FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

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.

Fine. I'll bite on this.

NCC at Del Val.  Del Val by 3-7.
NCC hosting Del Val. NCC by 14.

NCC at Muhl. Muhl by 7.
Muhl at NCC. NCC by 7.

How did I come up this? Well, the eye test. Del Val beat a pretty good Montclair St team but couldn't get it done when it counted against Widener or CNU. NCC beat a decent UWP, but couldn't get it done when it counted either against UWSP or Wheaton. NCC's losses came on the road, so they look better at home but seem unable to win big games on the road this year. This would be a big road game. Del Val split the losses home and away, so they aren't a sure thing at home, but they won at least one big game on the road.

For Muhlenberg, my road game against good opponent problem still exists for NCC this year. Muhl lost to a good JHU team, at home, but otherwise only Ursinus was within 2 scores. On the road, Muhlenberg gave Widener, who beat Del Val, everything they could handle and then some. NCC also dominated at home, so I would expect them to hold that serve as well.

There's my thoughts on it. There is no comparable data between any of the three teams, all played some strong, strong games, and only Muhlenberg doesn't have at least one recognizable scalp. Muhl and Del Val both have home blemishes, both to teams that made the playoffs. NCC has two road blemishes, only one to a playoff team, but both to the best teams they played.

Who wins the big games? Probably the home team, and my spreads are laid out accordingly.

[USee]

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.

The "almighty" Massey has NCC as a 6 pt favorite over Del Valley (neutral field) and Muhl a 1 pt favorite over NCC (neutral field).

What a tangled web we weave.

[wally_wabash]

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.

The "almighty" Massey has NCC as a 6 pt favorite over Del Valley (neutral field) and Muhl a 1 pt favorite over NCC (neutral field).

What a tangled web we weave.

Massey uses too much data and not enough eye test. 

[USee]

Also, since the flavor of the day seems to be a lot of "what ifs" I will point out that Wheaton was a field goal away from being a Pool C Candidate. And "if" they finished 9-1 with a loss to NCC and having barely scraped by @Augie and been "unimpressive" (according to some) in their other wins, what are the chances they make the field this year with the #200 SOS and no wins over RRO? They certainly have playoff "pedigree" (12-2 outside of Alliance OH) since 1995. They were somewhere near the Oshkosh side of the bubble with that resume and everyone would have been saying "They weren't impressive against Kalamazoo and Augie, etc". But I think it's pretty clear they are a top 15 team (arguably top 10) after their playoff performance this year. I don't know the answer to this but I think these "what ifs" are an important side of the questions you guys are asking.

Ultimately we are trying to solve for problems that have unknowable solutions. We can't solve these problems with the current system and, while we can modify the system, there is no "perfect" system. TLU lost by 7 in a rematch of the 70 burger. Did they not deserve that game? I see both sides of this argument

[USee]

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.

The "almighty" Massey has NCC as a 6 pt favorite over Del Valley (neutral field) and Muhl a 1 pt favorite over NCC (neutral field).

What a tangled web we weave.

Massey uses too much data and not enough eye test. 

Easy there or BashDad's computer might start getting messy (or should I say Massey?)

[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.

The "almighty" Massey has NCC as a 6 pt favorite over Del Valley (neutral field) and Muhl a 1 pt favorite over NCC (neutral field).

What a tangled web we weave.

Massey uses too much data and not enough eye test. 

I just knew you and I could come to agreement somewhere along the line. 

[smedindy]

Oh, let's use subjective data that may refute the objective data just because, I dunno, reasons.

There is no way, no way to decide between Framingham and Oshkosh than using, oh, data. They don't play each other. They don't play anyone who plays the other.

Then there's the matchup issue:

Team A could be 'better' than B but match up poorly against them and struggle. Team C could easily beat Team B but also struggle against Team A due to matchups. So 'competitive' is a tricky word. Game plans and weather also add into it. So I don't think anyone could sit there and definitely say Oshkosh or North Central would make a deeper run in the playoffs than Muhlenberg. The playoff matchups would then be scrambled and who knows where they or anyone else would land. They could run into a matchup like Witt had against W&J, playing the one type of team that would give them fits.

The best thing W&J did was lose in Week 11 because then they got Witt instead of maybe hosting a team that would give them problems.

Same with UMHB; they didn't have a deep playoff run because Linfield lost to Willamette. Linfield wins that game, they may be meeting Saturday, or the brackets are scrambled and they're not playing each other until next Saturday. Who knows?

[smedindy]

Also, since the flavor of the day seems to be a lot of "what ifs" I will point out that Wheaton was a field goal away from being a Pool C Candidate. And "if" they finished 9-1 with a loss to NCC and having barely scraped by @Augie and been "unimpressive" (according to some) in their other wins, what are the chances they make the field this year with the #200 SOS and no wins over RRO? They certainly have playoff "pedigree" (12-2 outside of Alliance OH) since 1995. They were somewhere near the Oshkosh side of the bubble with that resume and everyone would have been saying "They weren't impressive against Kalamazoo and Augie, etc". But I think it's pretty clear they are a top 15 team (arguably top 10) after their playoff performance this year. I don't know the answer to this but I think these "what ifs" are an important side of the questions you guys are asking.

Ultimately we are trying to solve for problems that have unknowable solutions. We can't solve these problems with the current system and, while we can modify the system, there is no "perfect" system. TLU lost by 7 in a rematch of the 70 burger. Did they not deserve that game? I see both sides of this argument

We can kind of take a run at that: They'd probably be ranked behind Wabash in the North but I think ahead of Chicago. So then Board 5 would be:

Framingham
Muhlenberg
Wheaton
St. Thomas

Then Board 6:

Framingham
Thomas More (I'm guessing here)
Wheaton
St. Thomas

Of course, the regional committee would have to put Wheaton ahead of Chicago. The North actually had rational, sane rankings for the most part.

I assume Muhlenberg gets selected on Board 5 still. I bet Wheaton slides ahead of St. Thomas in board 6, but really, St. Thomas had some pretty strong criteria except for the two losses.

[smedindy]

So, for giggles, in 2017, the lowly NACC all of a sudden has two teams (Lakeland and Wisc. Lutheran just to put a name on 'em) rolls through their non-conference not only undefeated, but wins convincingly, against teams from the MIAA and CCIW and MWC and Chicago. Because of who they played and the year they played, their SOS is pretty good and they each have a RR win. (Bear with me...)

Lakeland beats Wisc. Lutheran by two. Both are still ranked in the North, with a great SOS. The rest of the North is kind of a tire fire with definitive champs and some other shaky teams. The usual suspects and conferences play out elsewhere with cannibalization in the WIAC, MIAC, ODAC, and E8.

So because of the NACC's previous playoff performance, you'd exclude one of these teams that have done nothing wrong all year except one lost to the other in favor of a team that went 8-2 or 7-3 from a 'name' conference that may be having a down year (hello this years OAC and CCIW)? Really? You'd penalize the 2017 team for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

[wesleydad]

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.

I'll jump in here.  I saw DelVal play Widener to a tight game for 3 quarters.  I did not see Muhlenberg, but they have the pedigree to say that they may have returned to a level of play that made Wesley's life miserable in the playoffs in 2006 and 7 I believe.  They also played a competitive game with Hopkins this year.  So with all that in mind, I would make NCC a less than 7 point favorite against both teams.  Depending on where the game was played could move the line a point or 2 either way.  Since Muhlenberg really seem like they should have beat Widener, I would not be stunned if they beat this year's NCC team.  I am not as much of a fan of DelVal after seeing them play Widener, but still think they stay in the game with NCC.

[BashDad]

OMG, you guys.

Meanwhile, over on the UWW boards, Warhawk fans are straight up flipping out.

It is the best antidote to all this pigeon-brained and weirdly defensive (of course you're arguing all this, Emma, because you're a fan of the WIAC and it serves your rooting interest) ranting.

Here's a link.  Get out your BWA-HA-HA.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3741.37020

[emma17]

So, for giggles, in 2017, the lowly NACC all of a sudden has two teams (Lakeland and Wisc. Lutheran just to put a name on 'em) rolls through their non-conference not only undefeated, but wins convincingly, against teams from the MIAA and CCIW and MWC and Chicago. Because of who they played and the year they played, their SOS is pretty good and they each have a RR win. (Bear with me...)

Lakeland beats Wisc. Lutheran by two. Both are still ranked in the North, with a great SOS. The rest of the North is kind of a tire fire with definitive champs and some other shaky teams. The usual suspects and conferences play out elsewhere with cannibalization in the WIAC, MIAC, ODAC, and E8.

So because of the NACC's previous playoff performance, you'd exclude one of these teams that have done nothing wrong all year except one lost to the other in favor of a team that went 8-2 or 7-3 from a 'name' conference that may be having a down year (hello this years OAC and CCIW)? Really? You'd penalize the 2017 team for 2014, 2015 and 2016?

I'm no longer sure if this question is directed at me.  If it is, I really can't address your scenario for a couple of reasons.  One, your scenario involves SOS and RR as a result.  This sort of silly stuff wouldn't be in my selection process.  Two, because my preference is that the committee looks at the situation across the country and decides the 5 Pool C teams (assuming that's the number) that will raise the bar.  The committee then explains why they picked the 5 they did.  I don't see a need to complicate it any more than that.
Pool A is always available for all. 

[emma17]

OMG, you guys.

Meanwhile, over on the UWW boards, Warhawk fans are straight up flipping out.

It is the best antidote to all this pigeon-brained and weirdly defensive (of course you're arguing all this, Emma, because you're a fan of the WIAC and it serves your rooting interest) ranting.

Here's a link.  Get out your BWA-HA-HA.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3741.37020

A bit melodramatic don't you think?  Oh that's right, this is the board for that kind of stuff. 
I argue for good football teams to get in Pool C, that's all.  I have supported NCC (non WIAC) and CM (non WIAC) as teams that could have made an impact this year in the post season.  I'm sorry the facts don't fit your story line, but then again, those aren't a big deal in these parts.

[BashDad]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[mr_mom]

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:

OK ... I'll answer.  Not everyone is in love with my spreads, but I'll take a stab:

NCC v Del Val    45-41
NCC v Muhl       31-33

When you talk about subjectivity, looking at raw numbers is not the answer.  My spreads the last two weeks were absolute sh*t, a good part because they were based on pure statistics and not the objective, unquantifiable value that we find in sports. 

Not sure if this will help or hurt with your current argument, but it is what I do.