?

Do Allegheny and Albion have "pedigree" because of their 1990 and 1994 titles? Since 1999 those two schools have 3 playoff appearances between them. What about UW-Lacrosse for their 1992/1995 titles? They haven't been to a playoff since 2006. They have a "pedigree"?

I'd like some guidance with regard to that definition.

Asking about 1990 is about as intellectually stinky as bashdads computer. If you seriously think I'd argue that 1990 counts, I question your decision to engage in dialogue w me.

Well, see, that's why I asked what it means and how far it goes. Because I don't want to guess what you mean because no one in this conversation has been able to accurately interpret what you mean anyway. Whatever interpretation anyone has offered is wrong. Kind of reminds me of law school.

One can argue that a team can be a "storied program" without being good lately. (St. John's comes to mind; no offense Johnnies fans). In FBS I think of Michigan. (Offense intended Wolverines fans).

***Accidentally hit "Post" not "Preview. So, completed below:

So, does "pedigree" mean "history" or "storied" was what I was asking. Or does it mean something more recent. Last year, 2 years?

Pedigree means recent track record.  I honestly don't have this concept honed down to a final rule.  I do think reasonable people can identify what part of a recent track record is meaningful when picking between teams a, b, c, d and e. 
The important point is that the committee would be required to explain the rationale.  Knowing this, you'd probably not expect them to say something like, we selected team b because they were dominant from 2000-2006.  I would expect them to say something like, we selected team b over team c because over the last three years, they've made the playoffs twice and both times they performed very well, taking a number one seed into the fourth quarter last year and two years ago advancing to the third round.  Additionally, in their regular season game against Team Z, an undefeated and perennial playoff contender, they showed they have the capability to play with the best of the best.  And that is our goal fans, we want to elevate the level of play by using these 5 Pool C slots to bring in the teams we are most confident will not only play well with the best of the best, but have a chance to beat them. 

And this is the best way, in my view, to prevent UWW from meeting up with Mt Union so many times.