Top 25 rankings

[K-Mack]

K-Mack:  I completely agree that Capital still remains in the Top 25.  Just not Top 10 in my opinion.  But it's just that.  MY OPINION.   I completely respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.    But the beauty of D3 is that we get to settle it on the field with 32 teams fighting for #1!   Thank God D3 isn't set up like D1.

Actually, I don't think you do. I had Capital No. 17, behind Baldwin-Wallace.

Agreed about the latter part of that paragraph, couldn't have said it better myself.

[K-Mack]

gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather.  They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.

That is the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom on the matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure offenses run more misdirection and employ more fakes in poor conditions.

As they say, "the offense knows where it's going, the defense has to react."

Also, you know, the offense is running foward, even in a straight line ... that's a pretty big difference from a tackler coming in either way too fast and not being able to break down and drive through with your tackles, or trying to slow it down and keep your balance, and then being slow to the play.

I'm sure there are some offensive corollaries, like O-linemen pass blocking in the mud can't get their footing, but I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted in football circles that bad footing affects defenses more.

Now, overall, maybe the effect of rain might be equal, since wet balls are hard to throw and catch ... but with regard to the footing specifically, what I said above.

Ok, let me rephrase that and say that in "really" bad weather, the offensive is at a bad advantage. (blizzard, mud, ice) or at least the game isnt the same game that is played.  I just remember my thanksgiving day game in high school where it rained for two straight days and the field was literally a swamp and it was pouring. The final score was 6-0 (on a halfback pass) with probably 4 total first downs for each team and 30 punts. Horrible and not the way football was supposed to be played.

If RPI and Ithaca would have played on a dry turf field at RPI 2003, the score would have been 55-30 RPI. (opinion obviously)

RE: Springfield.

I guess Im down on them because some years because their defense is so bad that they just dont quailify as being a "good" team.  But even when they are bad, that offense can be explosive and catch better teams off guard.

Fair enough.

Also played an all-rain Thanksgiving Day game, won 7-6. Outgained 230-45, but we caused a fumble ... I couldn't recover it, but I smacked it to the dude who caused it, and he picked it up and ran it in. On their score, the two-point conversion, dude goes over the pile and in, my boy missed the tackle grand royally, but his helmet knocked the ball out. 

Played the same archrival on a dry field the next year and we got drilled 50-13.

[K-Mack]

Also, I have a lot of problems with this paragraph. Not completely accurate.

Potentially mitigating the lack of returning depth is the quick fix of upper-classmen Division 1 transfers into the open "playmaker" positions.  This is an avenue of talent acquisition that Coach Collins has excelled at the last few years.  As evidence, one needs to look no further than Lewis Howes who only played at Capital for his senior year, yet was Capital's most explosive receiver in 2005.  As well as Derrick Alexander who is on campus for only the 2006 and 2007 seasons.  And this doesn't include the transfer of arguably the best player in the history of the school (Rocky Pentello from Toledo) and one of their best linebackers (Joel Sickmeier from Mount Union).

Care to elaborate?  No one in the OAC has benefited more than Capital recently when it comes to transfers.  What made me write that paragraph isn't that the transfers just end up there as local kids coming home to Columbus, it's that Collins is actively pursuing that route.

Yeah, sorry about not elaborating the first time. I don't have a problem with the main point, it's nitpicky copy editor stuff.

Lewis Howes played for Capital in '04 and '05, at least according to my memory and Google. And he came from Principia.

The way the first sentence is worded could confuse someone, with the Division I mention although Howes and Sickmeier were D3-to-D3 transfers. Although I can see where you meant this year's major transfers are D1 guys.

Also didn't know that was your article you were referring to. Thought you were just reposting of Mtunionfootball.com 

[K-Mack]

No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.

7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582  career win percentage at Springfield.  So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.

When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.

Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people.  We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games.  It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies.  I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls.  To say it isn't college work is absurd.  To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.

I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records.  So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them.  (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.)  The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688)  So the coach is 86-39 in d3.  If the coach goes .500 on the road.  That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road.  Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road.  Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.

You could argue that well the time frames are competely different.  True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.)  This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road.  With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home.  (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).

OK, this is the post that made me stop following this argument. The part in bold is as far as I got.

We have reached the 'importance of argument vs. time spent on it' tipping point. This has jumped the shark.

(pretends not to be guilty of beating arguments to death on other boards)

Dance, statistics, dance!

[janesvilleflash]

Ad absurdum.

[union89]

No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.

7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582  career win percentage at Springfield.  So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.

When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.

Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people.  We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games.  It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies.  I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls.  To say it isn't college work is absurd.  To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.

I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records.  So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them.  (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.)  The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688)  So the coach is 86-39 in d3.  If the coach goes .500 on the road.  That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road.  Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road.  Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.

You could argue that well the time frames are competely different.  True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.)  This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road.  With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home.  (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).

OK, this is the post that made me stop following this argument. The part in bold is as far as I got.

We have reached the 'importance of argument vs. time spent on it' tipping point. This has jumped the shark.

(pretends not to be guilty of beating arguments to death on other boards)

Dance, statistics, dance!

Here....here...agreed

[Garnet]

Union put in their first turf field in 1982.  The new 'field turf' went in about 3 or 4 years ago.

[Jonny Utah]

No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.

7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582  career win percentage at Springfield.  So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.

When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.

Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people.  We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games.  It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies.  I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls.  To say it isn't college work is absurd.  To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.

I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records.  So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them.  (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.)  The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688)  So the coach is 86-39 in d3.  If the coach goes .500 on the road.  That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road.  Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road.  Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.

You could argue that well the time frames are competely different.  True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.)  This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road.  With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home.  (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).

OK, this is the post that made me stop following this argument. The part in bold is as far as I got.

We have reached the 'importance of argument vs. time spent on it' tipping point. This has jumped the shark.

(pretends not to be guilty of beating arguments to death on other boards)

Dance, statistics, dance!

Here....here...agreed

And a 2006 d3 Springfield without scholarships is better than a 1993 d2 Springfield team with scholarships.

And although Im not a stat man, even Mr. Ypsi might agree that an empirical analysis of football games and stats is the only to come up with an opinion on something like teams being "better on turf" when their home field is on turf.

[K-Mack]

So yeah, about those Top 25s ...

Here are my thoughts on the craziest rankings in Lindy's and S&S:

S&S
Wabash No. 7: Can't see slotting the Little Giants as a semifinal-type team after an 8-2 season last year. I can't think of any dominant player they have returning that would have them warrant top 10 consideration. With a lot of starters back, I could see them in the low end of the top 25, which coincidentally is where I ranked Franklin, who beat Wabash in OT in last year's opener. They play at Wabash Sept. 8 this year.

W&J No. 8: The Presidents are usually top 25-35 material, and we all usually rank them way too high to start, only to put them where they should be when they inevitably lose a regular-season game. They are coming off a decent playoff performance, but anyone who looked at their 30-27 playoff score vs. UMHB and didn't know their last TD was scored with 1 second left and the game basically over and hopefully didn't use that score as a basis for putting them so high.

Whitworth No. 10: Another team I could see in the top 25, although I may not rank them there myself. The loss of Joel Clark and Michael Allan should hurt the offense, the defense has starters to replace, and they won a couple (Linfield, UW-Stout) by the skin of their teeth last season. Might not be so fortunate this year, although still a shoo-in for at least 7 wins.

Occidental No. 12: For many of the same reasons as above, losing QB Andy Collins, needed to rally to pull out a couple wins last year (Cal Lu, Whittier). Big difference, however, is three years of recruiting off of playoff appearances and conference titles, so I let them hang out at the bottom of my top 25 (No. 24), where I projected Whitworth to fall just outside of that group.

Bridgewater No. 17: Now here's a team I could easily see ending up in this position, but I think the ODAC is too clouded to project a clear favorite or a top 25 team out of it at this juncture. The Eagles are probably the odds-on favorite to be the last team standing, but Emory & Henry, Guilford and Hampden-Sydney could factor in the conference race ... and none of those teams are the defending champion either. Yet, if playoff results represent relative conference strength, W&L's 42-0 loss at Wilkes doesn't cast the conference in a good light.

Hope No. 19: I just don't see how you can start the season with an MIAA team in the top 20. Even if you ranked the 26 conference champions or projected champs, the MIAA hasn't shown enough in recent seasons to be top 20. The MIAA tends to be a league that beats its champion up during the season before sending it to Mount Union or wherever to be slaughtered. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I personally wouldn't come out of the gate with an MIAA team that high.

Coast Guard No. 24: Even if they were the projected NEFC champ, you don't have to go too far back in Coast Guard's history to see how it stacks up against other East Region leagues. And I don't mean back to 1997. I think top 50 is possible, and as someone mentioned, if you're giving a NEFC team this kind of respect, why wouldn't it be Curry?

Wash. & Lee No. 25: See comments regarding Bridgewater at No. 17

I liked S&S going out on a limb with Millsaps at 15 and Wartburg at 18, two rankings that could make them look good. Even Ohio Northern at 22 isn't bad. I think they did a good job of not just trying to slap last year's top 25 up there as this year's top 25, I just thought there were some stretches.

Lindy's
(see next post)

[K-Mack]

Lindy's
(see next post)

Not nearly as many head-scratchers here. In fact, we agreed on UMHB at No. 2, St. John's at No. 7 (too many losses to have them at 2 like Street & Smith's) and W&J at 18. And their ranking of Wesley at No. 5 may go over better than me putting them No. 3. They might have given Hardin-Simmons (No. 6) more deserved respect than I (11). We were also one spot apart on Central (8/9) and

I thought their ranking didn't look as good with Rowan 8, Bethel 10, Capital 11 and North Central 12, all of which are top 25 teams, but too high, IMHO. Especially with St. John Fisher (13) behind all those teams. The Cardinals lost probably their best offensive and defensive players, but they're far from depleted and the confidence/respect gained from the MUC game last year should mean something. I thought Springfield (14), Wilkes (19) and UW-La Crosse (25) also started off too low, and I didn't think UWW (3) and La Crosse should be 22 spots apart. But maybe they were splitting the difference between last year's two scores. Having seen the first one, it didn't get 45-10 bad until late ... at 24-10, La Crosse had a chance to score and turned it over going in or something like that. I remember it as a closer-looking game that got away from them late, and certainly the 24-21 result had those two teams closer together.

The only super head-scratcher in the Lindy's ranking is Trinity (Texas) at No. 4. It was pointed out to me that the Tigers haven't won a playoff game since before their 2002 Stagg Bowl appearance. Millsaps overtook them in-conference last season, and DePauw has been right there a couple times and twice quirks have put a crimp in the game being played at all. I think you can make a case for Trinity resuming its perch, but then with Millsaps bringing a lot back and perhaps DePauw getting in there, you may have an ODAC situation, where you'll have to wait and see who starts strong before moving an SCAC team high up into the top 25. Even i you look at Trinity's schedule as one with 10 winnable games (which is debatable since they lost to TLU two years ago and go to DePauw and Millsaps), I still don't think that makes them one of the top teams in the country out of the gate. Maybe they have a ton back or something ...

Cal Lutheran at 20 ... this would make a lot more sense as a leapfrog the traditional champ pick if Danny Jones hadn't transferred to UWW and the coaching staff hadn't turned over.

Alfred at 22 ... I actually like this pick as getting a new name in the top 25 based on a team that has been on the brink in upstate NY for two years now. Ahead of Hobart (23, L 21-14 last season) should probably be earned first, but I can stomach that.

Four of Lindy's top 6 teams were out of the South Region.

Anyway, if the poll I did for USA Today ever sees the light of day on these boards, there's probably a list of beefs (No. 3, No. 12, No. 16, etc.) that people can quibble with too.

[Ralph Turner]

I was talking with a key source on Texas/ASC/SCAC football.  He says that Trinity keeps tightening its academic standards, raising its tuition and lowering its academic aid to prospective students in the 1100 SAT range.  There are plenty of ASC teams with less expensive tuition and more generous academic aid packages, for whom an 1100 SAT gets a good package.

In summary, Trinity TX is not the Trinity of 10 years ago, when they were getting dominant classes of student-athletes.

[labart96]

Lindy's
(see next post)

Alfred at 22 ... I actually like this pick as getting a new name in the top 25 based on a team that has been on the brink in upstate NY for two years now. Ahead of Hobart (23, L 21-14 last season) should probably be earned first, but I can stomach that.

Alfred's QB is pretty solid.  Could be the best in the E8 this season (as a pure passer anyway - can't recall if the Springfield QB with those crazy rushing stats is back this year).  TGP could see the Saxons doing some damage in the east this season as well.

Hobart has a lot of questions following the graduation of Mizro.  Strom is a senior (and a CA kid - who'd thought that was possible in ol' Geneva?), but has never started for the Statesmen.

[Pat Coleman]

can't recall if the Springfield QB with those crazy rushing stats is back this year).

He is.

[union89]

Pat, something strange is happening on the front page.  As I roll over graphics, they disapear.....don't know if it's just me or something else.

[Pat Coleman]

Odd -- we don't have any rollover capabilities built into the site at the moment.