FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[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?

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.

They have to have some criteria. Some data. Some objectivity. They have to look at SOMETHING.

Otherwise we are right back to where we were in the old days, when teams were selected just because.

And again, you change the process here you change it for EVERY SPORT.

The teams 'left out' all have flaws, as many flaws as the teams that they selected as a "B" and "C". Your refusal to see that every "C" and "B" team save one represented well, and that other "C"/"B" was 10-0 and there was NO WAY they'd be left out, and they also caught a bad matchup.

Tell me flat out:

Is Muhlenberg a good team?
Is Centre a good team?
Is TLU a good team?
Is Wabash a good team?
Is John Carroll a good team?
Is Delaware Valley a good team?
Is St. Thomas a good team?

You wanted good teams in C. These seven had seven regular season losses between them.  If they are not, then why not? Facts please, not conjecture.

Then, you still didn't answer my question. Would you exclude that team from my scenario just because their conference had no track record even though their results in 2017 showed they could and did beat everyone on their schedule with conviction except one another.

Just like you ducked the question about how you would change the committee....

I don't know whether to cry or wind my watch...

[smedindy]

Mr. Mom, are you saying NCC -4 vs. Del Val and NCC +2 vs. Muhlenberg?

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

This is kind of a red-herring, though. 

You've mentioned that you can "tell" that certain teams are better than others by watching them live, or via a video stream.  Let's, for the moment, assume that you can do this with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  OK.  How do you propose that the regional and national committee use the "eyeball test" to select teams, then?  Are they going to have to watch film of all possible Pool C candidates?  Just one game isn't necessarily an accurate representation - teams are pretty variable between games - so we'd probably need the folks to see at least two games for everyone in the pool.  You think the committee members are going to be able to sit down and break down a few games' worth of film for North Central, and St. John Fisher, and UW-Oshkosh, and John Carroll, and Del Val, and Muhlenberg and - based on that - do much better than what we currently get? 

Your whole premise here is that the "eye" test is better than things like SOS and RR's - so now you're willing to basically put the word of coaches up against one another and completely subjectively deciding who's good enough based on what they see?

As I've already covered, a team's performance can be highly variable throughout the season.  Watching just one game isn't a good representation, so you'll have to watch at least a couple of games for each team, and there will probably be at least 10 teams that are on the table for discussion at the outset.  This becomes impossible very quickly.

[Pat Coleman]

Your whole premise here is that the "eye" test is better than things like SOS and RR's - so now you're willing to basically put the word of coaches up against one another and completely subjectively deciding who's good enough based on what they see?

And we've had this process. Leads quickly to the old-boys' network type of playoff selections.

[emma17]

And again, you change the process here you change it for EVERY SPORT.

The teams 'left out' all have flaws, as many flaws as the teams that they selected as a "B" and "C". Your refusal to see that every "C" and "B" team save one represented well, and that other "C"/"B" was 10-0 and there was NO WAY they'd be left out, and they also caught a bad matchup.

Tell me flat out:

Is Muhlenberg a good team?
Is Centre a good team?
Is TLU a good team?
Is Wabash a good team?
Is John Carroll a good team?
Is Delaware Valley a good team?
Is St. Thomas a good team?

You wanted good teams in C. These seven had seven regular season losses between them.  If they are not, then why not? Facts please, not conjecture.

Then, you still didn't answer my question. Would you exclude that team from my scenario just because their conference had no track record even though their results in 2017 showed they could and did beat everyone on their schedule with conviction except one another.

Just like you ducked the question about how you would change the committee....

First, if it looks like I'm ducking questions, that's not my intent.  The fact is, like all of us, I'm trying to balance the time on this board with life outside of football.  I'd much rather be here though.

Let me try with some of what I copied from your post:
If we have to change the Pool C process for every sport, then I probably should wave the white flag as I wasn't coming at this issue from a global perspective. 

If it's just football though:
-I don't refuse to see the Pool B and C teams represented well.  I congratulate them, especially TLU. 
-I'm completely in favor of Centre making the playoffs in the current model and in my preferred model.  I'd rather they made it through B with greater subjectivity applied.

-Muhl might be nationally good, but not better than teams left out- and they've given us no Track Record for confidence.  In the last 3 seasons I don't think they've beaten any team of proven national strength.  As such, they have not shown they raise the bar of playoff competition.     
-Centre is not nationally good.  But, if you go 10-0, especially in their unique circumstance, you're in. 
-TLU is a tough one for obvious reasons.  They looked nationally good in the playoff game for sure.  However, they failed their regular season audition so miserably we should never have seem them in the playoffs.
-Wabash is nationally good.  But they are a perfect example of meaningless data points. 
-John Carroll is nationally good.  They too are a good example of meaningless data points.  The OAC is weak (no offense OACers).  But, despite their early exit last year,  JCU proved they are a legitimate Pool C prospect.  There were circumstances to their playoff last year that allows a reasonable person to give benefit of the doubt. 
-Delaware Valley probably not nationally good.  Very much like Muhl, their last 3 years suggests they do not raise the bar of playoff competition. 
-St. Thomas a good team.  Absolutely.  A well deserving Pool C team that got stuck with a very tough first round opponent. 
Give me more MIAC in Pool C and it raises the bar.
Give me more WIAC and it raises the bar. 
Give me certain CCIW and it raises the bar.
Give me certain NWC and it raises the bar. 

I have to be honest on your 2017 scenario, I don't get it.  I read it late last night and tried, but I don't get it.  Can you present the scenario in a different way?

As for ducking committee questions, I'm not sure where this comes from.  It's made up actually.  Is your question "how would Emma staff the committee"?  If that's your question, I think I did answer that a while back where I gave credit to Bleedpurple.  Bleed had an idea on the composition of the committee.  However, the main point is, the committee should be constructed of D3 knowledgeable people, perhaps from this site.  The committee as it currently is constructed may be perfect, I don't know.  They just need to the latitude to get beyond the confines of the silly rotating region, SOS- up and down RR thing. 

Again, I apologize if I didn't answer a question, it's not that I'm ducking the "hard" ones, as I haven't had one yet except that 2017 scenario thing.   

[emma17]

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.

This is kind of a red-herring, though. 

You've mentioned that you can "tell" that certain teams are better than others by watching them live, or via a video stream.  Let's, for the moment, assume that you can do this with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  OK.  How do you propose that the regional and national committee use the "eyeball test" to select teams, then?  Are they going to have to watch film of all possible Pool C candidates?  Just one game isn't necessarily an accurate representation - teams are pretty variable between games - so we'd probably need the folks to see at least two games for everyone in the pool.  You think the committee members are going to be able to sit down and break down a few games' worth of film for North Central, and St. John Fisher, and UW-Oshkosh, and John Carroll, and Del Val, and Muhlenberg and - based on that - do much better than what we currently get? 

Your whole premise here is that the "eye" test is better than things like SOS and RR's - so now you're willing to basically put the word of coaches up against one another and completely subjectively deciding who's good enough based on what they see?

As I've already covered, a team's performance can be highly variable throughout the season.  Watching just one game isn't a good representation, so you'll have to watch at least a couple of games for each team, and there will probably be at least 10 teams that are on the table for discussion at the outset.  This becomes impossible very quickly.

To answer your legitimate question on the logistics of such an idea, maybe we can try with this question. 
How many teams do you feel would be classified as reasonable Pool C candidates this year?

[BashDad]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[jknezek]

Emma  -- more than a few of us gave spreads you asked for. None of us think NCC blows out Muhlenberg or Del Val, although we shaded toward NCC being marginally better given circumstances. What would your spreads have been? That might help people understand why you think it's such a big deal they they get in over Muhlenberg or Del Val.

[emma17]

Your whole premise here is that the "eye" test is better than things like SOS and RR's - so now you're willing to basically put the word of coaches up against one another and completely subjectively deciding who's good enough based on what they see?

And we've had this process. Leads quickly to the old-boys' network type of playoff selections.

It's like you've all got this Big Brother is watching you syndrome.  Or Conspiracy Theory.  Are you all so tainted toward your fellow man that you think it's impossible for fair-minded people to produce an unbiased 5 team Pool?  Have you all been selected for IRS audits or something?  Take some anti anxiety meds. 

We are talking about 5 spots.  The AQ is the best way in.

If it turns out that the committee's rationale for selecting the top 5 Pool C candidates starts to look diabolical, then there needs to be a checks and balances.  Perhaps there is a sub committee formed, made up of coaches, that reviews the rationale of the committee's Pool C selections. 

Kind of like an independent audit.

[BashDad]

You. Guys. Stoppit.

How has this dude actually convinced you that this is a conversation?

[emma17]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Time for your meds?

[jknezek]

You. Guys. Stoppit.

How has this dude actually convinced you that this is a conversation?

Off season boredom for most of us...

[wally_wabash]

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.

Ok, you're still implying that these good teams didn't get invited and bad teams did and you're doing it without providing any evidence that separates NCC and C-M from Muhlenberg or Centre or whoever it is that you think shouldn't have been picked. 

If it turns out that the committee's rationale for selecting the top 5 Pool C candidates starts to look diabolical, then there needs to be a checks and balances.  Perhaps there is a sub committee formed, made up of coaches, that reviews the rationale of the committee's Pool C selections. 

Kind of like an independent audit.

Kind of like the regional committees that you've wanted to have no real say in how teams are ranked?

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

This is kind of a red-herring, though. 

You've mentioned that you can "tell" that certain teams are better than others by watching them live, or via a video stream.  Let's, for the moment, assume that you can do this with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  OK.  How do you propose that the regional and national committee use the "eyeball test" to select teams, then?  Are they going to have to watch film of all possible Pool C candidates?  Just one game isn't necessarily an accurate representation - teams are pretty variable between games - so we'd probably need the folks to see at least two games for everyone in the pool.  You think the committee members are going to be able to sit down and break down a few games' worth of film for North Central, and St. John Fisher, and UW-Oshkosh, and John Carroll, and Del Val, and Muhlenberg and - based on that - do much better than what we currently get? 

Your whole premise here is that the "eye" test is better than things like SOS and RR's - so now you're willing to basically put the word of coaches up against one another and completely subjectively deciding who's good enough based on what they see?

As I've already covered, a team's performance can be highly variable throughout the season.  Watching just one game isn't a good representation, so you'll have to watch at least a couple of games for each team, and there will probably be at least 10 teams that are on the table for discussion at the outset.  This becomes impossible very quickly.

To answer your legitimate question on the logistics of such an idea, maybe we can try with this question. 
How many teams do you feel would be classified as reasonable Pool C candidates this year?

Well, let's combine Pool B and C for a hot second here (since B has to go the same way).

9-1 Wesley
10-0 Centre
9-1 TLU
8-1 Chicago

9-1 John Carroll
9-1 Wabash
9-1 Framingham State
9-1 Del Val
9-1 Muhlenberg
6-1 UW-Oshkosh

8-2 North Central
8-2 St. John Fisher
8-2 Thomas More
8-2 St. Lawrence
8-2 St. Thomas

All of these teams were in the final RR's.  I know that you're tossing the RR's in your super-improved playoff selection process, but I've gotta start somewhere.  I don't see any reasonable argument for saying that a 1-loss team doesn't even get a chance in your "eyeball" test, so they've all gotta be in, and the only shaky two-loss team on the list is St. Lawrence.  If you want to dump them, fine.  That leaves ten teams with one (or fewer) losses in the at-large pool and four more with two losses.  So now the committee has to subjectively watch tape on 14 teams - probably meaning at least 28 games' worth of tape - to evaluate them all by the "we saw them both play and X was better than Y" test. 

Perhaps you'd argue that "We can cross off Chicago because they lost by a lot to Bethel" - OK.  Maybe that cuts us another one or two teams.  No matter what, there are going to be at least 10 teams in consideration, and if you think the "eye test" needs to be applied to all, that quickly becomes an impossible number of teams for the committee to see and evaluate subjectively.

[BashDad]

I'm blowing my savings on a "Whitewater-Just-Lost-Ha-Ha-ha Party." Y'all are invited.

Seriously, Wartburg must be all like can we play today???