FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[emma17]

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.

Good question.
I admit I'm very surprised with Mom's spreads.  I thought he'd have picked NCC as bigger favorites in both.  I'm not a spread maker, I'll simply say I think NCC would beat both teams without much trouble.

I do think this weekend's games give us an opportunity for some clarity.  The whole 4 team quad of Wid, Muhl, CN and DV is made up of teams that haven't done much to prove they raise the level of competition in the playoffs.  I point especially toward Widener in that this upcoming game will tell a lot about who they are, and maybe about who the others are.  I'm a little concerned we might not get the best Linfield with them coming off such a big game with UMHB.       

[jknezek]

So you think all our spreads are too low, you won't provide any of your own, but you believe in your secret heart of hearts that NCC would have no trouble rolling both teams.

Yep. I can definitely see why you prefer what you prefer. I don't think many people will agree with you.

[smedindy]

I don't understand at all about nationally good with meaningless data points. The data points for Wabash were 9-1, an improved schedule and SOS (HSC vs. Hanover) and an NCAC that was better than it had been (thanks Hiram and DPU). Sounds like the data points that the committee used to pick Wabash.

Why isn't Muhlenberg or Del Val any good nationally? Concrete evidence, please. Those of us who follow D3 know that Widener and Del Val are usually in the playoff contender talk. Maybe YOU don't pay attention but many of us do and know they both have a good, solid program.  I personally think we underrate them a bit - they always start out low-ish and move up the Top 25. Widener fell in the weeds a bit in the late 2000's but came back strong, matching the team they were in the early 2000's.

Delaware Valley since 2003:
2014 (9-2, 8-1 MAC)
2013 (7-4, 6-3 MAC)
2012 (8-3, 7-2 MAC)
2011 (11-1, 8-0 MAC)
2010 (9-3, 6-1 MAC)
2009 (10-2, 7-0 MAC)
2008 (8-3, 5-2 MAC)
2007 (5-5, 5-2 MAC)
2006 (8-3, 8-2 MAC)
2005 (12-1, 10-0 MAC)
2004 (12-1, 9-0 MAC)
2003 (9-2, 7-2 MAC)

[emma17]

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?

Wally,
I think in my answer to Smed I did address your first point about providing "evidence".   The answer is they have provided no evidence that they can beat a top tier team and therefore, there is no evidence they raise the bar.  Conversely, NCC's current season and recent seasons provide all kinds of evidence that they would have raised the bar.  CM as well, based on their play in the MIAC.  UWO as well. 

The Regional Committee ranking thing is different.  I'm not entirely opposed to rankings, but the process needs to be improved. 
There is not one bit of logic in the RR ranking that occurred with UWP and UWO. 
UWP was ranked (someday I'll convince you all that they really were a good team) all season long and only lost to highly regarded teams.  They played a highly regarded team in UWO that honest people would acknowledge was on the move.  They lost in triple overtime, then dropped out of the rankings?  That's absurd. 


BTW I reject your use of the word implying.  What I'm saying is that the best teams didn't get into Pool C.  That's a whole lot different than saying the teams that did get in are bad.  Quit reading into things.  Just ask me. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I point especially toward Widener in that this upcoming game will tell a lot about who they are, and maybe about who the others are.  I'm a little concerned we might not get the best Linfield with them coming off such a big game with UMHB.     

Oh, this is rich.  Now there's already have a built-in excuse that says even if Widener shows well, it's because Linfield is tired from the UMHB game!  Widener just can't win, can they?  They could make a run to the semifinals and get shot down with "They didn't beat anybody to get there" and still be waiting for their chance to prove that they raise the level of competition in the playoffs.

[smedindy]

UW-P IS a good team. Since when did we say they were not? They also lost three games. C-M is an excellent team that lost twice. I had C-M in my rankings most of the season. And they lost to Bethel and St. Thomas. C-M lost to St. Thomas in week 10. Can't really plop C-M on top of them. I think we all had C-M in the final RRs.

But a three-loss team in the playoffs? Not going to happen.

Bethel is the team that screwed them all sideways. Bethel lost to Augsburg. Had Bethel won, they would probably have stayed ranked, and gotten in. Bethel lost to AUGSBURG, who the week before lost to HAMLINE, of all teams. That's...not good.

You know who can beat a top tier team? Another top-tier team. No close calls. There should be no talk of 'raising the bar' until they beat 'em. I think many NCC denizens are disappointed in their season.

[emma17]

So you think all our spreads are too low, you won't provide any of your own, but you believe in your secret heart of hearts that NCC would have no trouble rolling both teams.

Yep. I can definitely see why you prefer what you prefer. I don't think many people will agree with you.

I think you used the word "rolling" not me.  Unbelievable infection running through this board with you people.  Argue my words, not yours.
I don't see the need for me to produce a point spread, I said I feel NCC wins without much trouble.  Why isn't that enough?

[smedindy]

Let me explain my 2017 scenario SLOWLY.

Lakeland and Wisconsin Lutheran are geared to have seasons like Elmhurst 2012, only better. In non-conference (they get four each), they roll teams from the CCIW, MWC and MIAA. And I mean they beat them, soundly, including playoff teams and RR teams.

They each roll through their conference, and Lakeland nips Wisc. Lutheran by 2 to win the auto-bid at 10-0. Wisc. Lutheran is 9-1, played a very appropriate schedule, throttled everyone but Lakeland.

But we all know their conference has been weak in the past. This year, though, these teams look legit.

You'd want to keep out Lakeland in favor of a power conference team that lost twice or three times, and those losses weren't competitive, really? Just because of the past, and not what went on the field in 2017?

[SaintsFAN]

Oh, this is rich.  Now there's already have a built-in excuse that says even if Widener shows well, it's because Linfield is tired from the UMHB game!  Widener just can't win, can they?  They could make a run to the semifinals and get shot down with "They didn't beat anybody to get there" and still be waiting for their chance to prove that they raise the level of competition in the playoffs.

Personally, I believe Linfield is going to "show out" for their fallen teammate just as they've done the last two weeks.  Its also a motivation for them to stay together as a group, so they can heal as a group.  What better way to honor him with a Stagg Bowl appearance.  You'll see their very best from here on out and they'll be more than a handful to deal with.

[smedindy]

I guess we're banned from synonyms...

[ExTartanPlayer]

So you think all our spreads are too low, you won't provide any of your own, but you believe in your secret heart of hearts that NCC would have no trouble rolling both teams.

Yep. I can definitely see why you prefer what you prefer. I don't think many people will agree with you.

I think you used the word "rolling" not me.  Unbelievable infection running through this board with you people.  Argue my words, not yours.

I don't see the need for me to produce a point spread, I said I feel NCC wins without much trouble.  Why isn't that enough?

LOL. 

Aren't you the one who brought up the idea of point spreads?

[smedindy]

BTW, what ELSE can Widener and Del Val do this year? They each beat a very well regarded team (Rowan and Montclair St. respectively) before playing their 9-game conference schedule? I don't get it. Everyone in D3 knows those teams, and even knows that Lycoming is traditionally good, Lebanon Valley has had some good teams in the recent past, and Stevenson seems to be building a good program (8-3 in year four including an ECAC bowl win? I'll take it...)

[emma17]

I don't understand at all about nationally good with meaningless data points. The data points for Wabash were 9-1, an improved schedule and SOS (HSC vs. Hanover) and an NCAC that was better than it had been (thanks Hiram and DPU). Sounds like the data points that the committee used to pick Wabash.

Why isn't Muhlenberg or Del Val any good nationally? Concrete evidence, please. Those of us who follow D3 know that Widener and Del Val are usually in the playoff contender talk. Maybe YOU don't pay attention but many of us do and know they both have a good, solid program.  I personally think we underrate them a bit - they always start out low-ish and move up the Top 25. Widener fell in the weeds a bit in the late 2000's but came back strong, matching the team they were in the early 2000's.

Delaware Valley since 2003:
2014 (9-2, 8-1 MAC)
2013 (7-4, 6-3 MAC)
2012 (8-3, 7-2 MAC)
2011 (11-1, 8-0 MAC)
2010 (9-3, 6-1 MAC)
2009 (10-2, 7-0 MAC)
2008 (8-3, 5-2 MAC)
2007 (5-5, 5-2 MAC)
2006 (8-3, 8-2 MAC)
2005 (12-1, 10-0 MAC)
2004 (12-1, 9-0 MAC)
2003 (9-2, 7-2 MAC)

Data point:  Wabash was the #1 Rushing Defense in the country.  Then they played a team unlike the others that produced that data point.

Widener?  Big chance to prove they can play with the best of the best- just two short years ago.  They got TLU'd.  72-17.  This Smed, does not raise the bar of the playoffs.

Why aren't Muhl and Del Val good nationally?  I don't know, you follow them.  Why can't they beat a nationally recognized top tier team? You're the one that needs to provide evidence that they can raise the bar.    All my evidence is clearly displayed on the D3 website.  Take a look at who they've beat the last three years.  Anybody impressive?

[emma17]

I point especially toward Widener in that this upcoming game will tell a lot about who they are, and maybe about who the others are.  I'm a little concerned we might not get the best Linfield with them coming off such a big game with UMHB.     

Oh, this is rich.  Now there's already have a built-in excuse that says even if Widener shows well, it's because Linfield is tired from the UMHB game!  Widener just can't win, can they?  They could make a run to the semifinals and get shot down with "They didn't beat anybody to get there" and still be waiting for their chance to prove that they raise the level of competition in the playoffs.

Just like you to read negativity into it.  Yep, that's me, a man of excuses.

You're a smart football guy right?  Take all of this back and forth out of the picture and answer a simple question.  Is it reasonable that a person would worry about a letdown this week for Linfield given all they've been through? 

Anyway, I'm all for Linfield.  I don't expect them to lose. 

[smedindy]

Again, who beats the best of the best? Another elite. Your standard is almost impossible. Let's not put Muhlenberg in the playoff because they haven't beaten Mt. Union. Well, guess what sunshine. They don't play Mt. Union. They play a 9-game conference schedule and usually play a nearby team for game #10. (Though in 2012 and 2013 they played Apprentice) By that standard you are excluding excellent teams from the post season because of the past. That's garbage. Hot steamy garbage.

Plus 2012 Widener is not 2014 Widener. That team DOES NOT EXIST, neither does the team that beat them.


I guess we just stop keeping stats and scores and judge the game on looks alone, like figure skating.

Good day sir.