Top 25 rankings

[K-Mack]

Yeah -- I know it's hard for people outside of the East Coast and Texas to understand, but Wesley is better than its national semifinal showings. The wins in consecutive years against UMHB should be an indication, no?

Yeah, I mean as soon as you start using one result to define a team's place in the national rankings, you need to look no farther than this:

UWW 44, Wesley 7
Wesley 34, UMHB 20
UWW 7, UMHB 3

That pretty much goes to show that maybe matchups or home field advantage or something else factors into how all three of these teams compare. Wesley did a number on UMHB, although the Cru started to make it competitive in the 2nd half. UMHB and UWW basically shut each other out for four quarters. And UWW smokes Wesley.

Maybe without that UWW-UMHB game we'd put more distance between UWW and Wesley ... but anyway, that's last year and we're talking about the 2007 top 25.

My rationale for going Wesley ahead of UWW is based on what each brings back.

Wesley loses Warrick and Harris, but replaces Warrick with Jason Schutz, who was a top WR last year, meaning he got (big) game experience and is familiar with the offense. I don't think that's the same as replacing him with a guy that never played. Plus, to fill Schutz's shoes at WR, Wesley (last I heard) was expecting to have its best WR from 2 years ago, Larry Beavers, back.

I weigh continuity and experience quite a bit when trying to project without any game data (i.e. preseason) to go on.

Along those lines, UWW's list of major losses:

DT Kleppe (D3football.com Defensive player of the year)
WR Stanley (NFL draft pick)
QB Jacobs (3-year starter, I believe)
OL Sakellaris (All-American
FB Reuland
TE Schmitt
DT Thompson
LB Widuch
Head coach Berezowitz
Offensive coordinator Zwiefel

If Danny Jones wins the starting job, and gets up to speed by the UW-La Crosse game, UWW could be very successful again. Beaver is back. A lot of the OL and secondary is back, and a couple of really good LBs are back. And the defensive coordinator is back. And their K is good too. But the offense is new, the QB is new ... they did have the benefit of 10 extra games/weeks of practice the past two years and have been able to recruit off of consecutive Stagg Bowl appearances. But I don't know what effect the coaching turnover had on their recruits this year, and they will be inexperienced in some spots.

I think ranking them No. 5 to start was very optimistic, but sensible for two reasons: One, I couldn't come up with a real solid reason to put UW-La Crosse ahead based on what I knew at the time, although I could see the Eagles winning the conference this year, and even if UWW loses to Lax and/or UMHB, if they get into the playoffs, by Week 12 they could be very tough to beat. And the other West contenders (St. John's and Central) might not be far off, but the Johnnies lost a lot also, and Central has its big stud back, but will have a couple tough challenges in its conference before it can get to the postseason again.

Bottom line is this: I'm not ranking 2005-6 UWW vs. 2005-6 Wesley. And to assume the 2007 UWW team is going to be just as good as the previous two teams does a very big disservice to the number of key people the Warhawks lost. Certainly the sky is still the limit, but they have a lot more to replace than either Wesley, UMHB or Mount Union does to start 2007.

Plus, I think that UMHB-Wesley-UWW triangle eliminates the sense in reading into the past two West-South semifinals as more than 05-06 UWW manhandling 05-06 Wesley. The '06 triangle results clearly disprove the notion that a top South Region team can't hang with a top West Region team.

Given the North Region-East Region semifinal result as well, I think it becomes fair to throw out region strength in 2006 as a factor for ranking 2007 teams, and instead focus on what each brings back in terms of continuity and talent.

[tmerton]

Hmm. I think Upstate just might be on the East Coast and I'm fairly sure I'm closer to the coast than you are ....

One showing I can write off as an aberration but Wesley could have been two TDs better in both games and still have been -- to use an East Coast phrase -- monkey stomped. I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.

Not to pound on Wesley, but it's hard to see them as at No. 3.

I have little doubt that had SJU gotten by UWW they would have handled Wesley, but since they didn't get by UWW all I can do is speculate.  As for 2007, the great thing is we soon shall see.  8) 

[K-Mack]

I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.

See, all we're saying is that you're taking that one game and extrapolating it, which is fair for you since that's the only game you saw that you have to go on.

Since I saw UWW three times last year, including vs. UMHB, and I saw Wesley, including vs. UMHB, and I saw UMHB three times ... I can tell you first hand that taking any one game as a representation of how that team would play each and every week vs. each and every opponent doesn't give you the full picture. UWW with Justin Beaver and Travis Reuland ran the ball a lot better than the team without them both, for instance.

The same way folks who saw only UWW vs. Wesley might be wondering how the heck Wesley was good enough to be a semifinal team ... folks from Texas who only saw UWW vs. UMHB might be wondering how the heck UWW managed to generate enough offense to get to the Stagg Bowl. On that day in Texas, their only points came by returning the opening kickoff for a TD.

The same defense that shut out UWW gave up four of the five TDs vs. Wesley.

Matchups, injuries, bad plays and off days ... so much more factors in than just the final score. Sometimes though that's all we have to go on.

Personally, having seen all three teams last year, I can say they were a lot closer to each other than 44-7 would have you believe.

If I could pinpoint why Wesley can't get it done at Perkins ... I'd have already made a little sales call to Dover.  

[Pat Coleman]

Hmm. I think Upstate just might be on the East Coast and I'm fairly sure I'm closer to the coast than you are ....

One showing I can write off as an aberration but Wesley could have been two TDs better in both games and still have been -- to use an East Coast phrase -- monkey stomped. I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.

Not to pound on Wesley, but it's hard to see them as at No. 3.

I agree about No. 3, no doubt. However, two games PROVES the point, it doesn't disprove it.

Regardless of your current geographic location, I think we all know you follow a non-East Coast team.

[K-Mack]

Hmm. I think Upstate just might be on the East Coast and I'm fairly sure I'm closer to the coast than you are ....

One showing I can write off as an aberration but Wesley could have been two TDs better in both games and still have been -- to use an East Coast phrase -- monkey stomped. I didn't see the 2005 game but I saw nothing in 2006 that suggested Wesley wouldn't have struggled vs. UWLX or SJU.

Not to pound on Wesley, but it's hard to see them as at No. 3.

I have little doubt that had SJU gotten by UWW they would have handled Wesley, but since they didn't get by UWW all I can do is speculate.  As for 2007, the great thing is we soon shall see.  8) 

That game would have been in Dover though, on turf. The Wolverines fans were salivating for that matchup, mostly for the home game, but probably also to dodge UWW.

Then again, getting another shot at a team that embarassed you the year before, and getting embarassed again ... I'm not sure how I'd digest that.

Another example of the 'if you only saw one game' phenomenon: UWW 24, UWL 21 in the playoffs, and they needed a big TD pass play in the fourth to get it done.

In October, UWW won on the same field against the same team 45-10.

(as I've said before, that game wasn't really 45-10 bad until the 4th quarter. I remember UWL driving when it was 24-10 and turning it over. Maybe I'm an optimist and tend to believe two good teams are closer than blowouts generally indicate ... but taking either UWW-UWL result from last season alone doesn't give you the full picture. Judging solely by the first game, who would have predicted a three-point second game?)

I realize you can only go by what you know. But by the same token, we all have to be wary of putting too much stock into one game. After all, isn't the motto "On Any Given Saturday ... ?"

[K-Mack]

Well, here is the USA Today Sports Weekly 2007 College Football Preview's Division III top 25. I'd advise you to pick up the issue still, if you run across it. They gave us a full page this year and there's a lot more in there than just the rankings.

At least it should tide you over until Kickoff.

Dedicated to my man Janesville Flash, who went to great lengths to get his own copy, here goes:

1. Mount Union
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor
3. Wesley
4. St. John Fisher
5. UW-Whitewater
6. UW-La Crosse
7. St. John's
8. Central
9. Springfield
10. Wilkes
11. Hardin-Simmons
12. Baldwin-Wallace
13. Bethel
14. Wheaton
15. Rowan
16. Cortland State
17. Capital
18. Wash. & Jeff.
19. Christopher Newport
20. Linfield
21. North Central
22. Millsaps
23. Carnegie Mellon
24. Occidental
25. Franklin

Thought about: Wartburg, Hobart, Union, Ithaca, Whitworth and a few others who escape me at the moment.

And I can definitely verify that Pat did not endorse Wesley at 3. That's all me.

Fire away!

[repete]

Thanks for the explanation. Still don't buy Wesley as No. 3 but appreciate the info.

What hangs me up in this discussion is the huge gap. Wesley had a year to address the 56-8 "matchup" or shoe problem. While they closed the gap a bit on the scoreboard, UWW eased up fairly early and it could have been 56-8 all over again.

If either UWW game had been close to competitive, a No. 3 would be easier to buy..

As for the UWLX-UWW season scores -- that argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Just about anybody who follows the West -- or has been in a situation where quality rivals place twice in a season -- knows the second game is often much closer.

And while the UWW-W-UMHB triangulation works in your favor this time, we all know that those kinds of arguments can also work to confound rather than clarify.

That said, you guys have proven over the years that you know your stuff, so while I'm unconvinced on the rating, I might be hoping for a North-South semi pairing.

[repete]

And if you guys think I like to stir the pot ... I see that Star-Tribune columnist Pat Reusse has already endorsed St. Olaf as the MIAC favorite ....

Generally, tho, great to see the top 25 after all the know-nothing pretenders. Thanks for posting it. I'd put a bullet next to Linfield.

[K-Mack]

Cool.

First off, it doesn't work in my favor, I don't care who's good. I care about providing the D3 die-hards with the best info possible. I don't have anything personal to prove, just explaining my rationale because I know people want to hear, and I know I myself would want to hear it if it were another person's rankings we were looking at.

People seem to have their minds made up that Wesley can't be that good in 2007. I think you're stuck in the past and stuck on that one result. 2006 Whitewater doesn't have any games scheduled this year. I can understand beefing with Wesley at 3, but who has more coming back?

I'll tell you who. Mount Union and UMHB. Not St. John Fisher, St. John's or Whitewater or anyone else I considered for the 2 spot. I know because I have a page full of scribbled notes and teams with key losses listed on one side and returns on the other side.

I'm definitely not above being wrong. I even encourage discussion on this top 25 because I think the more I learn as we get closer to August, it might not even be the top 25 I submit for D3football.com's first poll. But I'm confident no one else that did rankings this early did more with the information at hand, so if I do turn out to be wrong, or if I change my mind, I'll rest easy knowing that.

I'm really not trying to sound defensive. I think we all benefit from fleshed-out, reason-based arguments, and on the matter of why Wesley should not be No. 3 this year, or why any team should be ranked higher, I'd like to hear some. I definitely think it's worth discussing.

[K-Mack]

Thanks for the explanation. Still don't buy Wesley as No. 3 but appreciate the info.

What hangs me up in this discussion is the huge gap. Wesley had a year to address the 56-8 "matchup" or shoe problem. While they closed the gap a bit on the scoreboard, UWW eased up fairly early and it could have been 56-8 all over again.

If either UWW game had been close to competitive, a No. 3 would be easier to buy..

As for the UWLX-UWW season scores -- that argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Just about anybody who follows the West -- or has been in a situation where quality rivals place twice in a season -- knows the second game is often much closer.

And while the UWW-W-UMHB triangulation works in your favor this time, we all know that those kinds of arguments can also work to confound rather than clarify.

That said, you guys have proven over the years that you know your stuff, so while I'm unconvinced on the rating, I might be hoping for a North-South semi pairing.

West-East matchups have traditionally been good to the West.

And I think the triangulation does work to confound in this instance. It would be a lot more clear if it were UMHB-UWW neck-and-neck and they'd both crushed Wesley or something like that.

As for the "second game is a lot closer" argument, that may work in the West, but try telling it to Mount Union, oh ye of the 34-31 regular-season game and the 57-19 semfinal, etc. Capital played them well in the playoffs, but the second game can just as soon be a blowout when the first game wasn't as it can be vice versa. I think of instances in the past few years when playoff rematches have gone all kinds of directions:

RS: Concordia (Wis.) 30, North Central 24, OT
P: North Central 35, Concordia 6

RS: Mount Union 38, Capital 12
P: Mount Union 17, Capital 14 (MUC goes on to win Stagg Bowl)

RS: UW-W 45, UW-L 10
P: UW-W 24, UW-L 21 (UWW goes on to play in Stagg Bowl)

2005:
RS: Mount Union 42, Capital 24 (Capital led in the 4th though)
P: Mount Union 34, Capital 31 (MUC goes on to win Stagg Bowl)

2003:
RS: CNU 16, Bridgewater 12
P: Bridgewater 26, CNU 3

1999:
RS: Willamette 26, Pacific Lutheran 20
P: Pacific Lutheran 28, Willamette 24 (PLU goes on to win championship)

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Surely UMHB and HSU have played a rematch once. Oh what the heck, I'll look it up.

Oh yeah, that was a good one.

2004:
RS: HSU 49, UMHB 22 at UMHB
P: UMHB 42, HSU 28 at HSU

So I don't know if you can draw any real conclusions about what will happen in a playoff rematch based on the results of the first game, at least with this limited pool of research from recent years. I know it's an adage and all, especially with the third game in the NFL, but I think the above says otherwise. And that doesn't even factor in home vs. away sites.

[K-Mack]

Wabash and Witt played a rematch one year, '02 maybe, and the Mount Union one I was referring to above (not sure on the reg. season score, maybe 33-30) was John Carroll and Mount Union.

Hardin-Simmons and Sul Ross scheduled two games against each other in one year a few years back. Those Texas road trips are no fun, apparently.

[repete]

Well, perhaps that falls into the "statistics, damn statistics and lies" category.

But from the examples you listed,  the numbers could be spun to  to indicate that two straight blowouts are unlikely. It's late but each example has either a closer game in the rematch or the first-game loser wins.

In no case was the first blowout repeated -- which was what I was basically trying to get at with the UWLX-UWW reference.

BTW, I didn't find your post(s) defensive. I was trying to draw out the rationale of Wesley at 3 and yours was certainly solid.

[K-Mack]

Well, perhaps that falls into the "statistics, damn statistics and lies" category.

But from the examples you listed,  the numbers could be spun to  to indicate that two straight blowouts are unlikely. It's late but each example has either a closer game in the rematch or the first-game loser wins.

In no case was the first blowout repeated -- which was what I was basically trying to get at with the UWLX-UWW reference.

BTW, I didn't find your post(s) defensive. I was trying to draw out the rationale of Wesley at 3 and yours was certainly solid.

1999:
RS: Mount Union 56, Ohio Northern 24
P: Mount Union 56, Ohio Northern 31

2000:
RS: Mount Union 48, Ohio Northern 34
P: Mount Union 59, Ohio Northern 28

It can happen.

Actually, I just remembered I wrote about this as it pertains to Mount Union in ATN this year.

Mount Union rematches in playoffs vs. OAC opponent
A prevailing thought in Ohio regarding the Purple Raiders is you have to beat them on the first try. Larry Kehres and staff don't often fumble their second chance. In 1997, Mount Union beat John Carroll 42-14 in the regular season and 57-9 in the quarterfinals. Here's how other teams who played the Purple Raiders twice fared:

1999: vs. Ohio Northern: Won 56-24 in regular season, 56-31 in quarterfinals
2000: vs. Ohio Northern: Won 48-24 in regular season, 59-28 in second round
2002: vs. John Carroll: Won 35-16 in regular season, 57-19 in semifinals
2005: vs. Capital: Won 42-24 in regular season, 34-31 in quarterfinals
2006: vs. Capital: Won 38-12 in regular season

I didn't even have the John Carroll score right, and I was AT that game. The good game must've been in '01.

(gets old & scenile)

Also, FTR in case we I ever drudge this up and call it research, Wabash-Wittenberg in '02:
RS: Wabash 46, Wittenberg 43 (at Witt)
P: Wabash 25, Wittenberg 14 (at Wab)

[DutchFan2004]

K-Mack,

Your top 25 makes sense to me from what all you have written here.  Someone has to be #3.  To make a preseson top 25 you have to have a very large crystal ball.  It is nice to see some thought go into it.  It will be fun to see how your top 25 now compares with the other ones and see how it finishes at the end of the season.  There are 10 regular season games to play and plenty of teams that would love to prove you wrong.  Thanks for all you do!

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

Well, here is the USA Today Sports Weekly 2007 College Football Preview's Division III top 25.

Thank you for not "endorsing" Bridgewater.

Our players need a good kick in the rear after last season, and I hope not being ranked by respectable sources (D3football.com, Sports Weekly) will light a fire in them.

Us being ranked No. 17 by Lindy's isn't worth much after seeing Coast Guard (and W&L, for that matter) in the top 25.

I'd advise you to pick up the issue still, if you run across it.

You better believe I will!  I just hope the 7-11 here in Bridgewater has it.  Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million in Harrisonburg didn't carry it last year.